negotiating a deal with you (which
is piracy), people will still need to buy your class in order to use the
oo-derived class. So this would drive sales of your work and increase your
profits rather than reduce them.
- Rob.
--
Rob Myers http://www.robmyers.org/
I never made a painting as a work
.
- Rob.
--
Rob Myers http://www.robmyers.org/
Smash global capitalism. Spend less money.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
IANAL, TINLA
on 19/10/01 1:53 pm, Chris Gray at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
Is the
on 17/10/01 2:34 pm, Angelo Schneider at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Germany dynamic linking is: derived work.
Its up to your lisence if you allow it.
Inheritance is NOT, NOWHERE, NEVER a derived work.
However incorporating the derived class plus the base class into a piece
of software
On Monday, September 24, 2001, at 10:08 pm, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
This leads to a GPL-related issue which is not clear to me: can
redistribution of GPL code be constrained by an employment agreement?
Well, that brings up the question of
on 24/9/01 7:55 am, Rick Moen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I note that Russ invited my comment on the APSL publication clause.
I am trying to ignore the gratuitous personal gibes, and will keep
doing so, but, on the other hand will accept his invitation.
Can people claiming (or wishing) to
on 24/9/01 11:16 am, John Cowan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the GPL
imposes no such obligation to the world at large. If you distribute a
derivative work, you are obliged to distribute the original *to the recipients
of the derivative work*; likewise, if you distribute binaries, you are
on 24/9/01 3:26 pm, Rick Moen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, of course, you were being very speculative, and rather jumping the
gun: My assumption that the OSI Board shares my notion that the right
to privacy should be a part of the definition of open source may be
entirely untrue. Russ
8 matches
Mail list logo
