Timeline for Collaboration on Mathematica Work
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 9:22 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Jun 16, 2012 at 0:40 | comment | added | Oleksandr R. | @Szabolcs Finally I will just add that, unfortunately, many of the GNU FAQs on that page are legally questionable if not invalid altogether. Most of them are (it would seem) simply Richard Stallman's personal opinion, and while they might in theory have some bearing on how the GPL is meant to be interpreted, they are not based on any accepted legal principle and IMO should be ignored if you want to take the GPL seriously as a legal document. | |
| Jun 16, 2012 at 0:34 | comment | added | Oleksandr R. | @Szabolcs The above two are, however, strictly applicable to GPLv2 only; GPLv3 is to a large extent legally untested, but to my eyes it looks much more solid than GPLv2. To the extent, even, that some dispute whether documents written using GPL fonts can be released except under the GPL; see e.g. here. It's perhaps interesting that Linus Torvalds and Theodore Ts'o have both vocally come out in opposition to the FSF here--but it doesn't mean that the FSF's interpretation is invalid; just that many don't agree with it. | |
| Jun 16, 2012 at 0:28 | comment | added | Oleksandr R. | @Szabolcs this is a very interesting example; actually the situation of a GPL web server and a non-GPL web browser has been hotly debated. Unfortunately I still didn't find the post I was looking for, but it's worth noting that many attorneys disagree with the FSF here, saying that there's no principle in copyright law by which this could apply. Two of the most interesting articles on this topic are here and here. | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 10:28 | comment | added | Szabolcs | ... non-GPL web browser? Also, any plugin must communicate with the host application in some way). I am really not knowledgeable about these things, but that FAQ creates the impression that "linking" should be understood as "run in the same process". | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 10:26 | comment | added | Szabolcs | This FAQ item says that if the interpreter is under GPL, then the interpreted program does not not need to be under the GPL (we have the inverse situation actually: the program is under GPL and the interpreter is not). This FAQ item suggests that if two programs run as separate processes, then they are not considered "linked". (It doesn't say anything about the means of communication, but sure there must be a limit on that: can I connect to a GPL'd webserver with a ... | |
| Jun 7, 2012 at 16:52 | comment | added | Oleksandr R. | @celtschk: I saw this interpretation of linking given by an FSF lawyer in response to a question posted on a mailing list. I can't find the link to this post at the moment but will keep trying as I agree it is a surprising conclusion. As for the situation you mention: from my understanding this is not considered linking because code compiled with gcc need not require or otherwise interact with gcc at all after the fact. It's the fact of automated interaction that's taken to determine whether program are linked, not the specific technical mechanism by which it's achieved. | |
| Jun 6, 2012 at 22:38 | comment | added | celtschk | @OleksandrR.: Can you please give a link for evidence to your claim that a GPLed program producing output which another program parses is considered linking under the GPL? Because that's opposite to what I think is the case. As long as the output doesn't incorporate GPLed stuff (like, e.g., the output of bison), writing a file with a GPLed program and then reading it with a non-GPLed program is not prohibited. Otherwise I couldn't see how e.g. code compiled with gcc could ever be proprietary (the support libraries gcc links in have special exceptions, but the compiler itself doesn't). | |
| Apr 16, 2012 at 19:16 | vote | accept | mmorris | ||
| Apr 16, 2012 at 19:16 | vote | accept | mmorris | ||
| Apr 16, 2012 at 19:16 | |||||
| Apr 14, 2012 at 13:11 | comment | added | Oleksandr R. | @Sjoerd However, per the site terms and conditions, we're obliged to provide links to any posts here from which content (not limited to code) was used. While this may be a bit questionable in the case of content you yourself have posted or that's been licensed to you under alternative terms, it doesn't seem like a particularly onerous or unreasonable request in return for StackExchange hosting our site, given that they have to protect their own interests too. They're within their rights to disable our accounts if we don't comply, so it makes sense to do so. | |
| Apr 14, 2012 at 12:40 | comment | added | Oleksandr R. | @Sjoerd Well, I'm not a lawyer (as they say; not that it really matters as none of these licences has been tested in court anyway) so the above should be understood as just my opinion. Nonetheless, that's an easy one: the choice of licensing terms is reserved to the copyright holder. Since by posting here we grant StackExchange a licence to our work but don't actually sign over our copyright, we're free to relicense it as we wish. | |
| Apr 14, 2012 at 12:28 | history | edited | Oleksandr R. | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Clarified that using the GPL is probably technically possible, but (in my opinion) inconvenient enough not to recommend it |
| Apr 14, 2012 at 6:55 | comment | added | Sjoerd C. de Vries Mod | You obviously know a lot about this topic. So, one last question to bug you with: Can you publish code on this site (which uses the CC license) while still claiming your own license as you do in your profile? Doesn't the act of publishing here override any claims you make? | |
| Apr 14, 2012 at 2:24 | comment | added | Oleksandr R. | @Sjoerd I've just added some discussion about that in an edit. | |
| Apr 14, 2012 at 2:24 | history | edited | Oleksandr R. | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Adding some discussion of the CC-by-SA 3.0 licence used by default by StackExchange |
| Apr 13, 2012 at 20:56 | comment | added | Sjoerd C. de Vries Mod | Clap clap! A very well reasoned answer. What about SE's license? | |
| Apr 13, 2012 at 18:57 | history | answered | Oleksandr R. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |