-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 23:34
Now that's a truly scary thought if you think about it. The KDE core
libraries are under the LGPL, but there are many KDE
applications that are
under different licenses and
Hi all!
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
The discussion on this topic has been very interesting. I am unsure who posted
the comment about the lawyers at FSF, but if that person could obtain clearance
to post the complete explanation on why FSF has taken the position that the use
of
-Original Message-
From: Angelo Schneider
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 05:33
As I pointed out allready: linking to an API is not, I repeat: not a
derived work.
derived work is a legal term. You can not redefine it in
your license.
Why are in insisting that deriving a new
Hi all!
This a very good answer as it shows where the common missunderstanding
resides!
Please see below.
Michael Beck wrote:
Von: Michael Beck[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From: Angelo Schneider
As I pointed out allready: linking to an API is not, I repeat: not a
derived work.
Angelo Scneider wrote:
As I pointed out allready: linking to an API is not, I repeat: not a
derived work.
derived work is a legal term. You can not redefine it in your license.
I didn't say I agreed with the FSF/RMS interpretation, I just mentioned
what I remember it to be.
One of the
Lately I had a discussion with someone who wants to provide source code
for his project, but without makefile(s). He intends to call it Open
Source. He also intends that people can look at the implementation and
tweak it if they like but have to write the makefiles themselves if they
want to
Harald Albrecht writes:
Lately I had a discussion with someone who wants to provide source code
for his project, but without makefile(s). He intends to call it Open
Source.
G. Nobody has a trademark on Open Source, so he can call it
that if he wants. But he's gonna annoy a lot
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
Lately I had a discussion with someone who wants to provide source code
for his project, but without makefile(s). He intends to call it Open
Source.
G. Nobody has a trademark on Open Source, so he can call it
that if he wants.
On Thursday 18 October 2001 12:21 am, Michael Beck wrote:
Now that's a truly scary thought if you think about it. The KDE core
libraries are under the LGPL, but there are many KDE
applications that are
under different licenses and which of subclassed some KDE
classes (kwin,
kicker,
On Thursday 18 October 2001 09:04 am, Michael Beck wrote:
Why are in insisting that deriving a new class is equal to linking to an
API? Unless you believe that a class cannot be copyrighted, please see the
class as a copyrighted entity, the same way as you see a book.
Deriving a new class is
On Thursday 18 October 2001 11:10 am, Harald Albrecht wrote:
Lately I had a discussion with someone who wants to provide source code
for his project, but without makefile(s). He intends to call it Open
Source. He also intends that people can look at the implementation and
tweak it if they
Hi,
I lurk on the list. I've been skimming the conversation. I thought I'd
try an analogy. Not sure if this will help or not. I am not a lawyer, nor
do I really know copyright law very well. Feel free to ignore :).
Imagine person A creates a picture. Person B comes along and makes an
On Thursday 18 October 2001 08:20 pm, William Uther wrote:
One could argue that in the second case the overlay is merely USING the
original picture, and that the original picture can be copied because of
its license. I suspect that a court would rule that you have a derived
work here.
On Tue, 16 October 2001, Michael Beck wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The issue is that
when I release something under OpenSource, I want to make sure that it will be
used as is, and if there is any derivative work, it will benefit the
community, i.e. it will be
Ok, after catching up on all the class wrappers is use messages,
I got to thinking (the smoke coming out of my ears was a sign)
so I got to reading, and it took too long, so I did a search instead.
the string link occurs only once in the GPL. It's WAY past the
Terms and Conditions for Copying,
On Thursday 18 October 2001 09:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 16 October 2001, Michael Beck wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The issue is that
when I release something under OpenSource, I want to make sure that it
will be used as is, and if there is
OOP!!!
Sorry, my bad.
There's four 's in front of your name, but
the text below it has three 's, so the quote
should go to Michael?
not even sure anymore. my cut and paste sucks on this machine.
but it was quite misleading.
Sorry again.
Greg
On Thu, 18 October 2001, David Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 18 October 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
can someone give a legal explanation why the following aren't true?
1) the GPL does not prohibit linking
In advance answer to those who say,
the LGPL allows linking, and states that the GPL prohibits it.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if
18 matches
Mail list logo
