Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The license _does_ apply.
It applies to the licensee, the company. Not its workers.
It is you who don't get it. You are saying that all companies that
have illegal copies of Windows, are not breaking the law,
Liar. I say no such thing.
since
The license _does_ apply.
It applies to the licensee, the company. Not its workers.
The workers are also the licensees.
It is you who don't get it. You are saying that all companies
that have illegal copies of Windows, are not breaking the law,
Liar. I say no such thing.
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The license _does_ apply.
It applies to the licensee, the company. Not its workers.
The workers are also the licensees.
It is you who don't get it. You are saying that all companies
that have illegal copies of Windows, are not
It is obviously a waste of my time to continue discussing anything
with you. You are obviously incapable of keeping a level headed
discussion without resorting to name calling, absurd accusations, and
lies.
No wonder why Alexander likes you enough to `unplonk' you.
David Kastrup writes:
internal use is defined in corporate laws.
It is not necessary to appeal to corporation law. The same rules apply
whether you are acting as an employee of IBM or am employee of me. An
employee is an agent and acts on behalf of and under the direction of his
employer. He
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:12:30 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The workers are also the licensees.
They are not. The company has signed the license. The employees did not
sign anything, and hence aren't licensees. For the purposes of the law,
a company is a separate entity (a
I wrote:
There is a possible loophole here, though it is, I think, of little
significance: As part of your job you gain possession of a CD of GPL (or
other Free) software. Without the knowledge or permission of your
employer you take the CD home and copy it onto a blank CD that you own.
if
The workers are also the licensees.
They are not. The company has signed the license. The employees did
not sign anything, and hence aren't licensees. For the purposes of
the law, a company is a separate entity (a legal person as
opposed to a natural person).
You are confusing
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:08:41 -0600
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The owner of the copyright might be able to as his copyright may have
been infringed. I'm assuming that he and the employer are
different. I don't think that the employer has any claim, though.
He still has his property
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:10:25 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The workers are also the licensees.
They are not. The company has signed the license. The employees did
not sign anything, and hence aren't licensees. For the purposes of
the law, a company is a
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the case of unmodified GPLed software the case is moot, because
it can be obtained from a large number of sources and has no
intrinsic value.
You can't obtain GPLed software commissioned from me before I have
finished it. Licensing the software
I wrote:
The owner of the copyright might be able to as his copyright may have
been infringed. I'm assuming that he and the employer are
different. I don't think that the employer has any claim, though.
He still has his property and has recourse under employment law for
his employee's
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:09:08 +0100
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the case of unmodified GPLed software the case is moot, because
it can be obtained from a large number of sources and has no
intrinsic value.
You can't obtain GPLed
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 02:10:10 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The license _does_ apply. It is you who don't get it. You are saying
that all companies that have illegal copies of Windows, are not
breaking the law, since they are `for internal use' and no rules
apply.
No one
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:03:42 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What user? I am the only one who uses this computer? I'm not
putting any restrictions on anyone. Are you suggesting that you
are free to drop by and help yourself to GPL software on my
computer?
David Kastrup wrote: (to uber GNUtian ams)
[...]
Do you even remember what you try to be arguing about?
Property is theft.
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
GNUtian logic in action.
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
[...]
You can combine software to create both a plain compilation and a
derived work.
Only in the GNU Republic.
I shall not try to draw the line, but I'd put my money on there being more
derived works than you seem to think.
Yeah, I
[... jar ...]
And here comes bloby Eben.
http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/02/20/1544245.shtml?tid=117tid=123
(Professor Eben Moglen Replies)
2) Clarifying the GPL
by sterno
One issue that I know has come up for me is how the GPL applies in
situations where I'm using GPL
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 22:20 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
_your_copy_ and what you do with _copies_of_your_copy_
Rue, Rue. You are a clinical case.
Given: initially no copies at all (t0)
t1: download a copy
t2: distribute that
You are speaking about duplicating a physical entity, not
duplicating the software. If you can show me a method to
duplicate a CD that contains GNU hello, N times, then you have a
point. And you will get the Nobel price at the same time.
So what? If you use a company CD
There is nothing unusual about copyright law distinguishing between
groups of people. You can show a movie at home and let your
wife/SO watch it with you without the copyright holder have a claim
that you are having an unauthorized public display. Do you think
that if you showed
A company employee is not free to do whatever he wants with company
property (such as a software CD) that he needs for doing his job.
He is not the rightful owner.
If you are an employee of mine and get access to software in my
possession for the purpose of job, you are not
So if I go into Staples and five finger discount some copies of
Turbo Tax I have not stolen some software?
I don't know what Staples is or what Turbo Tax is. But you cannot
steal software. Period. You can infringe on the copyright license.
You can steal the CD, you can steal the
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 19:45 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an
extended version of that program. The GPL says that any
extended version of the program must be released under
the GPL if it is
I meant to write exactly what I did. Somebody who admits to being
incapable of grasping the concept of internal use should not go
reinterpreting the words of someone else.
Can you please stop your condesending tone? It will make for a more
pleasent discussion.
If the license isn't
David Kastrup wrote: ...
Dak, dak, dak. You are losing it. To comrade ams: in recognition of
this event I'm unplonking you right now (many months before scheduled
unplonk), congrats.
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
The license _does_ apply. It is you who don't get it. You are saying
that all companies that have illegal copies of Windows, are not
breaking the law, since they are `for internal use' and no rules
apply.
You are also speaking about some kind of owner of the software, you
cannot own software!
On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 23:00 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Two copies under fair use.
Wrong again. No fair use at all.
But that's not what happens when you link software. :)
Ah that. Well, copying and distribution under 17 USC 117 aside for a
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an
extended version of that program. The GPL says that any
extended version of the program must be released under
the GPL if it is released at
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you are an employee of mine and get access to software in
my possession for the purpose of job, you are not permitted to
make copies for your private use.
If the license explicitly states so, yes.
Wrong. You
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if you use it internally in a business then you are distributing
the program to anyone who uses it.
Your opinion differs from that in the GPL FAQ as writtem by the FSF.
I fail to see how it differs.
Then I recommend you actually
On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 03:27 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
If I give you a copy, it is distribution. The whole concept of
internal `use' is bogus. I can claim that the whole world is
internal for my use, and then simply refuse to release the source
to anyone, since it is
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I meant to write exactly what I did. Somebody who admits to being
incapable of grasping the concept of internal use should not go
reinterpreting the words of someone else.
Can you please stop your condesending tone? It will make for a
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You mean, if I am using a company's car, the car becomes my own
property for the duration of use?
If you have a replication machine that can copy cars like a computer
can copy programs, yes.
And if I let you run a program from a CD of mine,
If I give you a copy, it is distribution. The whole concept of
internal `use' is bogus. I can claim that the whole world is
internal for my use, and then simply refuse to release the source
to anyone, since it is `internal use', if one would follow your
thread.
Yes,
The day I can copy property is the day when you will have a point.
But in todays world, you cannot copy property. If I could copy
proeprty, then the first thing I would do is copy my house so that the
homeless could have homes.
You obviously do not know the difference between intangible objects
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A company employee is not free to do whatever he wants with company
property (such as a software CD) that he needs for doing his job.
He is not the rightful owner.
If you are an employee of mine and get access to software in my
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if I let you run a program from a CD of mine, the CD then
becomes yours? Because CDs can be copied?
CDs are still physical like cars. Apples vs rocks.
You'll be hard put to run a program without a physical copy.
--
David Kastrup,
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
OK, so why are you inventing new issues, rather than addressing the
topic of the thread? The OP said a derivative work combined from
software licensed under the Apache Software Licence 2.0 and software
licensed under the GNU GPL 2.0. This sounds to me like he's
Are you really disputing the fact that one can combine non-free
work with a GPLed program?
Yes.
Then you really ought to read the GPL. Specially the clauses about
not being able to put restrictions on a user, i.e. making the software
non-free.
Is software on my home system that
GNUtian logic in action.
GNUtian Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 22:00 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is not what you asked, you asked if you could combine
non-free software with a GPLed work internally. The GPL does not
allow this, so you have no permissions to do so be it for your
private use or not.
Cite me a provision
A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an
extended version of that program. The GPL says that any
extended version of the program must be released under
the GPL if it is released at all.
And it is not released. That's the key.
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 11:28 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 22:00 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
You ask how a copy would be
And if I let you run a program from a CD of mine, the CD then
becomes yours? Because CDs can be copied?
CDs are still physical like cars. Apples vs rocks.
You'll be hard put to run a program without a physical copy.
You are speaking about duplicating a physical entity,
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:41:31 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh nonsense. Only if they legally acquired a copy. Nobody is
allowed to steal software just because _if_ it would be released,
it would have to be under a free license.
First of all, you can't steal
Barry Margolin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
But that's not really a good analogy. Combining two programs is not
just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a
copy of the
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 11:43 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
But that's not really a good analogy.
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GNUtian logic in action.
GNUtian David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One can download a copy of GPL'd
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GNUtian logic in action.
GNUtian David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any I accept)
GNUtian logic in action.
GNUtian David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 11:43 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Barry Margolin
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 14:07 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any I accept) directly
to a compilation on a tangible medium. In source code or object code
form (both forms are wildly available).
Of course, you don't have to agree when your rights
GNUtian logic in action.
GNUtian Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 14:07 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any I accept) directly
to a compilation on a tangible medium. In source code or object code
form (both forms are
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the sake of nailing stupid dak once again...
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But copyright law does not allow you redistribution of copies. The
GPL grants you additional rights. You are free not to accept those
additional rights.
quote
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Furthermore, 17 USC 117 entitles the owner of a lawfully made copy
(source code see above) to distribute those additional copies (in
object code form see above) along with the copy from which such
copies were prepared.
That's not really
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But copyright law does not allow you redistribution of copies. The
GPL grants you additional rights. You are free not to accept those
additional rights.
quote source=http://tinyurl.com/3c2n2 [cacd.uscourts.gov]
Adobe characterizes each transaction
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 16:55 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
form, you can reproduce it in object code form (as an additional
copy per 17 USC 117) using compilation process (as in computing),
link it together with other stuff and run. It's all allowed per
Lee Hollaar wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Furthermore, 17 USC 117 entitles the owner of a lawfully made copy
(source code see above) to distribute those additional copies (in
object code form see above) along with the copy from which such
copies were
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 16:55 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
form, you can reproduce it in object code form (as an additional
copy per 17 USC 117) using compilation process (as in computing),
link it together with other stuff and run. It's all allowed per
statute.
Folks, read what he
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.
Irrelevant. You still don't have the right to make copies and distribute
The right to distribute lawfully made copies (without
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.
Irrelevant. You still don't have the right to make copies and distribute
those copies unless you are authorized, even if you got the software as
a gift :)
If the author
In this case, it seems that I and the FSF disagree. Prohibiting
staff from distributing free software is the same as a NDA, in my
opinion.
No, it is circumscribing what they can do as agents of the company,
with the property of the company. One very important issue is
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:50:13 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quite frankly, I would be surprised if any copyright holder cared
the least whether I ever got around to annotating source code
modules that I don't distribute or whether some program on my
system failed
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 02:52:15 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not what you asked, you asked if you could combine
non-free software with a GPLed work internally. The GPL does not
allow this, so you have no permissions to do so be it for your
private use
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
But that's not really a good analogy. Combining two programs is not
just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a
copy of the other.
What do you mean by merge. They remain as two separate computer
programs (or parts thereof, if you like)
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if you use it internally in a business then you are distributing
the program to anyone who uses it.
Your opinion differs from that in the GPL FAQ as writtem by the FSF.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 11:43 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
But that's not really a good analogy. Combining two programs is not
just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a
copy of the other.
What do you mean by merge. They remain
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:03:16 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This boils down to: Can you break the law at home? Of course you
can't. So the same applies to the GPL. Since you cannot mix two
incompatible licenses legally, then you cannot do this in the privacy
It does boil down to that, you are still violating the license,
and in turn copyright law. Just that nobody knows of it so
nobody can sue you.
The license allows you to do what I've described. Making
derivative works with permission is not copyright infringement.
This is not
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:03:16 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This boils down to: Can you break the law at home? Of course you
can't. So the same applies to the GPL. Since you cannot mix two
incompatible licenses legally, then you cannot do this in the privacy
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 03:00:51 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This should be pretty easy to resolve. Show me the license
provision of the GPL that allows me to combine (and not distribute)
GPL code that is broken when I combine (but do not distribute) GPL
and non
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
But that's not really a good analogy. Combining two programs is not
just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a
copy of the other.
What do you mean by
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going
on.
We don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand,
To clarify it a bit: providing source code is not the question here. I
just want to know if it is legal to use the differently licensed
software in such manner, namely: personal/internal use eventhough the
licences exclude eachother
___
Gnu-misc-discuss
Dear folks,
I am currently doing some research on open source licences and while
reading the GPL licence the following question arose: Distributing a
derivative work combined from software licensed under the Apache
Software Licence 2.0 and software licensed under the GNU GPL 2.0 is not
possible,
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going
on.
We don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand,
have a nice lawsuit from Wallace. Kudos to him for calling the bluff
and
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fung wrote:
I am currently doing some research on open source licences and
while reading the GPL licence the following question arose:
Distributing a derivative work combined from software licensed
under [whatever]
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going
on.
We don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand,
have a nice lawsuit from Wallace. Kudos to him for calling the bluff
and achieving pretty good results already. For example,
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:52:32 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To clarify it a bit: providing source code is not the question
here. I just want to know if it is legal to use the differently
licensed software in such manner, namely: personal/internal use
eventhough
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fung wrote:
Dear folks,
I am currently doing some research on open source licences and while
reading the GPL licence the following question arose: Distributing a
derivative work combined from software
101 - 180 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
