My take on this definition is that most statically linked programs
include a relocation table and symbol tables which are annotations
of the source code.
These annotations are not particularly original, but if you declare
that your statically linked program is not an original work of
authorship,
That only means it is not separately protected under copyright.
The owner of the source code copyright retains control over all
copying of the work, including copies that involve mechanical
transformation and later copying of that transformation.
You forgot 17 USC 117. See comments below...
It
as GPL
a Program or Derived Work that is covered by a patent with terms
more restrictive than the GPL.
I hope that helps,
Roy T. Fielding, co-founder, The Apache Software Foundation
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://roy.gbiv.com/
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin
I would point out that ASL2's clause 3 does not mention derivative
works at all: it provides a patent license only for the Work, not for
anyu Derivative Works licensed (under the terms of clause 4) under a
different license.
On a side note, since software patent law is applied to the method
of
Are you saying that your license allows GPL-forking?
No, I am saying that the Apache License says:
You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and
may provide additional or different license terms and conditions
for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your
the terms.
Cheers,
Roy T. Fieldinghttp://roy.gbiv.com/
Chief Scientist, Day Software http://www.day.com/
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Because the MIT license is a blanket grant of permission, almost
without
restriction:
That is completely irrelevant. Unlike copyright, a patent does not
move along with the work. The patent may be owned by a completely
separate company of which the author is totally unaware at the time
of
I think you're using the term non-free to mean two different things
in
two different sentences.
Nope.
Let me reword: :-)
| The GPL prohibits distribution of a work that is
| covered by patents not distributable under GPL terms. The Apache
| License says that any patent
| licenses granted to
On Wednesday, February 18, 2004, at 03:22 PM, Mark Shewmaker wrote:
On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 20:20, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
No, the patent (if there was one) would be an additional restriction
on the GPL. The Apache License itself is not the patent and does not
restrict the GPL any more than the GPL
On Tuesday, February 17, 2004, at 04:04 PM, Mark Shewmaker wrote:
On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 14:19, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
it is our belief that this new licence is just as osi-compliant
as the 1.1 version, and is more clearly compatible with the gpl
to boot.
Is the patent grant section GPL
10 matches
Mail list logo
