Qua, 2006-06-21 às 23:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Qua, 2006-06-21 Ã s 22:24 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Try explaining what's wrong with Wallace's argument on injury. Can you?
Where's WallaceOS? Where can I buy it? Where can I
Qui, 2006-06-22 às 01:26 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Many contracts don't require signing. Google manifestation of assent.
One accepts the GPL contract by exercising exclusive right(s) granted
under it.
But the GNU GPL is a Copyright *license* not a contract.
*licenses* are bound by
Qui, 2006-06-22 às 07:54 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra escreveu:
Qua, 2006-06-21 às 23:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Qua, 2006-06-21 Ã s 22:24 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Try explaining what's wrong with Wallace's argument on injury.
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Then there is no predatory pricing since RedHat is not selling below
cost at all.
RedHat sells support, delivery, and maintenance contracts
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Why doesn't Daniel attack OpenBSD? Or Dragonfly BSD? Or FreeBSD?
He doesn't attack the BSD because the BSD license terms don't contain
any price-fixing provisions.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Qui, 2006-06-22 Ã s 01:26 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Many contracts don't require signing. Google manifestation of assent.
One accepts the GPL contract by exercising exclusive right(s) granted
under it.
But the GNU GPL is a Copyright *license*
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Qui, 2006-06-22 Ã s 01:26 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Many contracts don't require signing. Google manifestation of assent.
One accepts the GPL contract by exercising exclusive right(s) granted
under it.
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
telnet www.danwal.com 80
Now try telephone.
This is so going to convince a court that Wallace actually attempts to
sell something.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
I don't see anything like RedHat IP -- $0 listed on their page. In
You can't find the GPL (IP -- $0) and all sort of GPL'd stuff on their
page? Very interesting.
fact, they retain their IP and don't give their copyright away. They
Outright transfers of title in
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Qui, 2006-06-22 Ã s 01:26 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Many contracts don't require signing. Google manifestation of assent.
One accepts the GPL contract by exercising
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Why doesn't Daniel attack OpenBSD? Or Dragonfly BSD? Or FreeBSD?
He doesn't attack the BSD because the BSD license terms don't contain
any price-fixing provisions.
But they
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Why doesn't Daniel attack OpenBSD? Or Dragonfly BSD? Or FreeBSD?
He doesn't attack the BSD because the BSD license terms don't
contain any price-fixing provisions.
Neither does the GNU GPL; infact, it contains terms that protect the
right to charge a
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
I don't see anything like RedHat IP -- $0 listed on their page. In
You can't find the GPL (IP -- $0) and all sort of GPL'd stuff on their
page? Very interesting.
fact, they retain their IP and don't give their
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Why doesn't Daniel attack OpenBSD? Or Dragonfly BSD? Or FreeBSD?
He doesn't attack the BSD because the BSD license terms don't
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
And once again you attempt to misinterpret Wallace's case.
Well, he _has_ no case, remember? That's what the court finally rules
Both courts ruled (and erred) on the issue of injury (standing). It's
the same legal situation as with a case asserting patent
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
And once again you attempt to misinterpret Wallace's case.
Well, he _has_ no case, remember? That's what the court finally rules
Both courts ruled (and erred) on the issue of injury (standing).
Of course, everyone
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But RedHat does not sell its copyright, it merely licenses copies of
RedHat licenses IP rights in (GPL'd) WORKS. RedHat doesn't licenses
copies (of GPL'd works).
the copyrighted material. The intangible intellectual property
assets remain in the possession of
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But licenses are bound to particular physical copies. This is the
The GPL license is bound to intangible WORK, not particular
physical copies. Stupid.
Oh, back against the wall so soon again? I am afraid you are wrong
here. If you weren't, there could be
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But RedHat does not sell its copyright, it merely licenses copies of
RedHat licenses IP rights in (GPL'd) WORKS. RedHat doesn't licenses
copies (of GPL'd works).
the copyrighted material. The intangible intellectual
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
And you just keep misinterpreting his case and persistently fail to
address his arguments.
We all are misinterpreting his case, including the judges.
Judges can err. Well, Judge Tinder actually performed not entirely bad
before he got drunk. As for you,
Qui, 2006-06-22 às 15:29 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
To quote Hollaar (http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal.computing/msg/3cf3e9ee08d2837b
A quote which does nothing to establish the
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
telnet www.danwal.com 80
Now try telephone.
This is so going to convince a court that Wallace actually attempts to
sell something.
Defendants in the Wallace's case have all
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
telnet www.danwal.com 80
Now try telephone.
This is so going to convince a court that Wallace actually attempts
to sell
Qui, 2006-06-22 às 17:04 +0200, David Kastrup escreveu:
There is sort of a point though: compliance with the terms of a
license is legally held to similar standards as compliance with
contractual terms. But that's about it.
One of the main differences is that you can't do away with individual
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
One does not plead facts.
Uh. Try googling plead facts.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Qui, 2006-06-22 Ã s 15:29 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
To quote Hollaar (http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal.computing/msg/3cf3e9ee08d2837b
A
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
One does not plead facts.
Uh. Try googling plead facts.
Try googling GPL FAQ.
And what's your point? The phrase plead facts is used by courts.
It's legal concept. The GPL FAQ is
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
One does not plead facts.
Uh. Try googling plead facts.
Try googling GPL FAQ.
And what's your point? The phrase plead facts is used by
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... fantasies a la signifying acceptance and accepting are two
different things and compliance with the terms of a license is
legally held to similar standards as compliance with contractual
terms. But that's about it. in
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
One does not plead facts.
Uh. Try googling plead facts.
Try googling GPL FAQ.
And what's your point?
On 2006-06-22, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are talking about a license agreement here, like when somebody
clicks I agree. There is no such process for the GPL.
Then why does the GPL article 5 say:
Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work
based
Merijn de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2006-06-22, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are talking about a license agreement here, like when somebody
clicks I agree. There is no such process for the GPL.
Then why does the GPL article 5 say:
Therefore, by modifying or
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
In re: Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th Cir. 2003)
(âIf a breach of contract (and a copyright license is just a type of
contract) . . . â); see also McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d
917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That sure looks to me like a mechanism to derive acceptance
of the GPL.
Not really. You can't sue people to accept the license. You can only
sue them to heed it.
Only if you can establish acceptance. (And the courts won't enforce
unlawful contracts --
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
Qui, 2006-06-22 Ã s 15:29 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
[garbage]
I guess a chicken understands law better...
But a chicken wouldn't be able to type as fast.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
Qui, 2006-06-22 às 19:38 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That sure looks to me like a mechanism to derive acceptance
of the GPL.
Not really. You can't sue people to accept the license. You can only
sue them to heed it.
Only if you can establish
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That sure looks to me like a mechanism to derive acceptance
of the GPL.
Not really. You can't sue people to accept the license. You can only
sue them to heed it.
Only if you can establish acceptance.
No, that
On 2006-06-22, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Merijn de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work
based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this
License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Acceptance...
Only the GNU GPL authorizes the right to make copies and
distribute them. If you do not accept the terms you can't
distribute them because copyright forbids it.
Unlawful contracts...
The GNU GPL is not a
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
to say your honor, I plead not accepting the license, thus am not
bound to its conditions, and would prefer to be tried in criminal
court for copyright violation than here for breach of license?
*Breach* of IP license is a contract claim, idiot. The binding
things
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
Why not? The above *says* that modifying or distribution is
acceptance of the license. Or do you mean, you don't have to
agree with that statement either?
As Hollaar (http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html)
noted, you don't have to agree with that
On 2006-06-22, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bwahahahah. You're hopeless. BTW, you seem to forgot that Professor Dr.
Thomas Hoeren (Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute) is
Appellate Judge (Court of Appeal of Dusseldorf, Copyright Senate).
And since when is a
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
On 2006-06-22, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bwahahahah. You're hopeless. BTW, you seem to forgot that Professor Dr.
Thomas Hoeren (Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute) is
Appellate Judge (Court of Appeal of Dusseldorf, Copyright Senate).
43 matches
Mail list logo
