Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

Alexander, please stop. You are not providing insightful comments, nor are you providing anything that is in the realm of what is correct. You are just flooding the mailing list with comments totally void of any intelligence. I asked you in private if you could provide decent arguments against w

Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

I don't recall receiving any private messages from you. You're a victim of my spam filtering, I'm afraid. That is hard to belive, since you answered one message and ignored the other. Note that this was quite a while ago; maybe one, two or maybe more years have passed since then.

Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

>I don't recall receiving any private messages from you. You're >a victim of my spam filtering, I'm afraid. > > That is hard to belive, since you answered one message and > ignored the other. I answered your public message on usenet (group gnu.misc.discuss; see the he

Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

You are obviously not interested in having discussions with anyone, and on purpose try to misunderstand people so that you can continue agenda of spreading lies. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/lis

Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

You wanna write an app for our OS? Ask our permission first. Thank you. If you license your code under a Free Software license, then you recived that permission[0]. The FSF doesn't care for people who wish to restrict users of their freedom; it has the opposite goal, to protect those freedo

Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

Stop bombarding my mailbox, stupid. You are reading a mailing list, expect to get mail in your mailbox. One more time and I'll plonk you in my newsreader as well. Feel free to plonk me all you want for your own ignorance, I don't mind. Maybe it will help you understand that you are readin

Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

Please stop spreading lies. Just because you are incapable of understanding copyright law doesn't mean that you have to spread lies about it. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-disc

Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

Sorry, I cannot understand what you wish to ask. The Hurd is a set of libraries, but licensed under the GPL. So the same rules apply as to any GPLed library. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listi

Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

Geez. Visit a clinic. Are you this silly that you cannot even produce one message without having to resort to personal attacks? Yes, you're reading a mailing list. I'm reading and replying on newsgroup. And I'm replying to a mailing list. __

Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

My questions were meant to highlight absurdity in your org's line of reasoning, genius. If you cannot be polite, don't speak. The only absurd claims here are yours since you do not have any basis for them. So please stop, go smell some flowers. __

Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

Reply to mailing list *only* No, I won't treat you any differently then anyone else on this list. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: you're like monkeys in a cage

As we all know, monkies have really low IQ, and that gnus are superior in every way. Have you ever seen a monkey beat a gnu? Thought so... But the hurd must watch out for all the evil corcodiles that wish to ensare us with their dirty tricks! So lets roam on the savannahs and be free! It's

Re: you're like monkeys in a cage

At least you're not spewing racist crap like Linda Gore, who refers to her enemies as "spooks." There is nothing racist about calling "enemies" for spooks. But can we keep the "discussion" friendly? Such hostily does not make our community fun you know...

Re: how much is too much?

I'm trying to determine what the threshold is in terms of lines of code I can copy/paste from GPL software before coming under the GPL myself. In general, the threshold is zero lines, since it depends on what you copy. If the code you copy is non-trivial, even if it fits on "one line"[0]

Re: how much is too much?

See the copyright law for your country/state/ ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: how much is too much?

You can't take any kind of work and relicense it under a different license unless you are the soul copyright holder of said work. You really should read the GPL FAQ[0], since most of your questions are already answered there. [0]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html __

Re: how much is too much?

Just to clarify to the Original Poster. GPLed code is not convertible into other licenses, but that does not mean that other code is convertible to the GPL. There are actually very few licenses that allow rereleasing as GPL. And lets not confuse relicensing with rereleasing. The former

Re: how much is too much?

A copyleft license is a license that keeps all modifed versions of the program free. The BSD license is a non-copyleft free software license for example, the Affero GPL is a coptleft free software license (that is incompatible with the GPL). A free software license (this includes copyleft license

Re: Will The Hurd Trample The Penguin ?!?

>>> The Hurd developers concluded, as did many others before them, >>> that Mach's performance and stability was insufficient. We haven't concluded any such thing. Nor has anyone before us concluded any such thing. Mach is owned by GNU ( or licensed under GPL ). You cannot own software

Re: Will The Hurd Trample The Penguin ?!?

therefore owned by Carnegie Mellon University. Mach isn't owned by CMU either. The _copyright_holder_ is CMU. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Will The Hurd Trample The Penguin ?!?

And, so, in theory, could all this OSX code be copied into GNU/Linux and used there at no cost? If it is gratis or not is not important, what is important is if it is free software. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http:

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Your posts are obscuring the key difference between the BSD license and the GPL. Is this on purpose? Sad to say, yes it is. Alexander Terekhov likes to spread lies (sadly, this is the only thing it can be called) about the GNU GPL, the BSD license, copyright law, and other things on this ma

Re: inhouse forking?

You only have to distribute the changes to the people who recive a compiled version of your program. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GDL Guidebook : Help please !

> I have a personal project to write a guidebook for Project > Management. I'd like to publish it under the GNU Free > Documentation License. The GFDL in its present form is non-free and somewhat buggy. Please, the GFDL is not non-free, do not spread these untruths. _

Re: GDL Guidebook : Help please !

Thanks for the info. I've been Googling this afternoon and I did notice a few dissuasive articles about the GFDL. These "dissuasive" articles are written by people who do not understand that documentation and software must be treated differently because they are different. Indeed, the GNU F

Re: GNU install issue

[...snip...] creating /home/mrich/nightlybuildtape/securetape/install/usr/include/neoscale/sys install: invalid user `-g' [...snip...] Any Idea why this fails only when run as a cron job? Given the vauge information it is impossible to give a exact response. But it seems that you a

Re: Linus CHARGING $5,000 to use Linux name!!!!!

The free software movement is a scam. The Free software movement is about freedom, not price. Charging money for a copy of a program is perfectly OK, and has always been. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.o

Re: mach

Not really sure what answer you are seeking since you didn't ask any questions. Instead of looking at Mach, I'd recommend that you take a look at a modern micro-kernel like L4, which the Hurd is being ported to. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-mi

Re: Google not supporting open-standard ?

There is now no patent on GIF format. Sadly, not true. The GIF format uses LZW for compression which is used when creating (or read) GIF files. The last expiration date seems to be around 11th August 2006, which is held by IBM. ___ Gnu-misc-discus

Re: Google not supporting open-standard ?

JPEG's are OK to use. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Google not supporting open-standard ?

The LZW patent has expired. It has not, IBM still has a valid patent on LZW in the US until August 11th 2006. The Unisys patent on LZW has expired in all known countries. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.o

Re: why is non-free software immoral?

Well if removing someones freedom is to my benefit why shouldn't I partake in it? As explained to you on IRC a billion times. If someone would do that to you, then you wouldn't enjoy it. And if you would do it to lots of people, those people would revolt against you. Hurt not others in wa

Re: why is non-free software immoral?

I'm wondering what your reason is for why non-free software is immoral? Think of this more as a survey than a debate. Thanks. You have already asked this several times on #gnu on irc.gnu.org, where several people including me answered your question. It also answered in the several articles

Re: why is non-free software immoral?

> Part of me 'feels' non-free software is wrong but I would like to > come to a philosophical truth on the matter. Using non-free software is not wrong as long as you will never need the freedom. For example, the software in some household appliance can be non-free, and it would no

Re: "The Free software Movement is a Scam" -Alfred Szmidt GNU.org

He responded to me privately by email in response to a usenet post I made about Linus charging 5 grand to use the linux name. gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is a mailing list that has a news->mail gateway setup (mail->news seems broken). And for the record, it wasn't made privatly, it was CCed to

Re: "The Free software Movement is a Scam" -Alfred Szmidt GNU.org

Aside from that, there are literally hundreds of other GNU/Linux distributions to choose from. If you want a totally no-cost system, you could try something else, such as Fedora Core (Red Hat's community-supported, "unofficial" GNU/Linux distro), Gentoo, Debian, Ubuntu, Slackware, Ar

Re: "The Free software Movement is a Scam" -Alfred Szmidt GNU.org

Even Red Hat and Debian? Yes. (Oh, that link gives me a 404 by the way. Perhaps you mean ?) Yup, that is it. Thank you for the correction. Well, I'd recommend donating what you can (be it money or code or what- have

Re: "The Free software Movement is a Scam" -Alfred Szmidt GNU.org

Debian does not include or promote any non-free software. It is now even excluding the FSF's non-free documentation. Sorry, you are simply wrong, see the non-free section. Nor is the FSF's documentation non-free documentation, so don't spread such untruths; it is non-free software, but the

Re: "The Free software Movement is a Scam" -Alfred Szmidt GNU.org

Spam should be taken care of now. Many thanks to Bob Proulx! ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: "The Free software Movement is a Scam" -Alfred Szmidt GNU.org

"Non-free" is not part of the distribution. Yes it is, it is not part of the `main' section, but it is still part of Debian and stored in another section called `non-free', since Debian supports it, and distributes it on their FTP site. Anyone trying to claim that Debian only includes free sof

Re: "The Free software Movement is a Scam" -Alfred Szmidt GNU.org

That wasn't what the comparison was about. You said something to the extent that GFDL manuals with invariant sections are non-free software. But then, so is a car, simply because it isn't software. Let me do the comparison in another way, you have a motorbike (document), and a car (soft

Re: "The Free software Movement is a Scam" -Alfred Szmidt GNU.org

> You said something to the extent that GFDL manuals with invariant > sections are non-free software. I did not. `something to the extent'. I never claimed that you did, learn to read. I wrote that they were non-free[1]. Period. Documentation is not software. Agreed. [1]

Re: "The Free software Movement is a Scam" -Alfred Szmidt GNU.org

I have never claimed that documents are software. `said something to the extent'. Non-free software is non-free software. Non-free documents are non-free documents. Documents are not software but can be (and usually are) non-free. And documents licensed under the GFDL are free, so

Re: "The Free software Movement is a Scam" -Alfred Szmidt GNU.org

We differ in fundamental ways as to the definition of "free". I consider the right to create derivatives to be an important freedom. So you consider it important that I should be able to change what you wrote above into: We differ in fundamental ways as to the definition of "free". I c

Re: "The Free software Movement is a Scam" -Alfred Szmidt GNU.org

> But to use it in the name of your product, such as "Colin's > Microsoft Text Editor", how much would I have to pay? There is no amount because you can't use their name that way. That is simply wrong. Microsoft (or any other entity that holds a trademark on something) can give permissi

Re: "The Free software Movement is a Scam" -Alfred Szmidt GNU.org

What they create "burdens" on are entities that want to take someone else's work and present it as their own. No, that is what copyright law protects. The GNU GPL just says that you should give the same freedoms you have to your neighbour. Both the trademark license and the deri

Re: Free software movement similar to Islam?

Some similarities: I don't see any similarities, you only wrote about OSS. Not about Free software. 1. decentralized : there is no one Pope for either, although there are certainly Ayatollah wannabes in OSS like RMS. RMS isn't part of the OSS movement. 2. imperialistic [...]

Re: Free software movement similar to Islam?

You're an idiot. No, he isn't. You are on the other hand ignorant and rude who cannot give a friendly response. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Free software movement similar to Islam?

The GPL is indeed a piece of ideology. Don't most groups have ideologies? The GNU GPL is a license, not an ideology. I happen to _have_ read it. It only _advises_ that copyright of contributions be signed over to the primary developer/team or made public domain. It doesn't say suc

Re: Free software movement similar to Islam?

What OSS does NOT do is to submit patents of the "2+2=4" variety. How do you know? Perhaps it would help if you were also to look at the terms under which MS is proposing to "open" some of its stuff. Might be better if you looked, since two of the three licenses that MicroSoft has purpo

Re: Free software movement similar to Islam?

My biggest bitch with open source software is simply that most of it just isn't very good. But I guarantee you're going to get a lot of flames from the OS crowd. Maybe you should try another list then, since the GNU project isn't open source; it is free software. _

Re: Free software movement similar to Islam?

Linux is actually 3,000 "states" and each "state" has developers, committees, and management structures which manage and support the development of their particular libarary, kernel, application, toolkit, or other "package". Linux is one `state', Linus Torvalds. Maybe you mean the who

Re: Gnu license

I've some questions about gnu license: There is no such thing as a GNU license. So you will need to clarify what you mean, do you mean software licensed under the GNU GPL or the GNU LGPL? ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org

Re: Protecting developer benefits in an open source project

How could the original founder of an open source project, protect and keep his project as his own, and prevent other external factors ( a company or group of developers) from getting his source, invest a lot of money on the base project, start their own businness out of it, and leave

Re: LGPL question

> What *is* the source code to music? A non-DRM'd, non-encrypted > copy of the music? I would say that the score is the equivalent of the source code, the mixing details being like build instructions and the performance being the equivalent of the compiled binary. What about impro

Re: LGPL question

> If my company, let's call it "Bony Corporation", decides to > release a music CD "Get Right with the DRM" with a rootkit that > contains copyrighted music and LGPL-licensed software, is it > required to distribute the *music* source code under the LGPL or > GPL? What *is* the sour

Re: Including GPL and LGPL'ed software in a solution

I guess I should really be having this discusion with the MySQL AB (?), but here goes. You should really be having this discussion with a lawyer. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu

Re: Including GPL and LGPL'ed software in a solution

Or maybe you should consider using Postgresql. MySQL is free software, so there is no need to reconsider. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Including GPL and LGPL'ed software in a solution

> MySQL is free software, so there is no need to reconsider. So is Postgresql, but there is no "Postgresql AB" to worry about. Unless Postgresql is in the public domain, there is a entity to worry about, as with all copyrighted works. ___ Gnu-mi

Re: Including GPL and LGPL'ed software in a solution

> Unless Postgresql is in the public domain, there is a entity to > worry about, as with all copyrighted works. Postgresql is under the BSD license so your specific concerns are moot. No, they are not, Postgresql is still copyrighted, just like a work that is GPLed.

Re: Linus, and whether tactfulness has any value

> >Beside that, many Europeans seem to practice a blunt, abrupt > >style of speech. > > Very true, and on the whole it's a good thing I think. It might also party explain why there's been several thousands of years of European wars. ;-) And it also explains why we don't have a

Re: Linus, and whether tactfulness has any value

The nearest competing thing to Linux in the Open Source world is the HURD development. Please note that the Hurd is not open source, it is free software like the rest of the GNU system. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org h

Re: Diff too difficult

I don't need a pretty graphical display, but I would like the output to be improved. The output from diff is quite easy to understand both for humans, and for machines (GNU patch reads a diff, and applies it to the source code for example). GNU diff can output many formats, depending on wha

Re: Diff too difficult

Identical lines were output, but many lines were missing, including the and tags. This output isn't easy to read at all. The lines aren't identical, the line-ending is different, they show up the same on your display though. diff shows _differences_, which is why you didn't see any mor

Re: Diff too difficult

One file had a blank line after and it wasn't indicated clearly enough, if at all. If you'd dump the diff to a new file, you'd see the change if you opened it up in a text editor that can show white-spaces at the end of a line etc (emacs can do this with whitespace-mode or somesuch). Th

Re: Diff too difficult

Have you tried wdiff? ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

Since recently, tuxrocks.com's coverage of "Wallace v. GPL" got pretty selective (the motto is "we won't let Wallace troll the community", I suppose; interestingly enough, the pro-GPL stance seems to impact publication of some FSF's briefs as well)... Or it might simply be because Wall

Re: Intellectual Property II

Just to count two immediate possibilities. There are hundreds more. Two possibilities on two ends of the spectrum, the usual cost is around 45 USD from my brief check (GNU Source CD's, and OpenBSD CD's). Thogh, if you have 5000 USD (~4000 EUR), getting the GNU Deuluxe Distribution package is a

Re: Intellectual Property II

http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf Terekhov likes to quote material without having actually read it himself. Wallace more or less claims that the GNU GPL allows for price fixing, more exactly, that it requires all parties to distribute copies of GPLed software for no fee.

Re: Appropriate List for GPL Discussions?

Is this the appropriate list for general GPL discussions? Sure. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Appropriate List for GPL Discussions?

Are you guys aware of the dispute over some of the code in the former Lycoris distro, namely Iris, and other Desktop LX packages? Not me. But as always with copyright, speak to a lawyer, and refer to the copyright holders. As far as I see it, the FSF is not the copyright holder of this thi

Re: Appropriate List for GPL Discussions?

Basically, just like the rest of the GPL drivel authored by a programmer-not-a-lawyer RMS, it has no legal effect whatsoever. The GNU GPL was crafted by RMS in conjuction with lawyers. And just like the rest of the GNU GPL, it has a strong legal effect. __

Re: Question about GNU Free Document License

I have a question on the GNU Free Document License. I apologize if I have come to the wrong forum to discuss this (if so perhaps someone would be kind enough to direct me to the correct group should such a group exist). This is as good a place as any if you are looking for non-legal ad

Re: Question about GNU Free Document License

> I'd be interested to hear if others share my interpretation of > this license or if there is some clause that I have missed. Does > this author have the right to ask me to remove his book from my > web site or am I within my rights to decline given that the book > is covered by the

Re: Question about GNU Free Document License

> The only reason he gave was that only the printed version of the > book was covered by the GFDL and that the content on his web site > is not. Is there a statement on the Web site (attached in some way to the book) that clearly states that, despite appearances, the book is not

Re: GNU General Public License?

Is there any problem if I sell my application? >From the GNU General Public License FAQ [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html]: Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part o

Re: Running modified GPL software on a server

Anyone with the executable in their hands should have the right to the source code. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Running modified GPL software on a server

I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run it on a server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database for my shopping website), you don't have to GPL your modifications. Can anyone point me to an official statement on this by the FSF or another authority

Re: GPL 3 and patents question

Let's assume, that GPL 3 is finalized as is today, and that at that time the country I live in - Switzerland - still does not allow patents on software. Software patents are still illegal in the majority of European countries. I write some software on my own, and because I live in Swi

Re: GPL 3 and patents question

> ...should give me enough protection, against anyone claiming I > have not protected them from patent claims by third parties, as I > can point out I have no control over those patents? You have no obligation to provide any such protection. He can't even provide such protection unles

Re: GPL 3 and patents question

No: This was even covered in GPL2: 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribut

Re: GPL and other licences

This should be pretty easy to resolve. Show me the license provision of the GPL that allows me to combine (and not distribute) GPL code that is broken when I combine (but do not distribute) GPL and non GPL code. I don't believe you can find a provision that does this. You can only

Re: GPL 3 and patents question

> That refers to patents you own and which would otherwise be > infringed by users of the work. If you don't own any patents it > is irrelevant to you. It would be ridiculous to require that you > grant licenses to patents you do not control or even know about. So the part "...and

Re: GPL and other licences

> And if you use it internally in a business then you are distributing > the program to anyone who uses it. Your opinion differs from that in the GPL FAQ as writtem by the FSF. I fail to see how it differs. You are still required to follow the license even if you are only using it inter

Re: GPL and other licences

> It does boil down to that, you are still violating the license, > and in turn copyright law. Just that nobody knows of it so > nobody can sue you. The license allows you to do what I've described. Making derivative works with permission is not copyright infringement. This is no

Re: GPL 3 and patents question

Not really. Living in a country which does not have software patents, patent law does not concern me a lot. It would only if I start selling my software e.g. into the US. And I have to fear only a lawsuite from the side of the patent holder. I buy 1000s copies from you, I go to the US,

Re: GPL and other licences

> This boils down to: Can you break the law at home? Of course you > can't. So the same applies to the GPL. Since you cannot mix two > incompatible licenses legally, then you cannot do this in the privacy > of your own internal use. It would in the end still be a violation of > c

Re: GPL and other licences

Quite frankly, I would be surprised if any copyright holder cared the least whether I ever got around to annotating source code modules that I don't distribute or whether some program on my system failed to spit out a no-warranty notice. The point isn't about caring or not caring, many

Re: GPL and other licences

Then I recommend you actually _read_ the FAQ. I did read the FAQ, I just failed to read the correct question. :-) In this case, it seems that I and the FSF disagree. Prohibiting staff from distributing free software is the same as a NDA, in my opinion. And I think it is a weird stance from th

Re: GPL and other licences

> It does boil down to that, you are still violating the license, > and in turn copyright law. Just that nobody knows of it so > nobody can sue you. Not quite, as (at least in the USA) the copyright statues allow you to take reasonable action (including making or commissioning m

Re: GPL and other licences

> The point isn't about caring or not caring, many people license > things under the GPL and don't care if the work is used in > non-free programs. It is still a license violation; only that > nobody knows about it or can prove that it happend. In which case the law doesn't conside

Re: GPL and other licences

> In this case, it seems that I and the FSF disagree. Prohibiting > staff from distributing free software is the same as a NDA, in my > opinion. No, it is circumscribing what they can do as agents of the company, with the property of the company. One very important issue is limi

Re: GPL and other licences

> This is not what you asked, you asked if you could combine > non-free software with a GPLed work internally. The GPL does not > allow this, so you have no permissions to do so be it for your > private use or not. Cite me a provision of the GPL that does not allow this. Preferr

Re: GPL and other licences

> Are you really disputing the fact that one can combine non-free > work with a GPLed program? Yes. Then you really ought to read the GPL. Specially the clauses about not being able to put restrictions on a user, i.e. making the software non-free. Is software on my home system tha

Re: GPL and other licences

Oh nonsense. Only if they legally acquired a copy. Nobody is allowed to steal software just because _if_ it would be released, it would have to be under a free license. First of all, you can't steal software. Secondly, I was assuming that it was legally aquired, if it wasn't then the l

Re: GPL and other licences

> A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an > extended version of that program. The GPL says that any > extended version of the program must be released under > the GPL if it is released at all. And it is not released. That's the key

Re: GPL and other licences

You mean, if I am using a company's car, the car becomes my own property for the duration of use? If you have a replication machine that can copy cars like a computer can copy programs, yes. > I can claim that the whole world is internal for my use, and then > simply refuse to release

Re: GPL and other licences

And if I let you run a program from a CD of mine, the CD then becomes yours? Because CDs can be copied? CDs are still physical like cars. Apples vs rocks. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/l

Re: GPL and other licences

>And if I let you run a program from a CD of mine, the CD then >becomes yours? Because CDs can be copied? > > CDs are still physical like cars. Apples vs rocks. You'll be hard put to run a program without a physical copy. You are speaking about duplicating a physical enti

Re: GPL and other licences

>If you are an employee of mine and get access to software in >my possession for the purpose of job, you are not permitted to >make copies for your private use. > > If the license explicitly states so, yes. Wrong. You are not the licensee. The licensee is the compan

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >