Quoting Bradley M. Kuhn (bk...@ebb.org):
Rick,
I've tried to reply at length below on the issue of license (in)compatibility.
The below is probably the most I've ever written on the subject, but it's in
some ways a summary of items that discussed regularly among various Free
Software
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 4:16 AM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
Al Foxone scripsit:
I doubt that Red Hat’s own End User License Agreement is
'compatible' (according to you) with the GPL'd components in that
combined work as whole. Anyway, that combined work as a whole must be
full
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote:
I'd suspect everyone to agree that you must meet the redistribution
requirements of all copyright licenses for a given work to have permission
to redistribute. Thus, license compatibility *exists* as a concept because
if
Al Foxone scripsit:
I doubt that Red Hat’s own End User License Agreement is
'compatible' (according to you) with the GPL'd components in that
combined work as whole. Anyway, that combined work as a whole must be
full of proclaimed 'incompatibly' licensed components (once again
according to
Rick,
I've tried to reply at length below on the issue of license (in)compatibility.
The below is probably the most I've ever written on the subject, but it's in
some ways a summary of items that discussed regularly among various Free
Software licensing theorist for the past decade, particularly
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 17:00 (EDT) on Tuesday:
I asked for practical examples. You cited none. In the world of
copyrights or most logical pursuits, absence of evidence isn't
evidence.
License compatibility issues come up regularly on lots of bug tickets
and threads about licensing on lots of
Till Jaeger answer to the question What is a derivative work? is (on slide
4): I dont know (and probably nobody else) !
I do agree with him as long there is no case law, but my personal feeling
(which as no value as case law !) is that the Court of Justice of the
European Union would *not* follow
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:59:43AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
The GPL has always tried to go as far as copyright would allow to
mandate software freedom. That's what Michael Meeks (and/or Jeremy
Allison -- I heard them both use this phrase within a few weeks of each
other and not sure who
-Original Message-
From: Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto:bk...@ebb.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:00 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source
license chooser choosealicense.com launched.)
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 17
I also believe that incompatibility is a myth.
Here's excellent paper:
http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/21_04_04.pdf
DANGEROUS LIAISONS—SOFTWARE
COMBINATIONS AS DERIVATIVE WORKS?
DISTRIBUTION,INSTALLATION, AND EXECUTION
OF LINKED PROGRAMS UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW,
COMMERCIAL LICENSES, AND THE GPL
Larry, it seems that you responded to my point that calling the GPL by the
name 'infection' is a slur that spreads needless discord with (paraphrased)
it's not the GPL; it's the work that *you*, Bradley, and others have done
enforcing the GPL that's an infection on our community.
This doesn't
11 matches
Mail list logo
