would consider it wrong to use code in a way the author does not want
you to use it. But I have no other indication of what the author wants
beyond the text of the GPL.
"wrong to use code in a way the author does not want you to use it"
Would you claim the very same for some Microsoft
David Johnson wrote:
I would normally agree, but consider a liberal use of inline functions,
macros, etc. This is the rebut that I've normally heard. Personally, I
would discount macros as "metacode", but inlines are problematic.
I agree with this: C++ header files with inline functions are
David Johnson wrote:
The point is, either I take
the license at its face value, or I throw it out *completely*.
What, and put all our local lawyers (and law students) out of business?
Shame. :-)
--
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Schliesst euer Aug
On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, John Cowan wrote:
I think that someone licensing code under the GPL intends the spirit
of the GPL, which is surely to prevent the use of GPLed parts
in unfree programs. The words of the GPL are just the means by which
this purpose is achieved.
IIRC the GPL does not
Martin Konold wrote:
Would you claim the very same for some Microsoft owned ActiveX component?
The issue is entirely different, involving civil disobedience, not
moral obligation.
--
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger
Justin Wells wrote:
Usually, though, in order to run it you have to copy it into memory, and
without a specific grant, you don't have the right to make that copy. I
thought there was a court decision in the US which determined that copying
into RAM was "fixation" in copyright law.
It's
From the U.S. Copyright Act:
"ยง 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for
the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of
another copy or adaptation of that computer program
It's been a long time since I last posted a version of this license, and it
has changed a lot since then. I thought I would post it again and get some
comments from this list.
This license lives here:
http://shimari.com/SPL/
and will eventually be the primary license for Semiotek's
Justin Wells wrote:
Usually, though, in order to run it you have to copy it into memory, and
without a specific grant, you don't have the right to make that copy. I
thought there was a court decision in the US which determined
that copying
into RAM was "fixation" in copyright law.
Justin,
I just took a look at the SPL. Your efforts are laudable. This is not easy
stuff.
We may be able to offer better assistance if you posted sections to the list
one at a time with the text and the explanation for the text. (But,
remember, nothing beats the assistance of a paid lawyer).
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000, Martin Konold wrote:
"wrong to use code in a way the author does not want you to use it"
Would you claim the very same for some Microsoft owned ActiveX component?
Yes. If they have an ActiveX component that they had undue
restrictions on, I wouldn't use it. AFAIK,
From the features listed (I haven't read the license yet):
Hands the community the power to take action against violators of
the license--even if the original author is not around, has lost
interest, or doesn't have the time or money.
Uh, why? I haven't read the license terms for this yet,
12 matches
Mail list logo
