On May 22, 1:54 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And therefore distributing them even separately through different
channels is considered the same as distributing them as a
whole. So, in other words, the following holds true: If I decide to
use GPL code in my program,
But the free software is the GPL program -- how does it
protect free software by requiring that the non-GPL one become
GPL as well? The free software is only the GPL program --
which can function on it's own, unlike the non-GPL program,
and if all sources to said
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
Then you have agreed to the GPL, and you must cause the whole work to
be under the GPL as per section 2(b). This has been answered several
times.
He is merely aggregating his 100% original work with another work
under the GPL you ueber GNUtian retard. The
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
So then why must it too be free, why must the license require that
to be free?
To keep things free, again, this was answered as well before.
Man oh man, you're krank. Suppose he takes PUBLIC DOMAIN work and
links it with the GPL'd work. Nobody can apply
Hendrik Belitz wrote:
[...]
My actual question is: What license am I able to use for my own lib.
Whichever you want. Don't take all that GNUtian compatibility
nonsense seriously. See
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
regards,
alexander.
Dear open-source-fellows,
I started developing a project some time ago and want to make it
public in the near future. Therefore, I tried to find the most
suitable licensing strategy for my stuff which (optionally) depends on
a whole bunch of supporting libraries, which means I have find a
license
Dear open-source-fellows,
Please do not confuse us with this movement, we are part of the Free
software movement, and promote freedom. See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for
further information.
I started developing a project some time ago and want to make it
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
So then why must it too be free, why must the license require that
to be free?
To keep things free, again, this was answered as well before.
Man oh man, you're krank. Suppose he takes PUBLIC DOMAIN work and
http://linux.sys-con.com/read/380011.htm
---
Industry News
Enterprise Open Source: Google, Other Linux Developers Must Share Code
Software Freedom Law Center Chairman Outlines View
By: Enterprise Open Source News Desk
May. 23, 2007 11:45 AM
Digg This!
If you build your business on
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
So then why must it too be free, why must the license require that
to be free?
To keep things free, again, this was answered as well before.
Man oh man, you're krank. Suppose
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear open-source-fellows,
Please do not confuse us with this movement, we are part of the Free
software movement, and promote freedom.
Please do not confuse yourself with every reader of this list. Speak
for yourself, not for others. If you
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
So then why must it too be free, why must the license require that
to be free?
To keep things free, again, this was answered as well
David Kastrup wrote:
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear open-source-fellows,
Please do not confuse us with this movement, we are part of the Free
software movement, and promote freedom.
Please do not confuse yourself with every reader of this list. Speak
for
Dear open-source-fellows,
Please do not confuse us with this movement, we are part of the Free
software movement, and promote freedom.
Please do not confuse yourself with every reader of this list.
Speak for yourself, not for others. If you absolutely feel
compelled
On May 24, 1:52 am, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the free software is the GPL program -- how does it
protect free software by requiring that the non-GPL one become
GPL as well? The free software is only the GPL program --
which can function on it's
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Dear open-source-fellows,
Please do not confuse us with this movement, we are part of the Free
software movement, and promote freedom.
Translation: GPL restrictions. (English-GNUish dictionary.)
Please do not confuse yourself with every
David Kastrup writes:
Because it does not stay public domain when it is assembled with other
material.
This is not true in the US. Elements of a work that are in the public
domain are not protected by copyright even if the work does contain
other elements that are protected.
--
John Hasler
On May 24, 2:01 am, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Asked and answered. Your code does not function without the GPL
code in this scenario. Therefore it's a derivative of the GPL
code. So your code must also be distributed under the GPL.
The disconnect that
On May 22, 6:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 21, 5:22 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
snip
Why? What is the purpose of making the license that way? Oh,
But the free software is the GPL program -- how does it
protect free software by requiring that the non-GPL one
become GPL as well? The free software is only the GPL
program -- which can function on it's own, unlike the
non-GPL program, and if
On May 24, 2:01 am, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Asked and answered. Your code does not function without the GPL
code in this scenario. Therefore it's a derivative of the GPL
code. So your code must also be distributed under the GPL.
The
Why? What is the purpose of making the license that way? Oh,
that's right -- to create MORE free code.
Yeah. That's the purpose of the license. It's a pay it forward license.
Thank you for vindicating my understanding! I am pleased.
Byron Jeff has misunderstood the goal of the
On 2007-05-24, mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because you agreed to it, you are free not to agree to do so, but then
nothing gives you the right to distribute the GPLed program. Please
read the GPL, it is very clear.
I know, but the thing I'm going after is the reasonableness,
rationale,
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
GNU Reichsminister f�r Volksaufkl�rung und Propaganda Eben Anarchism
Triumphant and dot Communist Manifesto Moglen is drooling down his
Gerber bib again:
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/interviews/6388/1/
---
Question: Is there any provision on GPL V3
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear open-source-fellows,
Please do not confuse us with this movement, we are part of the Free
software movement, and promote freedom.
Please do not confuse yourself with every reader of this list.
Speak for yourself, not
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup writes:
Because it does not stay public domain when it is assembled with other
material.
This is not true in the US. Elements of a work that are in the public
domain are not protected by copyright even if the work does contain
other
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear open-source-fellows,
Please do not confuse us with this movement, we are part of the Free
software movement, and promote freedom.
Please do not confuse yourself with every reader of this list.
Speak for yourself, not
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Copyright licenses apply to work, idiot.
Copyright arises from works, licenses (which require copyright) apply
to copies.
Stop being an utter idiot. Think human brain. And why I'm not
surprised that in the GNU
Dear open-source-fellows,
Please do not confuse us with this movement, we are part of
the Free software movement, and promote freedom.
Please do not confuse yourself with every reader of this list.
Speak for yourself, not for others. If you
Dear open-source-fellows,
Please do not confuse us with this movement, we are part of
the Free software movement, and promote freedom.
Please do not confuse yourself with every reader of this list.
Speak for yourself, not for others. If you
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear open-source-fellows,
Please do not confuse us with this movement, we are part of
the Free software movement, and promote freedom.
Please do not confuse yourself with every reader of this list.
I wrote:
Elements of a work that are in the public domain are not protected by
copyright even if the work does contain other elements that are
protected.
There is one case where this could possibly be slightly relevant...
It can be more than slightly relevant if you are sued for copyright
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear open-source-fellows,
Please do not confuse us with this movement, we are part of
the Free software movement, and promote freedom.
Please do not confuse yourself with every reader of this list.
Again, you resort to petty insults, and spreading misinformation.
Nobody claimed anything about everybody, maybe English isn't a
language you are proficient in--which is perfectly fine--but us does
not refer to everyone.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why? What is the purpose of making the license that way? Oh,
that's right -- to create MORE free code.
Yeah. That's the purpose of the license. It's a pay it forward license.
Thank you for vindicating my
Alfred M\. Szmidt writes:
Prohibiting staff from distributing free software is the same as a NDA,
in my opinion.
It isn't an opinion. It is law.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
You can reduce it to a semantic debate. But in the end the GPL is
structured so that the only legal way for you to redistribute
modified copies of GPL licensed code is to license the
modifications under the GPL.
There are several ways to come into compliance, this is one of them.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can reduce it to a semantic debate. But in the end the GPL is
structured so that the only legal way for you to redistribute
modified copies of GPL licensed code is to license the
modifications under the GPL.
There
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 22, 6:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 21, 5:22 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
snip
You can reduce it to a semantic debate. But in the end the GPL
is structured so that the only legal way for you to
redistribute modified copies of GPL licensed code is to license
the modifications under the GPL.
There are several ways to come into compliance, this is one of
You can reduce it to a semantic debate. But in the end the GPL
is structured so that the only legal way for you to
redistribute modified copies of GPL licensed code is to license
the modifications under the GPL.
There are several ways to come into compliance,
41 matches
Mail list logo
