David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); United States v. Clark County, Ind., 113
F.Supp.2d 1286, 1290 (S.D. Ind. 2000). The court will dismiss a
complaint for failure to state a claim only if it ââappears beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But Wallace brought forth no facts whatsoever compatible with his
claim of predatory pricing as defined by the requisite laws.
Wallace brought forth the GPL. The GPL is his evidence.
---
Predatory pricing
The GPL establishes a predatory pricing scheme. Setting
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Wallace brought forth the GPL. The GPL is his evidence.
Yes. No facts compatible with his claim of predatory pricing.
And how do you know? Neither Judge Tinder nor Judge Young addressed
his claim of predatory pricing.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding what GNU is - it isn't a single
program, or a tightly coupled suite. It's a compilation of lots of
useful programs, which system builders can pick and choose from.
GNU isn't a compilation of programs
Richard Tobin wrote:
[...]
For example, suppose you provide a service to the public that compiles
programs using a modified version of gcc, but you don't give out
copies of the modified compiler: you just accept .c files and return
.o files. As far as I can see, the current GPL does not
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux of Novell. And also Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux of Red Hat
https://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html
The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law.
and Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux of others.
I'm talking about the GNU system,
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
Well, whatever it is, it isn't Unix! GNU is more than an operating
system - Emacs, for example, is part of GNU, though it's definitely not
part of an OS, and there are LOTS of GNU programs like that. This is the
mere aggregation that the GPL talks about - lots of
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Wallace brought forth the GPL. The GPL is his evidence.
Yes. No facts compatible with his claim of predatory pricing.
And how do you know?
By virtue of having a brain.
Here's
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
That is nice, I prefer rmail.
It just shows you off as a fool who can't get the history of a
discussion straight and is unable to properly attribute articles.
Then feel free to tell this to anyone who uses rmail, this includes
RMS.
You hero RMS is a
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
It sure is part of any GNU system, in the form of an aggregation (in
the case of GCC). The C library, however, is linked with the
executables, and that exceeds mere aggregation. The C library,
however, is licensed under the LGPL.
Function calls have no impact on
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
holders. Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according to you?
Linux is a compilation according to copyright law.
regards.
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
| Last time I looked, RedHat was getting money.
This fact is compatible with Wallace's claim of predatory pricing
conspiracy pursuant to the GPL. Those ancillary revenues from no
charge GPL'd code can NOT explain the lengths to which
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
It sure is part of any GNU system, in the form of an aggregation (in
the case of GCC). The C library, however, is linked with the
executables, and that exceeds mere aggregation. The C
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
holders. Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according to you?
Linux is a compilation according to copyright law.
Depends on what you call Linux. A typical GNU/Linux
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Bundling BSD and alike licensed code is, for example, the business
model of Apple Computer, Inc. (OS X and Darwin).
No.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/
http://darwinsource.opendarwin.org/10.4.6.x86/
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why don't you simply check it yourself. There's tons of separate
and independent bodies of code in the Linux kernel and they are
even under
ROFL. Hey ams, I'm your fan.
(sorry group just couldn't resist)
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The anticompetitive nature of the GNU GPL is no-brainer.
That must explain why there is _lots_ of competition in the Linux
market.
Surely the
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
IP value based business model is waffling about things. Just what
does he want to sell to whom?
Suppose he wants to become an Apple (but without music and hardware
business) and compete with other operating systems (not only on Macs).
Anyway, so he finds that
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Uh what? You mean, if there are terms in Microsoft's EULA to be found
which don't jibe with the law, then XP is in the public domain? I
find that implausible.
http://interactionlaw.com/id12.html
(Microsoft Risks Copyright Impotence)
[...]
if it existed, he could
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're arguing against a caricature of his case, and not his case
itself.
Yes, that's exactly what I say.
But that caricature is of your own making.
Wallace has 30 days to appeal. I hope he will. We'll see
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
This is going to be cute. The problem with an appeal is that Wallace
does not merely have to get it right this time: he has to prove that
he got it right last time around, and the court just failed to notice.
Appellate court will review district court's grant of
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
This is going to be cute. The problem with an appeal is that Wallace
does not merely have to get it right this time: he has to prove that
he got it right last time around, and the court
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/b81437831e209017
(not the merits)
Terekhov quoting Terekhov quoting Terekhov.
I'm not the author of not the merits. Go visit
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision
might help.
[...]
Basically, the
John Hasler wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
As for proof, A plaintiff must prove (1) that the prices complained
of are below an appropriate measure of its rival's costs
The marginal cost of production of copies of Linux is at most the cost of
pressing a DVD. The marginal cost
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You are the author of
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which you quoted in
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which you quoted in
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's how one blogs on usenet. ;-)
regards,
alexander.
___
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Red Hat recoups losses from GPL conspiracy (with other co-conspirators
in predatory priced IP that is meant to kill competition) by higher
prices
Ben wrote:
I've a program I want to release under the GPL, it relies on a number of
jar libraries covered under other licences such as Apache 2.0.
Can I still distribute the software under the GPL
Sure you can. Beware of eventual copyright impotence (penalty for
copyright misuse)
Hey Ben, feel free to mere aggregate and distribute your non-
derivative (under copyright law, not GNU copyleft FAQ silliness) GPL'd
code with whatever you want. But once again: beware of eventual
copyright impotence (penalty for copyright misuse) though. Your GPL'd
code may well end up in
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
Ben, as suggested, do not even bother reading what Alexander has to
say. The GPL FAQ was written with the help by lawyers, where as
Lawyers? Yeah, the GPL FAQ was written with the help by lawyers
(like Moglen and his underlings) with an agenda contrary to public
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
If the program is entirely of your authorship you can distribute it under
any terms you wish. However, if you don't add exceptions no one will be
able to redistribute it.
Sez GNUtian Hasler. Of course they can redistribute it. 17 USC 109, to
begin with.
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
Your source code is yours to license as you please. The fact that it
uses the Java mechanisms to call library code does not make it a
derivative work of these libraries.
Unless you happen to live in the GNU Republic.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt
When
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
If the program is entirely of your authorship you can distribute it under
any terms you wish. However, if you don't add exceptions no one will be
able to redistribute it.
Sez GNUtian
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/224798.htm
The second decision came from a different judge in the Southern
District of Indiana and, like the first judge and the FSF
complaint, he found that Wallace didn't properly state a claim.
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That concerns the transfer of particular acquired copies, not
distribution involving the creation of additional copies.
Legally speaking, distribution doesn't involve creation of additional
copies at all. And 17 USC 109 is about particular copies lawfully
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Moglen: We have made one clarification, as we see it, of what we
believe was always the rule. We reasserted that code dynamically linked
to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely
optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Linking is not aggregation.
Static linking certainly is.
Only in Terekhov-Lala-land.
I gather that by virtue of some truly exciting invention static
linking doesn't aggregate in the GNU Republic. I want the patent
rights, dak!
regards,
alexander.
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
The license is a conditional grant from you to others. If they fail to
comply with the conditions you can sue them for copyright infringement, but
Yet the GPL has been cited as a contract, and breach of the GPL as a
contract was alleged, in both of the first two U.S.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
whilst with CPL
you will not be able to license your program at all with the ASL 2.0,
Nonsense.
but _ALSO_ you will exclude your program from sharing code with +-80% of
Free Software.
The GNU President's assertion regarding GPL incompatibility fiction
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[... snip GNUtian drivel ...]
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=viewartMonth=SeptemberartYear=2004EntryNo=1578
Hth.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
While your module is not fake, the situation with regard to the
licenses is the same. As long as your GPLed with exception software
is _only_ combined with GPLed software, this would be ok.
GNU logic. Under FSF's own interpretation, that modified GPL with
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
While your module is not fake, the situation with regard to the
licenses is the same. As long as your GPLed with exception software
is _only_ combined with GPLed software, this would be ok
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
I think this has been the situation with the readline library (which
is under the GPL). Somebody created some stubs that provided
basically the same interface, and this made software not derivative on
GNU logic. I gather that in the GNU Republic, the status of a
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Uh, the GPL also has the backing of IBM.
Yeah. Apart from contributing to just few GPL'd projects for strategic
reasons, it is no secret that IBM treats [L]GPL'd code like a kind of
toxic waste. The general rule is seek for alternative. The preferred
license for
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Uh, the GPL also has the backing of IBM.
Yeah. Apart from contributing to just few GPL'd projects for strategic
reasons, it is no secret that IBM treats [L]GPL'd code like a kind
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[... contract ...]
*tsk* you really don't have arguments, do you?
What arguments do you want, Rui? It's basic law.
-
While a party that owns copyright rights is ordinarily entitled to pursue
infringement claims against any third party who violates them, the
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 16:46:18
+0200:
1. http://kororaa.org/index.php?entry=entry060521-200059
Stallman should be sued for damages to the global environment and lost
productivity. Amount of time, energy, bandwidth
Joerg Schilling wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Mackenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Karen Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 22 May 2006 16:49:50 -0700:
What is wrong with this? Commands like make have evolved considerably
since 1972. However, inside the GNU make info page you
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 22:53:49
+0200:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Mackenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Karen Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 22 May 2006 16:49:50 -0700:
What is wrong
Sorry folks, forgot one thing.
http://www.fsf.org/photos/rms-sign.jpg
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 22:53:49
+0200:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Mackenzie [EMAIL
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
Oh, I don't know. Wallace tried to attack GPL2, but couldn't even manage
to get his pistol cocked.
Oh, we'll see.
http://scofacts.org/Wallace-IBM-61.pdf
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
You too, dak, please kindly piss off. With your idiotic communication
through non-standardized interface derivative theory, to begin with.
And read up something on software compilations (see 17 USC 101;
software is protected as literary works) vs software derivatives
(modified protected
Unruh wrote:
[...]
And exactly how does the AFC (I assume you mean Abstraction, Filtration,
Comparison test)
Yes.
apply here?
It used to determine if there is copyright infringement in alleged
derivative computer program work.
GNUish/SCOish based on derivative
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
[Appeal claim]
This is going to be cute. The problem with an appeal is that Wallace
does not merely have to get it right this time: he has to prove that
he got it right last time around, and the court just failed to notice.
It would take considerable skill to
This is not an issue at all. Except in the GNU Republic. In reality,
linking as such (especially dynamic one) is totally irrelevant
regarding (software) copyright. Ignore that utterly moronic GPL FAQ.
Your options are:
1. Don't distribute the GPL'd stuff and let the users acquire it
Yeah, and all Windows programs include MS Windows. Piss off, dak.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
And in the mean time, in the other Circuits...
--
The Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court's determination
that 'because [plaintiff] is a competitor and its complaint is
about pricing practices, . . . [plaintiff] must allege that
[defendant] engaged in predatory pricing in order to
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, and all Windows programs include MS Windows. Piss off, dak.
You can run Windows programs under Wine if you want to. MS Windows is
not required.
Not all Windows programs can run under Wine, idiot. Now tell me
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Not all Windows programs can run under Wine, idiot. Now tell me how the
copyright law distinguish system calls from other calls.
Address resolution, and a fixed API.
Now try to back your moronity with some statutory and/or case law
authority. Chapter and
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
headers. And yes, if you purchase said development tools, they are
accompanied by an explicit license permitting that.
Said development tools may well be result of reverse engineering
and/or interoperability information from public specs, books, etc.
Pretty much
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
If a program does not even work without a particular library, this is
not a case of interoperability.
Sez who? (Besides you and other GNU brainwashed retards?) What you call
a library is just another computer program (bundle thereof) under
copyright law.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Not all Windows programs can run under Wine
Not all Windows programs can run on Windows.
And? Go on, paragon of intellect.
Now tell me how the copyright law distinguish system calls from
other calls.
By looking at them to see if they are in anyway
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Ter, 2006-06-20 Ã s 00:25 -0700, Gottfried escreveu:
I would like to offer LiMath_Optimierung as a shareware program i.e for
some fee and without the source code. Please only discuss the license
issue, don't tell me whether you like Windows or Bill Gates or
Wei Mingzhi wrote:
[... respect freedom ...]
Possession of property is a mark of the free man. And intellectual
property is property. Person's freedom is diminished rather than
enlarged by limiting his right to sell his property in exchange for
money (i.e. at a positive price, not no charge).
Uh. I suggest you start with
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/pdf/LANECI_excerpt.pdf and read this entire
book (before exhibiting GNU brainwashing you're so fond of next time).
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The GPL does not hinder anybody to sell his property.
Oh really? Now tell me how we have made it clear that any patent must
be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all encourages
selling (licensing at profit) patent IP (selling/licensing of
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Thanks to Wallace, the FSF is on record telling to the federal
judge in court of law that In fact, the GPL itself rejects any
automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply
because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
the Berne convention is about. However, he does not have the right to
restrict a user's freedom to use, modify, improve and distribute
software that its respective author chose to license under the GPL.
That's what the GPL is about.
Now tell me how Gottfried's
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Hoping for c)... ;)
Wanna ice cream? His code is not yours (and neither his code is a
derivative literary work modulo the AFC test of the GPL'd code
[software is protected as literary work per Berne Convention and
national copyright laws]) and he has all
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
It appears that I am _already_ pissing you off. Anyway: his shareware
contains GPLed parts then, and I don't see how the user can modify,
improve and distribute those parts while retaining a working
executable.
Uh. And what does retaining a working executable
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The GPL does not demand _anything_ as long as you are not using
_others'_ property licensed under the GPL. And then _their_ property
rights chip in, and they are perfectly allowed to give you license
Except that the GPL blatantly misstates the scope of property
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml
Only morons like you can be bullshited by this GNUish silliness
authored by confused Stallman. I know that it's hopeless, but still
I suggest you try http://www.hup.harvard.edu/pdf/LANECI_excerpt.pdf.
regards,
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
It appears that I am _already_ pissing you off. Anyway: his
shareware contains GPLed parts then, and I don't see how the user
can modify, improve and distribute those parts while retaining
Oh dear dak...
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The GPL does not demand _anything_ as long as you are not using
_others'_ property licensed under the GPL. And then _their_ property
rights chip in, and they are perfectly
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Stop trying to expand the scope of rights under the GPL to infect
works under independent copyright (in this case, Gottfried's
program).
If it uses parts of a GPLed program, then it isn't independant. And
since linking casues parts of a progarm to be
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh dear dak...
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The GPL does not demand _anything_ as long as you are not using
_others'_ property licensed
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Oh, I gather that GNUtian dak has problems to believe that
-
The judge recognized that Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint States
a Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted and that Plaintiffs
Allegations Sufficiently Set Forth a Violation of the Rule
Oh, I gather that GNUtian dak has problems to believe that
-
The judge recognized that Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint States
a Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted and that Plaintiffs
Allegations Sufficiently Set Forth a Violation of the Rule of Reason,
but was fooled to believe
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Sez who?
The definition of independant.
Uh. Listen, brainwashed fanatic. A computer program work is a literary
work with expression being a set of statements or instructions to be
used directly or indirectly in a computer. Doctrine of independent
creation
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Qua, 2006-06-21 Ã s 17:09 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Note also Wallace's own (in the other case currently under appeal):
-
Not only competitors are harmed by the GPL scheme. Consumers lose
because a lack of competition removes not just
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Your mistake here is assuming that intellect can become property.
I say mistake, because otherwise you would be cooperating with WIPO and
similar entities in trying to subvert knowledge into something that can
be bought and sold like any good.
What
Got no answer or comment from GNUtians on gnu.misc.discuss (license
issue: calling a GPLv2 library thread in which GNUtians try to scare
OP into joining the GPL predarory price-fixing pooling conspiracy with
his computer program which calls a GPLv2 library).
It's fun. Judge Young dismissed
dak replied...
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Got no answer or comment from GNUtians on gnu.misc.discuss (license
issue: calling a GPLv2 library thread in which GNUtians try to scare
OP into joining the GPL predarory price-fixing pooling conspiracy with
his computer program which calls a GPLv2
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That's all bullshit. The FSF simply managed to fool Judge Tinder
that Wallace lacks standing. Tinder recorgnized that Plaintiffâs
Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which Relief can be
Granted and that Plaintiffâs Allegations Sufficiently Set Forth
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That's all bullshit. The FSF simply managed to fool Judge Tinder
that Wallace lacks standing. Tinder recorgnized that Plaintiffââ¬â¢s
Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon
Uh. Retarded fanatic once again crying a blatant lie in spite of
tons of literature on IP. And employing caricature of copyright [as
it's misrepresented by the GPL and its FAQ moronity] in an attempt
to subvert it.
Go read http://www.hup.harvard.edu/pdf/LANECI_excerpt.pdf.
regards,
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Or are you _also_ against the concept of software that's available
gratis?
Depends. Gratis in violation of the Sherman Act (Section 1 and/or 2)
is bad for (global) economy. I'm of opinion that the GPL is very bad
for worldwide economic output and
Many contracts don't require signing. Google manifestation of assent.
One accepts the GPL contract by exercising exclusive right(s) granted
under it.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. And google also the term antitrust conspiracy.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
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 on annual
subscription bases. RedHat's GPL'd
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
201 - 300 of 2379 matches
Mail list logo
