Nick Yeates wrote:I too am curious what this compilation licenseing is
and what its benefits are. Mr Kuhn asked, and Larry responded saying
basically 'its not so odd - I use it often' and Larry did not state *why*
he advises use of this licensing strategy from a business, social or other
Dear Till
Thank you for this - excellent - analysis.
You wrote:
The only hint you may find is Article 6 which says that decompilation is
allowed under certain circumstances to achieve the interoperability of an
independently created computer program with other programs.
Written in 1991, the
I find it particularly objectionable that by providing my software free I
open myself to the possibility of financial attack.
I use something similar to the open source disclaimer for software I have
published but have added the following to it IF THIS DISCLAIMER
CONTRADICTS LOCALLY APPLICABLE
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz wrote at 04:31 (EDT):
Frequent cases are submitted when developers (in particular European
administrations and Member states) have build applications from
multiple components, plus adding their own code, and want to use a
single license for distributing the whole
Thanks Till, this was a very useful summary of the situation in Europe!
I believe you've begged the question, however, by saying this:
Apparently, a computer program which is _not_ derived from
GPL code has nonetheless to be licensed under the GPLv2 when
the original GPL code and the
Nick Yeates asked:
Larry did not state *why* he advises use of this licensing strategy
from a business, social or other standpoint.
I do so because my clients expect to profit (either financially or in
reputation credits) for delivering comprehensive solutions that include FOSS
components.
This is indeed depending on the case: people (developers) always declare (often
after the work has been done, and not before as it should be) that they used
products X,Y, Z. But what do they mean by use? Aggregating? Linking? Copying
only some APIs or data formats in order to ensure that
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote:
As I mentioned in a private thread, I didn't really see the need to
burn Till's time posting here, since the discussion was a side-issue
on the main thread about license compatibility, and an OSI director
had already said
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
Does the distribution of a GPL-licensed work along with those separate
works convert them into something not separate in the copyright
sense? Does a staple or a paper clip or a book binding convert separate
works to something not separate in the copyright sense?
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
I do so because my clients expect to profit (either financially or
in reputation credits) for delivering comprehensive solutions that
include FOSS components.
It's kind of hard to see how this could be the case for releasing a
compilation under the GPL. There's no
John Cowan asked:
But suppose Bob takes Alice's program under the GPL and and
adds a bunch of calls to syslog() so that it logs what it is doing
(and suppose further that this is not a de minimis or merely
mechanical change).
Hypotheticals are so easy to answer without committing
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
I would guess that Bob's adding a bunch of calls to syslog() into
Alice's work might create a derivative work of Alice's work, but that
wouldn't convert syslog() itself a derivative work owned by either
Alice or Bob, even if Bob statically linked it with Alice's
John Cowan wrote:
But in any case my point is that there is no bright line between
a derivative and a collective work.
If you are looking for a bright line in copyright law, I'll agree that that
isn't it.
Here again is what you hypothesized: Bob interweaves his code into Alice's
code (as in
13 matches
Mail list logo
