Hi all!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, so GPL says you can:
1) copy/distribute verbatim source code under GPL
2) modify/copy/distribute source code and relicense under GPL
parts of distribution that are not derived from original
are not covered under this license.
On Sun, 21 October 2001, Angelo Schneider wrote:
The GPL basicly requires you: all code using a GPLed source needs to
be released under GPL and distributed in source format.
that's what I don't get. the only way for some other code to 'use' GPL code
is to 'link' it. but 'linking' is
On Sat, 20 October 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
What exactly was the point of making linking special?
The intent, as I understand, is to increase the efficacy of the GPL to
encourage extension of the presense of free software.
Encouraging
On Sunday 21 October 2001 05:46 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but copyright law reserves no rights to the author regarding use.
but the only way to use software is to derive from it (link).
so, now software authors can control use of their software.
which wasn't the intent of copyright law.
The answer is no. You might recall that trademark law does not grant the TM owner the
right to control all use of the mark. If the use is outside the scope of TM usage
(namely, the identification of source), it is unlikely that the use invokes in TM
rights at all...particularly under the facts
-Original Message-
From: David Johnson
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 23:52
The bigger issue (in my opinion) is why the LGPL treats inheritance
differently from composition. Why is a direct function call
different than an indirect function call through a vtable?
Because one is
-Original Message-
From: Rob Myers
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 09:14
If I write a class which extends java.util.Dictionary, then whose
implementation
of java.util.Dictionary am I adapting:
No-one's.
Is the original work changed? No.
Is the original work copiedpasted? No.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 00:06
you are attempting to excercise a right that Copyright Law
does not grant you.
you are using words that have double meanings that are
separate and distinct
in their two fields, i.e. derived
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 21:54
Licenses should not be in a position to influence how an
application is
designed. But if the above interpretation really is that of
the FSF, then the
LGPL would be
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 08:54
If I write a class which extends java.util.Dictionary, then
whose implementation
of java.util.Dictionary am I adapting:
- GNU Classpath's?
- Kaffe's?
- Sun's?
-
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 22:24
Deriving a new class is equivalent to linking to an API. No
question about
it. Just examine the mechanism. If anything, inheritance creates an
additional level of
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 12:38
I'm not insisting on that.
So can we agree that a class is a copyrighted entity?
I of course of the oposite opinion, I only liked to point out:
After you have created a
On Sun, 21 October 2001, Michael Beck wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[snip] [back to Michael]
Copies are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed
by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be
perceived,
On Sun, 21 October 2001, David Johnson wrote:
On Sunday 21 October 2001 05:46 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bob's Music Conglomeration starts releasing music as
an object file. The license says you can only link this
music/object file with software licensed by Bob.
And Bob's player is a
On Sun, 21 October 2001, Michael Beck wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 00:06
I am afraid, you are mixing class, and interface concepts here. Class is a
design blueprint, similar in its function to chip design or architectural
design, and as such it's protected
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Michael Beck wrote:
When you derive a class, you are creating a copy of the original class. When you
make changes to the new class, you are creating a derivative work, the same
way as you would do it by making changes to a copy of book, copy of a picture,
copy of a house
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 00:05
I'm afraid that you're mixing a copyrightable work with a
nice idea.
The work, Alice's database,
and the idea, all databases,
does not prevent Bob from using Alices code, and writing code
of his own
17 matches
Mail list logo
