Tim Churches wrote:
>
> The key verb is "containing", and I'm sorry, but "link" (or "reference" or
> "call" or whatever other verb could reasonably used to describe
> dynamic run-time linking) does not mean the same as "contain".
What's interesting with respect to distribution of works (of course,
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:53:32 +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
>
> >> Secondly, perhaps you should consider that dynamically linking to a
> >> work is creating a derivative work, which most certainly falls under
> >> the "modification" clause.
>
> [snip]
>
Ernst Noch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>> In my case, I get paid for building custom applications. If I use
>> GPL'ed software, I'm required to give my client the software under the
>> GPL (or, as you point out, a GPL-compatible license). I never bother -
>> I hand them a tarbal
Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Of course, in cases where it matters (i.e. - I provide public
>> access to my legally purchased copy of the Brittanica, or some
>> such), copyrights on things other than the program come into
>> play. Possibly multiple copyrights.
> Huh?
As you pointed
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:53:32 +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
>> Firstly, perhaps you could use a mail/news client that correctly limits
>> lines to (say) 72 characters, that would make it a lot easier to read your
>> comments.
>
> Sorry, was using the Optus webmail client which does not do line
> wrap
Heiko Wundram wrote:
> Heiko Wundram wrote:
>
>>..., unless I convince the
>>people at my univ to _release_ the code I've written under a
>>GPL-compatible open source license itself.
>
>
> The can of worms in this is basically that management at my uni doesn't want
> employees to take the softwa
Mike Meyer wrote:
> In my case, I get paid for building custom applications. If I use
> GPL'ed software, I'm required to give my client the software under the
> GPL (or, as you point out, a GPL-compatible license). I never bother -
> I hand them a tarball and installation instructions and they ins
Mike Meyer wrote:
> Heiko Wundram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>I've asked TrollTech more than once for their stance on this, and each time
>>they have told me that it's illegal for me to develop an inhouse
>>application (such as a frontend to some webapp I've written that's only
>>used by us an
Mike Meyer wrote:
>> So is putting that program behind a web server and letting others
>>execute it.
>
> That's pretty clearly a public performance. One has to wonder whether
> or not the exemption for program execution would apply to such? Of
> course, in cases where it matters (i.e. - I provide
Mike Meyer wrote:
> I can't see how they could *require* you to release the code. The GPL
> certainly doesn't (or didn't) require that. Possibly they have a
> GPL-compatible license that adds that requirement.
See my additional comment on why our management thinks this is bad even when
I only use
Heiko Wundram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've asked TrollTech more than once for their stance on this, and each time
> they have told me that it's illegal for me to develop an inhouse
> application (such as a frontend to some webapp I've written that's only
> used by us and will never ever be gi
Heiko Wundram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Heiko Wundram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> The stance the FSF (and it's lawyers) take on this is that it is illegal
>>> to dynamically link applications that are not under a GPL-compatible
>>> license to GPL works
>> I doubt that, because it's simply
On 2006-01-04, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So is putting that program behind a web server and letting
>> others execute it.
>
> That's pretty clearly a public performance. One has to wonder
> whether or not the exemption for program execution would apply
> to such?
I don't think it n
Peter Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>> I believe there is precedent that contradicts the FSF's
>> position. There are two arguments against it:
>> ...
>> 2) Executing a program is analogous to a performance of the software.
>>Copyright includes limits on performances, s
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unfortunately, we've also signed an extremely one-sided pro-USA so-called
> "Free Trade Agreement" which forces onto us a whole slew of really bad
> Intellectual Property Laws, as well as hamstringing our nation's ability
> to govern ourselves. With cop
Mike Meyer wrote:
> I believe there is precedent that contradicts the FSF's
> position. There are two arguments against it:
> ...
> 2) Executing a program is analogous to a performance of the software.
>Copyright includes limits on performances, so the copyright holder
>can place limits on
On 2006-01-04, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Personally, I agree with the FSF - if own a copy of a program,
>> executing it should be fair use. Without that, then there's no
>> point in obtaining software - you have to get the copyright
>> holders permission to execute the stuff an
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Mike Meyer wrote:
> Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It is interesting to note that the FSF holds the position that the
>> language that "gives you this right" *doesn't* -- it just clarifies the
>> fact that you already hold that right, because it is provided by
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:57:58 +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
>
>
>>Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>In particular:
>>>
>>>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
>>>
>>>[quote]
>>>
>>>Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
>>>
Heiko Wundram wrote:
> ..., unless I convince the
> people at my univ to _release_ the code I've written under a
> GPL-compatible open source license itself.
The can of worms in this is basically that management at my uni doesn't want
employees to take the software home and release it there, which
Ernst Noch wrote:
> Heiko Wundram wrote:
>> Terry Hancock wrote:
>>>Given that Google has been using this fact extensively, and
>>>they have not been sued over it, I think it's a fairly
>>>clearly established interpretation, whether it is popular or
>>>not (but of course it's not a legal precedent
Heiko Wundram wrote:
> Terry Hancock wrote:
>
>>Given that Google has been using this fact extensively, and
>>they have not been sued over it, I think it's a fairly
>>clearly established interpretation, whether it is popular or
>>not (but of course it's not a legal precedent until somebody
>>does
On Wednesday 04 January 2006 9:18 am, Heiko Wundram wrote:
> Terry Hancock wrote:
> > Given that Google has been using this fact extensively, and
> > they have not been sued over it, I think it's a fairly
> > clearly established interpretation, whether it is popular or
> > not (but of course it's n
Heiko Wundram wrote:
> This is not what the general interpretation of the GPL seems to be with
> TrollTech and several other companies. They specifically state that even
> when you develop inhouse software with GPL-libraries (Qt in the former
> case), you are required to release the code of the app
Terry Hancock wrote:
> Given that Google has been using this fact extensively, and
> they have not been sued over it, I think it's a fairly
> clearly established interpretation, whether it is popular or
> not (but of course it's not a legal precedent until somebody
> does sue and loses).
This is n
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as I know, US copyright law does not give an exemption for
> temporary copies in working memory (although I could be wrong about that).
> Here in Australia, our government (for once getting it right!)
> *explicitly* gives such an exemption to our
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:26:43 +0100
Heiko Wundram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're nitpicking here, if I may say so. Of course, if you
> create the derivative work inside your head, you're not
> going to distribute it and as such the GPL distribution
> clauses don't apply. But: as soon as you wri
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) Executing software involves several copy operations. Each of those
> potentially violate the copyright, and hence the copyright holder
> can restrict execution of a program.
#include
In the U.S. at least, there's a specific statute *exempting* the r
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:59:34 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
> I believe there is precedent that contradicts the FSF's
> position. There are two arguments against it:
>
> 1) Executing software involves several copy operations. Each of those
>potentially violate the copyright, and hence the copyright
Mike Meyer wrote:
> Heiko Wundram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The stance the FSF (and it's lawyers) take on this is that it is illegal
>> to dynamically link applications that are not under a GPL-compatible
>> license to GPL works
>
> I doubt that, because it's simply not true. I can use GPL'ed
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:57:58 +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In particular:
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
>>
>> [quote]
>>
>> Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
>> that any program which uses it ha
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:48:12 -0500
> It is interesting to note that the FSF holds the position
> that the language that "gives you this right" *doesn't* --
> it just clarifies the fact that you already hold that right,
> because it is provided by "fair us
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:48:12 -0500
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you want to know the intent of the authors, that is
> that libraries covered by the GPL would infect programs
> they are linked with, whether it's dynamically or
> statically. The Library (now Lesser) GPL was created to t
Mike Meyer wrote:
.> Note that I'm *not* interpreting the GPL. I'm interpreting what the
> FSF says about the GPL. If the goal is to avoid a lawsuit, the latter
> is what you have to pay attention to, as they're telling you what
> actions you can take without getting sued. The text comes into play
Mike Meyer wrote:
.> Note that I'm *not* interpreting the GPL. I'm interpreting what the
> FSF says about the GPL. If the goal is to avoid a lawsuit, the latter
> is what you have to pay attention to, as they're telling you what
> actions you can take without getting sued. The text comes into play
Mike Meyer wrote:
.> Note that I'm *not* interpreting the GPL. I'm interpreting what the
> FSF says about the GPL. If the goal is to avoid a lawsuit, the latter
> is what you have to pay attention to, as they're telling you what
> actions you can take without getting sued. The text comes into play
Tim Churches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In particular:
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
>> [quote]
>> Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
>> that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
>> A
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In particular:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
>
> [quote]
>
> Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
> that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
>
> A: Yes, because the program as it is a
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But in that case, you're going to need a real lawyer, so you might as
> well talk to one beforehand, and only try what they think you have a
> chance of getting in court.
This is excellent advice. We did, in fact, talk to a real lawyer, and paid him
real mo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Björn Lindström) writes:
> Tim Churches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Which section(s) of the GPL say(s) that, exactly? I mean, where is
>> dynamic linking mentioned, or even implied? I can see where it says
>> "derived from", but not where it says "dependent on at run-time".
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:36:31 -0800, Michel Sanner wrote:
> Hello,
>
> One of the greatest feature of Python in my opinion is the way the
> interpreter can be used to integrate a wide variety of
> software packages by dynamically linking them. This approach has been
> extremely successful for u
Peter Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>> What I *can't* do is distribute it (or work derived from it, etc.)
>> unless the entire work being distributed is under the GPL (unless the
>> license has changed recently, *not* a GPL-compatible license, but the
>> GPL itself), and me
Tim Churches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which section(s) of the GPL say(s) that, exactly? I mean, where is
> dynamic linking mentioned, or even implied? I can see where it says
> "derived from", but not where it says "dependent on at run-time".
It's in the interpretation of the term "derived f
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In
> particular, if I distribute an application that has to be dynamically
> linked with a GPL'ed library to run, I need to distribute my
> application under the terms of the GPL.
Mike,
Which section(s) of the GPL say(s) that, exactly? I mean, where is dyna
Michel Sanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the greatest feature of Python in my opinion is the way the
> interpreter can be used to integrate a wide variety of
> software packages by dynamically linking them. This approach has been
> extremely successful for us so far but now I run
> into
Mike Meyer wrote:
> What I *can't* do is distribute it (or work derived from it, etc.)
> unless the entire work being distributed is under the GPL (unless the
> license has changed recently, *not* a GPL-compatible license, but the
> GPL itself), and meets the requirements of the that license. In
>
Heiko Wundram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The stance the FSF (and it's lawyers) take on this is that it is illegal to
> dynamically link applications that are not under a GPL-compatible license
> to GPL works
I doubt that, because it's simply not true. I can use GPL'ed code any
way I want to - t
Michel Sanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One of the greatest feature of Python in my opinion is the way the
> interpreter can be used to integrate a wide variety of
> software packages by dynamically linking them. This approach has been
> extremely successful for us so far but now I run
> into
Michel Sanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A google search about GPL and dynamic linking came up with an equal
> number of pages saying that dynamic linking of GPL
> code into non GPL applications is allowed as it is the end user who
> cretes the derived work, as pages saying the opposite ! So doe
Michel Sanner wrote:
> A google search about GPL and dynamic linking came up with an equal
> number of pages saying that dynamic linking of GPL
> code into non GPL applications is allowed as it is the end user who
> cretes the derived work, as pages saying the opposite !
> So does anyone know what
Michel Sanner wrote:
> Hello,
>
> One of the greatest feature of Python in my opinion is the way the
> interpreter can be used to integrate a wide variety of
> software packages by dynamically linking them. This approach has been
> extremely successful for us so far but now I run
> into a licen
51 matches
Mail list logo
