conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review

[Matthew Garrett]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 08:59:45PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> On 8/3/07, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...> wrote:
> > The FSF argument is that Totem is a derivative of gstreamer. The LGPL
> > would then require Totem to be under restrictions that are not present
> > in the GPL.
>
> Eh? I thought that *Lesser* GPL is about "additional permissions"
> (needed in the GNU Republic for linking) not restrictions...

For instance, you can't take advantage of GPL 3(c) while also satisfying
the LGPL (referring to GPL 2.0 and LGPL 2.1, because those are the ones
I'm familiar with). While the LGPL does provide extra permissions, the
permissions it provides do not appear to be a complete superset of those
provided by the GPL.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...

[Alexander Terekhov-3]

On 8/3/07, Ben Tilly <btilly@...> wrote:

[... Wallace case and Easterbrook's opinion ...]

> > "The GPL covers only the software; people are free to charge for the
> > physical media on
> > which it comes and for assistance in making it work. Paper manuals,
> > and the time of knowledgeable people who service and support an
> > installation, thus are the most expensive part of using Linux."
> >
> > Got it now?
>
> Yes.  I got it.  You're confusing common practice with legal requirements.

Heck, the case was about restriction on IP licensing fees, not price
of copies (material objects in which GPL'd work is fixed). Is it
really that hard to grasp?

regards,
alexander.

[Matthew Flaschen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> On 8/3/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@...> wrote:
> [...]
>>> If that's not enough, just let Welte know about the problem - I
>>> suspect he is already fed up with getting funny judgments
>> Funnily enough, he got just the judgment he wanted and expected.
>
> Really? <Googling...> Ha! Can't wait to enjoy reading the judgment.

Of course, I was discussing the D-Link judgment before, same as you.

> "Skype is surprised by the recent decision and believes that it has
> not acted improperly. At this time, we cannot comment further because
> Skype is considering its options in relation to appealing this
> regional judgment."

To me, that makes it sound like Skype lost, not Welte.  That's probably
why they're appealing the judgment.  If your point is, "The Skype ruling
isn't final yet" that much is obvious.

> (Oddly, http://www.gpl-violations.org/ says nothing about event, nor
> does http://gnumonks.org/~laforge/weblog/).

He hasn't yet published the results (this may have something to do with
him being very busy with OpenMoko).  That doesn't make them invalid.

Matt Flaschen

[Alexander Terekhov-3]

On 8/4/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@...> wrote:

[... It's a Small Welte After All ...]

> He hasn't yet published the results (this may have something to do with
> him being very busy with OpenMoko).

Indeed. Just read his latest blog entry...

"... The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated. ..."

went into my netnews/usenet sigfile. I blog there. :-)

regards,
alexander.