8:41 p.m.
Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> writes:
On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 08:52:32PM +0200, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Why would that be illegal, if the CD contains the XEmacs sources? Or,
> do you mean that the CD should contain the sources to InstallShield --
> which would be ridiculous, because it's impossible to achieve!
OK, this "impossible to achieve" was the wrong argument. What I
really meant was:
The GPL'ed code we are distributing is XEmacs itself, accompanied by
all the sources. If I understand correctly what this InstallShield
thing is, then it has nothing to do with XEmacs -- it's just yet
another installation tool. Having it on the same CD as XEmacs well
falls into the "mere aggregation" clause:
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on
a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the
other work under the scope of this License.
The important thing is: InstallShield is **not** required to get a
fully workable version of XEmacs. It's all that matters.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Unspeakable horrors from outer space paralyze the living and
resurrect the dead!
9:22 p.m.
New subject: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs ... ]
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> wrote:
The GPL'ed code we are distributing is XEmacs itself, accompanied
by
all the sources. If I understand correctly what this InstallShield
thing is, then it has nothing to do with XEmacs -- it's just yet
another installation tool. Having it on the same CD as XEmacs well
falls into the "mere aggregation" clause:
Frankly, I'd love to be wrong, but I don't see how InstallShield
falls into the "mere aggregation" clause. The problem is the clause:
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole
which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the
whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions
for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each
and every part regardless of who wrote it.
If InstallShield is used, the XEmacs distribution is mutated into one of
two forms:
1. The XEmacs distribution is repackaged and compressed into a
"proprietary" format. While you might be able to call this "mere
aggregation", I think this is stretching the point, as XEmacs is not
in a form that is not easily separated from InstallShield. It can be
done (using other, proprietary, tools), but it is not simple.
2. The XEmacs distribution is repackaged into a single, large
executable, which also contains large parts from InstallShield. This
is the most useful form (just run the executable to install XEmacs),
but I have difficulty conceiving this as an "aggregation". Yes,
there is a precedent in self-extracting executables, but this is more
than just a self-extracting executable. I think of this as a "work
as a whole".
The important thing is: InstallShield is **not** required to get a
fully workable version of XEmacs. It's all that matters.
I really hope you're right.
-- Darryl Okahata
Internet: darrylo(a)sr.hp.com
DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Hewlett-Packard, or of the
little green men that have been following him all day.
11:37 p.m.
New subject: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs ... ]
Some time ago, Hrvoje Niksic wrote...
|+
| The GPL'ed code we are distributing is XEmacs itself, accompanied by
| all the sources. If I understand correctly what this InstallShield
| thing is, then it has nothing to do with XEmacs -- it's just yet
| another installation tool. Having it on the same CD as XEmacs well
| falls into the "mere aggregation" clause:
|
| In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
| Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on
| a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the
| other work under the scope of this License.
|-
Ok, which components have to be GPLed then, in the case you install
and run XEmacs on your system:
1. FTP server sources from which you download XEmacs.
2. File system and network drivers used to transfer it (i.e.
is XEmacs "aggregated" into the file system?)
3. FTP proxy code at the interrnet provider side, if access goes
through the proxy.
4. Cisco and others router sofrware.
5. FTP client sources.
6. Filesystem drivers on the targer os
7. Hard disk and controller firmware, for the same reason.
If installshiled "Contains" XEmacs files, as long as installation
files, it has all the characterisics of the filesystem. If we or
lawyers or I do not know who will come to a conclusion that "containment"
of XEmacs, alogin whith non-free installation helper programs in a
non-free "entity" is illegal, then, sadly, the only way to store XEmacs
will be on a free OS, with free filesystem, and free hard firmware. The
latest hardly achievable, so pusjes XEmacs out of this universe.
To run it, we'll need free firmware of all hardware components used.
So, "containment" of XEmacs within a file system directorty is as
legal (or as illegal) as within an installshiled executable.
The concept of "containment" is not in GPL. This is not an
"aggregation",
nor "derivative work".
Kirill
1:33 a.m.
New subject: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs ... ]
On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 02:37:18AM +0400, Kirill M. Katsnelson wrote:
The concept of "containment" is not in GPL. This is not an
"aggregation",
nor "derivative work".
If this is true[1] then the license does not gave you any special
right and given copyright law you're simply not allowed to
redistribute.
Anyway, I sent an inquiry to rms. I'll let you know his answer.
OG.
[1] IANAL.
9665
days inactive
9666
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Darryl Okahata -
Hrvoje Niksic -
Kirill M. Katsnelson -
Olivier Galibert