On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:54 AM, minh thu wrote:
> I'd like to point out a possible situation, that makes the questions
> even more interesting.
>
> Say the author of Y (the BSD licensed code) is used to install its
> code, Y, along of its requisite X (under GPL) to customer locations.
> Note that
Hi Thu
That would sound like 'private use' to me[1] which is permitted by the
GPL. If the client later wanted to *distribute* the agglomerated work
the GPL would apply. Distribution being the key point, as at that
stage the client is no longer using the agglomeration privately.
Best wishes
Steph
2009/12/12 Stephen Tetley :
> 2009/12/12 Tom Tobin :
>
>>
>> 1) Can the author of Y legally distribute the *source* of Y under a
>> non-GPL license, such as the 3-clause BSD license or the MIT license?
>
> Hello Tom
>
> If the answer to this isn't yes, I'll buy a hat and eat it...
>
> As source, Y
2009/12/12 Tom Tobin :
>
> 1) Can the author of Y legally distribute the *source* of Y under a
> non-GPL license, such as the 3-clause BSD license or the MIT license?
Hello Tom
If the answer to this isn't yes, I'll buy a hat and eat it...
As source, Y (the BSD3 library) can surely be distribute
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Tom Tobin wrote:
> Question 2 can be "If the answer to 1 is no, is there *any*
> circumstance under which the author of Y can distribute the source of
> Y under a non-GPL license?"
I'd like to get these questions out to the SFLC so we can satisfy our
curiosity; at
sigh -- to the list this time.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Tom Tobin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Ketil Malde wrote:
> > Tom Tobin writes:
> >> If it turns out that Hakyll *is* okay to be BSD3 licensed so
> >> long as neither any binary nor the GPL'd work's source is distribut
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Ketil Malde wrote:
> Tom Tobin writes:
>> If it turns out that Hakyll *is* okay to be BSD3 licensed so
>> long as neither any binary nor the GPL'd work's source is distributed
>> under non-GPL terms, well ... I'll say that the meaning of "BSD
>> licensed" will have
Tom Tobin writes:
> In temporary lieu of posing questions explicitly to the SFLC, I dug
> up a copy of _Intellectual Property and Open Source_ by Foobar (and
> published by O'Reilly), and found this (from an entire chapter —
> Chapter 12 — about the GPL):
> "Nevertheless, there is a persistent
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Tom Tobin wrote:
> In temporary lieu of posing questions explicitly to the SFLC, I dug
> up a copy of _Intellectual Property and Open Source_ by Foobar
::facepalm:: I wrote "Foobar" as a placeholder as I was typing, and
never replaced it. The author's name is V
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Robert Greayer wrote:
> There's another FAQ on GNU site that, I think, addresses the Pandoc/Hakyll
> situation directly:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
>
> "You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a
> propri
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apologies, Robert, for you getting this twice: I forgot to CC the list
> as well.
>
> Robert Greayer writes:
> > The crux here is that the source code of hakyll, released on hackage, is
> not
> > a derivat
Apologies, Robert, for you getting this twice: I forgot to CC the list
as well.
Robert Greayer writes:
> The crux here is that the source code of hakyll, released on hackage, is not
> a derivative of Pandoc (it contains, as far as I understand it, no Pandoc
> source code). A compiled executable
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Matthew Brecknell wrote:
> Based on the discussion so far, I think you need to distinguish between
> distributing source and distributing binaries. For example:
>
> Background: X is a library distributed under GPL. Y is another library
> which calls external functio
Tom Tobin wrote:
> I'm thinking something along these lines:
>
> The background situation: X is a library distributed under the GPL. Y
> is another library that uses that library and requires it in order to
> compile and function.
>
> 1) Is there any scenario where Y can be distributed under a n
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Tom Tobin wrote:
> Well I think that's actually what we're wondering here — under what
> circumstances is Y's author permitted to choose his license at will?
I think I phrased this poorly; it's more "under what circumstances is
Y's author permitted to distribute Y
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo
wrote:
> Tom Tobin wrote:
>
>> The background situation: X is a library distributed under the GPL. Y
>> is another library that uses that library and requires it in order to
>> compile and function.
>
> You probably also need to bring in applica
Tom Tobin wrote:
> The background situation: X is a library distributed under the GPL. Y
> is another library that uses that library and requires it in order to
> compile and function.
You probably also need to bring in application Z which uses library
X via library Y, because library Y is not u
Tom Tobin writes:
> 1) Is there any scenario where Y can be distributed under a non-GPL
> license (e.g., the BSD)?
> 2) If so, what would Y's author need to do (or *not* do)?
> 3) If Y must be released under the GPL under the above scenario, and
> someone subsequently wrote library Z, an API co
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo
wrote:
> Tom Tobin wrote:
>> I can write the SFLC and pose a hypothetical situation that captures
>> the gist of what we're talking about, and post the response here, if
>> anyone is interested.
>
> I suggest that you put together a question, pos
Tom Tobin writes:
> Your contributions could still be licensed under a different license
> (e.g. BSD), as long as the licensing doesn't prevent somebody else to
> pick it up and relicense it under GPL.
Right. So hakyll is absolutely fine with a BSD3 license, AFAICS.
>>> Serious
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Robert Greayer wrote:
> Not to belabor the point (I hope), but consider the following situation --
> if the current version of Pandoc, 1.2.1, were released under BSD3, not GPL,
> it would be obvious that the current version of hakyll could be released as
> BSD3 as w
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Gregory Crosswhite
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tom Tobin wrote:
>
> The crux here is that the source code of hakyll, released on hackage, is not
> a derivative of Pandoc (it contains, as far as I understand it, no Pandoc
> source code). A compiled exe
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tom Tobin wrote:
>
> The crux here is that the source code of hakyll, released on hackage, is not
> a derivative of Pandoc (it contains, as far as I understand it, no Pandoc
> source code). A compiled executable *is* a derivative of Pandoc, so anyone
> who *d
Tom Tobin wrote:
> IANAL either,
Ditto!
> but my understanding is that judges take a very dim view
> of attempts like this to evade the requirements of a license.
I can't see how any judge could possibly come to that conclusion
in this case.
Studying the terms of the GPL and the BSD3 a lawyer
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Robert Greayer wrote:
>
> The crux here is that the source code of hakyll, released on hackage, is
> not a derivative of Pandoc (it contains, as far as I understand it, no
> Pandoc source code). A compiled executable *is* a derivative of Pandoc, so
> anyone who *d
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Warren Henning wrote:
> Am I the only one who finds this stuff confusing as hell?
It *is* confusing as hell, because law is confusing as hell, because
it's an "interpreted language" of sorts — what matters is how judges
rule on the law, not just the law as written.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Robert Greayer wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tom Tobin wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Ben Franksen
>> wrote:
>> > Ketil Malde wrote:
>> >> Your contributions could still be licensed under a different license
>> >> (e.g. BSD), as long as th
Am I the only one who finds this stuff confusing as hell?
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Robert Greayer wrote:
> The crux here is that the source code of hakyll, released on hackage, is not
> a derivative of Pandoc (it contains, as far as I understand it, no Pandoc
> source code). A compiled ex
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tom Tobin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Ben Franksen
> wrote:
> > Ketil Malde wrote:
> >> Your contributions could still be licensed under a different license
> >> (e.g. BSD), as long as the licensing doesn't prevent somebody else to
> >> pick it up and
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Tom Tobin wrote:
> If you are forming a derivative work based on the GPL'd
> work, and thus you have to release that derivative work under the GPL.
Wow, I mangled the syntax on that last sentence. That should read:
"If you are forming a derivative work based on t
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Tom Tobin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Ben Franksen wrote:
Ketil Malde wrote:
Your contributions could still be licensed under a different license
(e.g. BSD), as long as the licensing doesn't prevent somebody else to
pick it up and relicense it under GPL.
At lea
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Ben Franksen wrote:
> Ketil Malde wrote:
>> Your contributions could still be licensed under a different license
>> (e.g. BSD), as long as the licensing doesn't prevent somebody else to
>> pick it up and relicense it under GPL.
>>
>> At least, that's how I understan
32 matches
Mail list logo
