as it could be, but it
does not require that you accept future versions of the GFDL.
(I do not endorse the GFDL.)
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
that component itself accompanies the
executable.
Note especially the last sentence.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo
all other Open Source licenses, and by
proprietary you mean all other licenses.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc
. It is not clear
to me that the literal words of 2(a) of the GPL do not apply to someone
who modifies code on his own system.
I think that 17 USC 117 applies here. I also think that the infringement
would be ruled de minimus.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
David Kastrup writes:
What would it mean to enforce a unilateral permission?
It would mean to produce it as a defense against an infringement claim by
the copyright owner.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu
Rui writes:
ANOTHER is RUNNING FOR ANY PURPOSE. And this one HAS NO CONDITIONS.
In the US that is not a grant of the GPL. Copyright law explicitly gives
you the right to run any program you own a copy of.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
to run
them, but when the copyright owner sues you the court will order
destruction of your copies and payment of damages.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
?
No. In fact, you don't have to make your changes public even if you do
sell it: you just have to provide the to your customers.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss
). It's also so impractical as to be moot.
[1] There might be a problem with the exclusive right to create
derivatives. There is also the problem of taking hundreds of copies when
the distributor clearly intended one copy per customer, but that's not
related to copyright.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL
of
the free Creative Commons licenses such as the attribution-only license.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc
Software documentation.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alfred M\. Szmidt writes:
All of these include and promote the usage of non-free software.
Debian does not include or promote any non-free software. It is now even
excluding the FSF's non-free documentation.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
is non-free.
...it is non-free software, but then so is a car (since it isn't software
to begin with).
Cars are not subject to copyright.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc
Alfred M\. Szmidt writes:
You said something to the extent that GFDL manuals with invariant
sections are non-free software.
I did not. I wrote that they were non-free[1]. Period. Documentation is
not software.
[1] There are rumors that indicate that this might change.
--
John Hasler
. Documents are not software but can be (and usually are)
non-free.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alfred M\. Szmidt writes:
And documents licensed under the GFDL are free, so are verbatim only
articles etc.
We differ in fundamental ways as to the definition of free. I consider
the right to create derivatives to be an important freedom.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Elmwood, WI USA
Alfred M\. Szmidt writes:
I guess I should really be having this discusion with the MySQL AB (?),
Or maybe you should consider using Postgresql.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu
I wrote:
Or maybe you should consider using Postgresql.
Alfred M\. Szmidt writes:
MySQL is free software, so there is no need to reconsider.
So is Postgresql, but there is no Postgresql AB to worry about.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Alfred M\. Szmidt writes:
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.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Gordon Burditt wrote:
What *is* the source code to music?
The question is devoid of meaning.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
it under the terms of the GFDL.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
statement on this by the FSF or
another authority?
Ask your lawyer.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
of anything. Therefor you do not need
to supply copies of the Emacs source to people who run it remotely on your
server. The same applies to MySQL or any other GPL software.
Read the license. If you can't understand it consult an attorney.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
ultraman writes:
I compile my program with g++ so I need distribute the libraries.
What libraries?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
other reasons why the executable file
might be covered by the GNU General Public License.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
which you license a copy to him affect my rights in any way.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
. Without the knowledge or permission of your employer
you take the CD home and copy it onto a blank CD that you own. if your
employer finds out he can fire you for this, but it seems to me that you
still own the copy you made and he can't take it away.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse
misappropriating a copy with the software
and subsequently distributing it would likely have to face criminal
charges...
I mentioned one copy and no distribution. Even under current US law making
a single copy for your own use is not a crime (though it may be a tort).
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL
.
Obviously, if the code has been modified by the employer the conditions I
described above are not met.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
. US courts go to considerable lengths to
accomodate pro se litigants as access to the courts is an important right.
It is possible (though unlikely, I think) that Wallace will have attorney's
fees assessed against him.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
on the exclusive rights.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rui writes:
Since Digital Restrictions Management doesn't affect only generic
computers but also the access to works (which can be revoked), I disagree
and maintain my generic view that DRM is theft.
DRM backed up by law is abusive, but DRM alone is a private matter.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL
forbid DRM.
There should be fewer laws of all sorts.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
fixed.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
the resulting copy.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Stefaan writes:
I believe that in both cases, the person or entity wishing to accept the
GPL has to be in possession of a lawful copy.
I believe that he must _own_ a copy. A bailee or agent can be in lawful
possession of a lawful copy.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
-hacked) copies under the GPL I grant them?
If you are the sole author you can simply re-release it under a license
such as the MIT that does not require source or under a modified GPL with a
You are not required to provide source clause.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood
it, and they have obviously
granted an implied license.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
and
alterations.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Dancefire writes:
I am sorry, I am not quite understand your words.
No one understands Terekhov's words. That's because they make no sense.
Ignore him. He's a troll, and an inept one at that.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
source code to the world?
The GPL never requires you to publish your source code to the world.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
it, but to distribute it as they see fit.
Yes of course, but the OP seems to suffer from the common delusion that the
GPL requires that you actively publish the code.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu
competition from gaining
the same advantage that you just worked months or years to create.
Speak for yourself.
Thats one idea that comes to mind that, if it were my company, I wonldnt
want to share with the world.
After all, you wouldn't want to end up like Red Hat...
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL
with the GPL.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
of
any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of
receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or
in separate places and at the same time or at different times.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Alfred M. Szmidt writes:
That I know too, but I am a naive person and I hope that Alexander will
one day get a clue if one beats him hard enough.
You assume that he doesn't know very well what he is doing.
BTW why do you never attribute your quotations?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Linux vendors are not selling below
cost by any measure, nor are they competing with Wallace.
On Groklaw there was some speculation that Wallace had a legal advisor.
Perhaps we have found him.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
is the harm to competition?
Well, nobody claimed that Wallace's suit attempts failed in only one
respect.
This was discussed extensively on Groklaw. The complete list is large.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu
David Kastrup writes:
Apart from that, RedHat does not _set_ the price for licensing, anyway.
Red Hat does not even _do_ the licensing, except for the small fraction of
Linux to which they own the copyrights.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
by combining material
from it with material licensed under the the Apache 2.0 license URL. in
your COPYRIGHT file.
If so what would you recommend?
Consider the LGPL. Or the Apache 2.0 license.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
of copies of your package. You do not own the
copyrights in the jar files, so how could you possibly grant any rights to
them?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Benjamin writes:
The risk lies in that the GPL may be make GPL the libraries my code uses
This is impossible.
This would mean that any recipient of my GPL code could also assume those
associated libraries are GPL
Nothing in the GPL implies any such thing.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED
a model license.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Nick Kew writes:
The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari. Which is
in turn based on khtml/konqueror.
First I've heard that. Are you sure you don't mean that it uses QT?
Which is KDE, which is GPL.
khtml is LGPL.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
the
Microsoft EULA. So what?
I want to prevent this side-effect in an open source software I am about
to write.
It isn't a side-effect.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss
copyright and software licensing first, though.
I will look into the way mozilla handled it (MPL/GPL/LGPL triple
licensing)
I thought you didn't want your work to be available under the GPL.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Thus when you distribute a program that includes BSD-licensed material (and
comply with the license) you are distributing that material under the terms
of the BSD license.
--
John Hasler
the BSD in the first place.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
into
this discussion than it would have cost you to just apply the GPL and
release the thing.
BTW you need not rely on donations. You can sell copies of GPL software
for whatever the market will bear.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
since
the GPL covers only copying, distribution, and modification.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov writes:
...persons affected or potentially affected by the terms tend to refer to
the risk of viral license terms that reach out to infect their own,
separately developed software...
There is, as you know very well, no such risk.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing
considered bad form, not to mention hazardous to
one's freedom, to make such statements about judges.
In the US it is bad form but quite safe.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
to. Libtiff4 isn't
under the GPL at all. It is distributed under a BSD-like license.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc
I wrote:
Safari is LGPL...
Parts are closed-source.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
terms...
There is no need to round them all up. Each has a copyright in the work
and can prosecute infringement independently of all the others. Thus IBM
is prosecuting its claims that SCO is infringing its copyrights in the
Linux kernel without involving Linus et al.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL
no different than buying and using a license for a
commercial non-free library: the copyright owner imposes conditions.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
as a defense. When he
does so you argue that he has no license to do the things he is doing and
so is infringing your copyright.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
who has hacked and
downloaded a copy of anything onto his computer has acquired in the
process.
We are not discussing copies acquired by cracking a server.
Really.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss
). Otherwise, don't do it.
Am I right?
No. You must make the entire _derivative_ (that is, the work consisting of
the combination of your work and the GPL work) GPL. You may do as you
wish with your entire original program. And you retain all rights.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing
Merijn writes:
The payment is a *covenant*, a promise made by the licensee. In the GPL's
case, the requirement to provide source is the covenant.
IIRC IBM is counterclaiming against SCO for infringement, not breach of
contract.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
owner under the GPL does not in any way prevent you
from distributing subsequent copies (or portions) under any terms you
choose. You do not give up any rights by distributing under the GPL.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
This is _not true_.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
, that Javascript is certainly protected by copyright, but the
copy of it on your machine is just as certainly yours.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
mike4ty4 writes:
It requires that if, after doing that, you take some code from your
original portions of that combined work and use them in other original
works those ALSO have to become GPL as well...
This is not true.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
mike4ty4 writes:
Can I make a combined work, put that out under GPL (following the
license), then take a piece of [my] _original code_ and put it in a
non-GPL work and keep that non-GPL?
Yes, of course you can.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Well, you can also get whitebox Linux or something like that...
White Box Linux and Centos.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
Richard writes:
There seems to be a substantial profit for the buyer here: they get a
program for nothing.
They get a copy of the program (what they want) for whatever price they and
one of the supliers thereof agree on. There is no GPL no charge
provision where copies are concerned.
--
John
the license. It's quite clear.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
mike4ty4 writes:
But one can still make a decent amount of money? (notice to me, decent
does *not* mean Bill Gates super-wealth)
Most programmers spend their time writing custom code that never leaves
their organization so the whole issue is irrelevant to them.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Merijn de Weerd writes:
Making a list of words with definitions is a lot of work. So a
dictionary is certain protected by copyright.
Probably, but not because it is a lot of work. Work (sweat of the
brow) is irrelevant.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
writes:
Not all free software is commercial.
All Free Software can be sold.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc
Rui writes:
Erms... the Internet is now based on IP, as it may be very well based on
something else in the future, and certainly didn't start as IP...
It most certainly did.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu
the definition extended far
beyond the kernel. See, for example, what ATT included in System III or
for that matter what all came on the BSD tapes.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
commands. The operating system manages the resources...
...
The commands provided include basic file and data management, editors...
...
Looks to me as if Bell Labs was a bit ambiguous as to the exact definition
of an operating system.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
that.
The GPL is a model license, not a law. The kernel authors have not
modified the text of the GPL, but they have provided an additional
statement. The kernel license consists of the GPL plus that statement.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Honza writes:
You cant say that only kernel and glibc can interact and that kernel can
be GPL and glibc can be LGPL.
Why not? (aside from the fact that the kernel license grants permission).
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
the executable.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
not conflict with the
GPL (public domain or BSD, for example. Or LGPL.)
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
David writes:
I would have thought that it's sufficient to publish *only* the example
program under the GPL.
It is more than sufficient.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
not be.
David Kastrup writes:
I am just saying that the lack of direct verbatim inclusion of a
copyrightable amount of material is not a necessity in the explanation
for literary works,
The inclusion of protected elements is.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
for the copyright owner.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
- be used to run the
programs.
I agree with you. A program that, when compiled, could be linked with Qt
to form a useful program does not necessarily include any protected
elements of Qt.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
does not require it, but
they don't even have an entity one could assign copyright to even if one
wanted to.
Copyrights could be assigned to SPI but there is no requirement to do so.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
useful to a program, it should be folded into
the actual program itself.
Yes, but let the distribution forward it.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
Casper H.S. Dik writes:
Why is that void in you rlocal law? (Just interested).
In some jurisdictions you are not permitted to give up your moral
rights.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss
is interpreting the license should apply
California law. Some courts may, of course, choose not to do so, but US
Federal courts will. So will ICC arbitration panels, I believe.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss
their software distributed under closed-source terms.
Others just haven't been offered enough money.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo
that.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
1 - 100 of 354 matches
Mail list logo
