Arich Chanachai wrote:
I have never seen a commercial license for a library
which stated that you did not have to pay the license fee until you have
made that much money in sales from the software which you created, in
part, from that library. I would be in favor of such a license, but I
Jeremy Bowers wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:45:09 -0800, Robert Kern wrote:
Until such matters are unequivocally determined in a court that has
jurisdiction over you, do you really want to open yourself to legal risk
and certain ill-will from the community?
Huh? What are you talking about?
I'm
Jeremy Bowers wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:24:22 +0100, Damjan wrote:
What you described is not ok according to the GPL - since you distributed
a binary thats derived from GPL software (and you didn't publish it source
code under the GPL too).
No you didn't. You distributed a binary completely
Robert Kern wrote:
Arich Chanachai wrote:
I have never seen a commercial license for a library
which stated that you did not have to pay the license fee until you
have made that much money in sales from the software which you
created, in part, from that library. I would be in favor of such a
Jorge Luiz Godoy Filho wrote:
Max M wrote:
GPL is not suitable for all kinds of software. It's nice if you are
sharing code with others, but if you are developing something like a
desktop application that you want to sell for money, using the GPL is a
bad idea.
If you're earning money, why
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:45:09 -0800, Robert Kern wrote:
Until such matters are unequivocally determined in a court that has
jurisdiction over you, do you really want to open yourself to legal risk
and certain ill-will from the community?
Huh? What are you talking about?
I'm just pointing out
You can distribute GPL'ed code in binary form, you just have to make
the sources available as well. And, yes I would use this as a test:
if your program needs gpl-ed code for some of it's functionality, you
have to licence your program according to the GPL - unless you
distribute the GPL'ed
Josef Dalcolmo wrote:
You can distribute GPL'ed code in binary form, you just have to make
the sources available as well. And, yes I would use this as a test:
if your program needs gpl-ed code for some of it's functionality, you
have to licence your program according to the GPL - unless you
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:57:47 +0100, Josef Dalcolmo wrote:
You can distribute GPL'ed code in binary form, you just have to make the
sources available as well. And, yes I would use this as a test: if your
program needs gpl-ed code for some of it's functionality, you have to
licence your program
The problem with this is what I've called the patch hole in another
context [1]. The problem with this definition is that I can *always*
distribute GPL'ed parts separately and re-combine them arbitrarily upon
execution, and it's not even particularly hard. Write your code with the
GPL'ed code
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:24:22 +0100, Damjan wrote:
What you described is not ok according to the GPL - since you distributed
a binary thats derived from GPL software (and you didn't publish it source
code under the GPL too).
No you didn't. You distributed a binary completely free of any GPL
Max M wrote:
GPL is not suitable for all kinds of software. It's nice if you are
sharing code with others, but if you are developing something like a
desktop application that you want to sell for money, using the GPL is a
bad idea.
If you're earning money, why not pay for the libraries that
Alex Martelli wrote:
Dennis Lee Bieber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hassle to code, but if your application could dynamically select from
whatever toolkit is available on the machine, you (and I should emphasis
that this is an impersonal/generic you I reference) might be able to
argue an exemption
Jeremy Bowers schreef:
Copyright-based models can't handle modern computer programs,
Most countries have computer program specific parts in their copyright
laws...
--
JanC
Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving.
RFC 1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet - section 3.9
Francis Girard schreef:
Did some law court, over the past
decade, had to make a decision about GPL on some real issue ?
netfilter vs. Sitecom ?
--
JanC
Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving.
RFC 1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet - section 3.9
--
Title: RE: Big development in the GUI realm
[Carlos Ribeiro]
#- 'onegui' to rule them all...
I would really love to use a GUI made by elves...
. Facundo
Bitácora De Vuelo: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog
PyAr - Python Argentina: http://pyar.decode.com.ar
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:56:44 -0800, Courageous [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
OK, so according to Linus, the GPL allows
No. Pay attention. Linus has his own revised version, to clarify
this point, and in fact /overruling/ the GPL if the point is
clarified differently by RMS or others.
That's
It should also be pointed out that the FSF's interpretation of the GPL
with respect to Qt means absolutely zero.
Indeed. It would be the court that would have to decide what the
language of the GPL means, given the substantial body of case
law as the court sees it.
... but it establishes that
Luke Skywalker wrote:
OK, so according to Linus, the GPL allows a proprietary program to
make calls to the kernel,
As I understand things, it's not the GPL which allows
this, it's Linus himself who allows it. If Linus
hadn't explicitly said that, the GPL might be interpreted
as disallowing it.
--
Damjan wrote:
For all you GUI developers, things just got a little more
interesting.
Trolltech will soon be offering the QT GUI toolkit for Windows
under
the GPL license. That means that PyQt may become a much more
popular
option in the near future.
This applies to QT-4 only.
I wonder
Courageous [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It should also be pointed out that the FSF's interpretation of the GPL
with respect to Qt means absolutely zero.
Indeed. It would be the court that would have to decide what the
language of the GPL means, given the substantial body of case
law as the
Francis Girard wrote:
[I wrote:]
In any case, he may be right, and the FSF, Trolltech, and you could all
be wrong. Your intention when you use the GPL may be moot if a judge
determines that the text itself and copyright law does not support your
interpretation.
I'm sorry to jump into this thread
Robert Kern wrote:
Believe me, I share your frustration every time this issue comes up. However,
I think it's best to
follow Robert Heinlein's maxim:
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.
that's Hanlon, not Heinlein. to be on the safe side, I won't
Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] said :
that's Hanlon, not Heinlein. to be on the safe side, I won't attempt
to attribute your mistake to anything.
Fair enough. The only time I've seen it in dead-tree print was in
Heinlein's _Time Enough For Love_, unattributed to anyone else.
Googlespace
Robert Kern wrote:
Fair enough. The only time I've seen it in dead-tree print was in Heinlein's
_Time Enough For
Love_, unattributed to anyone else.
if that's true, it would seem that it predates the Hanlon reference by a
couple of years:
http://www.statusq.org/archives/2001/12/04
on
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:01:51 +0100, Fredrik Lundh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
except that if *you* set things up so the code is combined when run, *you* are
copying, distributing, and/or modifying the program in order to mix, include
and/or
combine your work with the GPL:ed work.
if you leave all
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
Fair enough. The only time I've seen it in dead-tree print was in Heinlein's _Time Enough For
Love_, unattributed to anyone else.
Amazon.com search inside the book finds no hits for malice in this book.
users. For example, from their FAQ, it seems that no precompiled
binaries will be provided. Support for comercial compilers will not be
built in, only for gcc (through Cygwin?).
Isn't this just the same thing with a different spin. There was always
an available distribution for linux
Tim Churches wrote:
except that if *you* set things up so the code is combined when run, *you* are
copying, distributing, and/or modifying the program in order to mix, include
and/or
combine your work with the GPL:ed work.
if you leave all that to the user, you're clear.
Yes, that is what I,
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 19:55:01 +0100, Maciej Mrz wrote:
Unfortunately, GPL faq is extremely vague on such border cases, instead
of simple yes/no answers faq is filled with some advocacy talks ...
To re-iterate a point I made on a thread last week, nobody really knows
what the GPL says and means
However, imagine simple situation:
1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
GPL-ed code.
2. Later someone writes plugin using the api (which is public domain so
is GPL compatible), plugin gets
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Tim Churches wrote:
except that if *you* set things up so the code is combined when run, *you* are
copying, distributing, and/or modifying the program in order to mix, include
and/or
combine your work with the GPL:ed work.
if you leave all that to the user, you're clear.
Maciej Mróz wrote:
However, imagine simple situation:
1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
GPL-ed code.
2. Later someone writes plugin using the api (which is public domain so
is GPL
However, imagine simple situation:
1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
GPL-ed code.
No need to continue. You write something that uses a plugin, Eolas
sues you. Don't have to mind about
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 09:19:58PM -0200, Gabriel B. wrote:
However, imagine simple situation:
1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
GPL-ed code.
No need to continue. You write
Kent Johnson wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
Fair enough. The only time I've seen it in dead-tree print was in
Heinlein's _Time Enough For Love_, unattributed to anyone else.
Amazon.com search inside the book finds no hits for malice in this
book.
For all you GUI developers, things just got a little more interesting.
Trolltech will soon be offering the QT GUI toolkit for Windows under
the GPL license. That means that PyQt may become a much more popular
option in the near future. Unfortunately, some things available for
the commercial
On Monday 07 February 2005 17:52, RM wrote:
For all you GUI developers, things just got a little more interesting.
Trolltech will soon be offering the QT GUI toolkit for Windows under
the GPL license. That means that PyQt may become a much more popular
option in the near future.
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 19:41:11 +0100, Fredrik Lundh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I totally off-target?
yes. for details, see the Combining work with code released under the
GPL section on this page:
Mmmm.. The FAQ isn't very clear about whether it's allowed to write a
proprietary EXE that calls a
Luke Skywalker wrote:
Considering the fact that the Qt DLL exist by themselves, that the
version used is the one provided by Qt, and that the EXE uses a
standard, open way to communicate with it, the above does seem to say
this use would be valid.
On 2005-02-07, Luke Skywalker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 19:41:11 +0100, Fredrik Lundh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I totally off-target?
yes. for details, see the Combining work with code released under the
GPL section on this page:
Mmmm.. The FAQ isn't very clear about
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Luke Skywalker wrote:
Considering the fact that the Qt DLL exist by themselves, that the
version used is the one provided by Qt, and that the EXE uses a
standard, open way to communicate with it, the above does seem to say
this use would be valid.
For all you GUI developers, things just got a little more interesting.
Trolltech will soon be offering the QT GUI toolkit for Windows under
the GPL license. That means that PyQt may become a much more popular
option in the near future.
This applies to QT-4 only.
I wonder how much of PyQT
Luke Skywalker wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:30:18 +0100, Michael Goettsche.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not 100% right. Only drivers for commercial databases will not be included,
mysql and co. are available.
What I find weird, is that I always understood the GPL meaning that
you must give back any
RM wrote:
For all you GUI developers, things just got a little more interesting.
Trolltech will soon be offering the QT GUI toolkit for Windows under
the GPL license. That means that PyQt may become a much more popular
option in the near future. Unfortunately, some things available for
the
Is there a GPL for Dummies out there??? :-)
Sorry if I am asking a question that has already been asked/answered in
another form.
In any case, let's say I use Python to create an application that uses
some module that is GPL. So what are my options?
1. Distribute my app as closed source but with
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 07:57:51 +1100, Tim Churches
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus, it seems to me, and to the expert legal advice which we sought
(note the scope of the advice was Australian law only) that provided no
GLPed source or object code is mixed, included or combined with
non-GPLed code,
Tim Churches wrote:
Thus, it seems to me, and to the expert legal advice which we sought (note
the scope of the advice
was Australian law only) that provided no GLPed source or object code is
mixed, included or
combined with non-GPLed code
and how exactly are you going to load a DLL
Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Churches wrote:
Thus, it seems to me, and to the expert legal advice which we sought
(note the scope of the advice
was Australian law only) that provided no GLPed source or object code
is mixed, included or
combined with non-GPLed code
Isn't this just the same thing with a different spin. There was always
an available distribution for linux for non-commercial use. Windows was
always the problem. You still can't use it for windows without knowing
how to compile the thing on windows.
There'll be people that know how to
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:47:25 +1100, Tim Churches
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So there you have it: there must be some portion of the GPLed Program
contained in
the other work for it to fall under the scope of the GPL, and/or as defined as
a
derivative work in local copyright law (local because
Luke Skywalker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:47:25 +1100, Tim Churches
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So there you have it: there must be some portion of the GPLed Program
contained in
the other work for it to fall under the scope of the GPL, and/or as
defined as a
Kartic schreef:
In any case, let's say I use Python to create an application that uses
some module that is GPL. So what are my options?
For your own personal use: doesn't mather.
If you want to distribute it, your application must be GPL'ed, so *all*
source code must be made available for
If dynamic, then, it doesn't make sense that an EXE that builds on Qt
should also be GPLed.
I'm hoping you're referring to the owners choice of license. For example,
if someone, owning rights to a thing that was a dynamic library, decided
to have a license akin to the GPL, it would easily
Luke Skywalker wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:47:25 +1100, Tim Churches
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So there you have it: there must be some portion of the GPLed Program contained in
the other work for it to fall under the scope of the GPL, and/or as defined as a
derivative work in local copyright
Luke Skywalker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:47:30 -0800, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Now, that's not to say that they are correct in their interpretation
of
the GPL's terms. In fact, if I had to bet on an outcome, I'd probably
wager that the court would hold
On 2005-02-08, Luke Skywalker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, that's not to say that they are correct in their
interpretation of the GPL's terms. In fact, if I had to bet on
an outcome, I'd probably wager that the court would hold that
only static linking would force the program as a whole to
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:24:35 +1100, Tim Churches
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
: services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
: of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of derived work.
OK, so
Luke Skywalker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:24:35 +1100, Tim Churches
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
: services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal
use
: of the kernel, and does *not*
On 2005-02-08, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
Spare us your clueless, junior-high legal analyses
[etc.]
Hey! There's no need for name-calling. This is a tricky legal area that
can be very confusing even to the most legal-minded of us. While I think
Luke is
Grant Edwards wrote:
Sorry if I was a bit blunt, but I'm sick of people trying to
weasle their way around a license by creative interpretation of
the license terms when the licensors made their intentions as
clear as possible.
Believe me, I share your frustration every time this issue comes up.
OK, so according to Linus, the GPL allows
No. Pay attention. Linus has his own revised version, to clarify
this point, and in fact /overruling/ the GPL if the point is
clarified differently by RMS or others.
That's the right of their community, it's /their/ code.
make calls to the kernel,
62 matches
Mail list logo
