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
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
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
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 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
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
More from Nimmer (Ray Nimmer):
--
In transactional relationships, property rights (including intellectual
property rights) may furnish background or default rules that govern the
transaction unless otherwise agreed. From a contract law standpoint (as
compared to contracting practice), setting
Episode GPLv3 and Steve Ballmers blood pressure by Welte The GPL
Enforcer (http://google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/81d24d64033f55c5).
http://gnumonks.org/~laforge/weblog/
-
Thu, 22 Jun 2006
GPLv3 and Steve Ballmers blood pressure
I'm currently having the pleasure of being part of the
Hey ams, BusyBox aside for a moment, Welte has a plan!
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/186944/0ccd89b5598e797f/
-
What is most interesting about having some organization backing this
project, is that we can actually do more interesting legal action
than I can do now. So far, we've only
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
[...]
Hardly. No GPL licensed software is being distributed with further
restrictions.
Or dear. How much will you pay me for a CD full of GPL'd binaries
(and no source code at all) which I'm going to distribute to you
under contractual agreement imposing
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Cf. URL:http://gpl-violations.org/ for examples.
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43996.html
quote
It's a Small Welte After All
Across the wide ocean, other enforcement of the GPL runs along a
different trail. Harald Welte, a self-appointed enforcer of the GPL
who
Byron A Jeff wrote:
[...]
Which would be accomplished by releasing your code as LGPL since your
code is derivative from original LGPL code.
OP said that We got a new library by modifying the LGPL code and
adding some our own code. Modified LGPL code aside for a moment, what
makes you think
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
not accept the terms of the license, but if you do not accept them
default copyright law is in force, and you may not distribute or
modify the Program.
Go read the default copyright law is in force, idiot. Both actions
are permitted by the default copyright law
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Creating your own copies is not covered under first sale.
First sale covers lawfully made copies. To quote Hollaar,
-
As for the reproduction right (1) implying the distribution right (3),
it's not an implication, but a special rule in United States copyright
law
Byron A Jeff wrote:
[...]
I took it to mean that he started with the LGPL code base and added code
to it. I also took it to mean that his code could not function
independantly from the original LGPL code base.
External factors are totally irrelevant. Copyright is about expression,
not
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
I think that the problem here is one of ownership. How can you claim
the ownership of a copy if there is no payment and the content has not
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00166.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00174.html
been
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Sure, and you can then resell this CD if you want to. What you can't
do is make additional copies and sell those without adhering to the
license.
Another legal persons makes copies. And he is in total compliance. I
just distribute those lawfully made copies (he
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Not really. Judges don't cherish circumvention,
There's no circumvention. Remember that another legal person is in
full compliance. And there's no contract between me and copyright
owners in GPL'd stuff that would prevent distribution of my copies
as I see fit
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
One problem is that this another legal person is likely acting as
your agent.
Uh. For the sake of argument, let's assume that you can even prove
existence of agreement between us two. Cry conspiracy. Won't help.
There was no law or contract broken. All actions
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
External factors are totally irrelevant. Copyright is about expression,
not dependencies. No MS DirectX program can function without MS DirectX
(broken and incomplete WINE stuff aside for a moment), but that doesn't
make DirectX programs derivative
Forgot to mention...
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Only shows how tech-litterate you are. There's a much smaller download
with just the EULAs:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/f/7/a/f7ad6880-50d4-48b1-81cf-bd8f6a8b3abc/directx_9c_eulas.exe
Not that it makes any difference, just
My, what a show. Such a clown!
http://www.rehash.nl/hollandopen/rawtapes/ho-eben_moglen/ho-eben_moglen.mp4
And here's Eben The Bullshiter giving a talk to the citizens of the
Free Republic (he, of course, meant the GNU Republic) on the state
of the GPLv3 process and demise of Microsoft (and
More episodes...
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
My, what a show. Such a clown!
http://www.rehash.nl/hollandopen/rawtapes/ho-eben_moglen/ho-eben_moglen.mp4
http://www.rehash.nl/hollandopen/rawtapes/ho-eben_moglen_qa/ho-eben_moglen_qa.mp4
http://www.rehash.nl/hollandopen/rawtapes/ho-license_drm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I've already answered the problem about linking:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2006-05/msg00425.html
It doesn't answer the problem. The problem is nonexistent.
But I'm just curious what makes you think that contractual restriction
of
Wolfdieter Schmidt wrote:
Newsgroup,
I am currently planning to write a program which uses Trolltech Qt 4.
And I will use the Qt4 - GPL version. So as I understand my code has to
be GPL.
You understand it wrong. The FSF and Trolltech simply want you to believe
in their utterly moronic
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
this is obviously not what Trolltech intended
Trolltech's intentions is smoking gun stuff to invalidate the
whole scheme once and for all. I still wonder why Wallace didn't
name
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But Novell and RedHat are not responsible for the interpretation
Trolltech places on the parts copyrighted by Trolltech.
Both Novell and Red Hat are *parties* to the agreement with Trolltech
covering Qt under the GPL (without that agreement they would have no
Karen Hill wrote:
I think, of the 500 distributions tracked by DistroWatch, probably 450
of them are in trouble right now per this position.,
Criminal penalties (costs plus attorney's fees in a civil action aside for
a moment), per FSF's own theory of enforcement through cause of action
David Kastrup wrote:
[... Wallace vs IBM et all (plus Trolltech) ...]
They got _permission_.
The GPL is a grant of IP rights established by the copyright and patent
laws, idiot. It's a contract, retard. (The patent license is implied,
not express.)
-
An intellectual property license
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
And download pursuant to GPL is such an arrangement.
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But there are no consensual agreements in case of the GPL because the
consent of the recipient is never actually elicited.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Sorry, dak. (Oh dear, I still can't believe that you now realize that
Moglen is a bullshit rapper.)
You are fantasizing. Again: [... nonsense ...]
I'm not. Moglen is a bullshit rapper.
-
LWN: So, if the kernel is covered solely by the GPL, you would see
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The idea of the FSF is that you get access to the source together with
the binaries.
That's an idea, but its implementation is totally busted (outside the
GNU Republic).
Oh dear. Once again: I've got a CD full of GPL'd binaries (and no
source code on it at all)
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
There is nothing in a carrot that says that a person is not the owner
of the carrot. Establishing ownership is a separate process.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf
What it says is that even under contractual restrictions of statutory
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify AND
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.
Well, since you are talking about modification AND distribution,
Bah, yet another brainwashed GNUtian. Tasty, tasty.
peterwn wrote:
[... license not a contract ...]
Note that Eben Moglen is an Ivy League law professor
Risk of disbarment aside for a moment, Eben can disagree with the
entire US federal judiciary and professional lawyers hired to defend
Apropos preemption...
IBM's argument:
as is evident from the ProCD case Plaintiff cites, copyrights may be
licensed by a uniform contract effective against all who choose to use
it. (Response at 6) (citing ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447,
1454 (7th Cir.1996).) The court in ProCD held
ROFL.
Uh.
peterwn wrote:
Moglen makes extraordinary claims about the GPL, so why doesn't he come
forward with the appropriate legal citations?
There are not any - no one so far has had the guts to say to Eb - 'see
you in court'.
Moglen is a J.D. with a
Ph.D. in history and not
Apropos preemption...
Looks like Wallace is going to end up in the Supreme Court with that.
--
In addition to statutory preemption, preemption under the Supremacy
Clause of the Constitution must be examined. Even if a particular cause
of action survives a 301 preemption analysis...it still
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Your GPL theories, of course. The very few cases where people indeed
go before court in relation to the GPL (instead of settling) end up in
ways where you all bristle about how the judges must have been drunk.
Uh. Thus far, no court had a chance to address the GPL
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Apropos preemption...
Looks like Wallace is going to end up in the Supreme Court with that.
We'll see about that. Your predictions have not really been too much
on the spot.
I've predicted that he would go
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or
DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical
copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Qui, 2006-06-29 Ã s 19:35 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Downloading the same program 500 times with the purpose of distributing
these copies (and which results in exactly the same situation as if one
downloaded once and copied 499 times) would
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
Yes. If you buy a book, you can sell your copy. That is what first
sale is about - the copyright holder can control copying, but once
a copy has been sold (lawfully acquired), the copyright holder
cannot control what is done with that copy.
Yes,
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs
or DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
I suppose that you look up archive in a dictionary of your choice.
Uh, the material preserved. (See also 17 USC 117.)
Yes, and a preparatory step for creating a CD can hardly be called a
preservational measure.
I don't see why. A CD may have a defect and/or
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
In the case of the purchase of a copy, it should be rather obvious that
paying for a single copy does not entitle you to the downloading of as
many copies as your bandwidth permits, even if the server doesn't stop
That's not what I'm saying. You purchase 500
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Yes, and a preparatory step for creating a CD can hardly be called a
preservational measure.
I don't see why.
Because it is a copy on the way to a CD.
But it may not end up on a CD unless I prepare archival copies of it
to guard against destruction or
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Apropos preemption...
Looks like Wallace is going to end up in the Supreme Court with that.
Got some inquiries about Wallace's case off-band.
Wallace's case QA for dummies:
Q: What the fuck ... !?
A: The context is property. Intangible intellectual property
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
An interesting case happened some time ago here in the Netherlands.
A calendar was published that contained for every month a nice
reproduction of a painting, all by the same painter (Rien
Poortvliet). Someone bought a lot of calendars, cut out the
reproductions,
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
That's not what I'm saying. You purchase 500 copies, not one. You
have a choice: 500 CDs in a box, or download-and-burn-yourself. You
choose the later. How many times are you going to download?
If the ability to circumvent the GPL depends on first sale then
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
On 2006-06-30, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
An interesting case happened some time ago here in the Netherlands.
A calendar was published that contained for every month a nice
reproduction of a painting, all
Wei Mingzhi wrote:
I'd recommend dropping the case of Intellectual Property as I don't think
this is a strict legalese, just a brainwashing propaganda carried out by some
politicians and big companies. Actually even my law teacher (who is a lawyer)
admits that writting Intellectual Property
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
The full cite is
HR 19 januari 1979, NJ 1979, 412 (Hovener/Poortvliet)
I noted it got cited in Canada:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2002/2002scc34/2002scc34.html
That is really helpful. Thanks.
Since it's from 1979, no one has thought to put up an
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
Fine, then you can prove you have a lawful copy, and exercise your
right of first sale. I've no problem with that. Just don't go and copy
that copy on the pretext you're into saving bandwidth.
You don't grok it, Eeckels. Suppose I've got a lawful copy. Now I
(This is regular posting. Acknowledgments: aim_here2002, Linonut.)
Q: Bt. What the fuck ... !?
A: The context is property. Intangible intellectual property (rights
granted under IP license). IP goods. Property in short.
Q: Bt, but according to RMS, intellectual property... is a
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Ter, 2006-07-04 Ã s 19:17 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Q: Bt, but according to RMS, intellectual property... is a mirage,
which appears to have a coherent existence only because the term
suggests it does. So bt, what the fuck
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Both your delusions and obsessive compulsive behavior are not pretty.
Being pretty is not my objective. As for delusions and whatever, care
to address the answers given in FAQ (please try to be reasonable and
refrain from making misleading statements of law or fact),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Alfred Perlstein is the CTO of OKcupid.com, the largest free online
dating site.
Yeah, right.
Just five percent of Internet users pay for online dating [subscriptions],
down from six percent last year. The number of paid subscribers is
stagnating, said
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Qua, 2006-07-05 Ã s 11:16 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Ter, 2006-07-04 Ã s 19:17 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Q: Bt, but according to RMS, intellectual property... is a mirage,
which appears
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
You refuse to answer this simple question? I merely want to understand
you better...
Intellectual property is, without question, property. See Stewart v.
Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 219 (1990), Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S.
986 (1984), etc. I respect
Thinking of adding one more Q (and A). Right after
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
(This is regular posting. Acknowledgments: aim_here2002, Linonut.)
Q: Bt. What the fuck ... !?
A: The context is property. Intangible intellectual property (rights
granted under IP license). IP goods
Hello ams! Hey comrade, I need your help. Below is an A, I need a good Q
for it (to include in FAQ). Would really appreciate it. TIA.
A: GNUtians believe that taking two separate and independent computer
program works (separate and independent under copyright law, according
to the AFC test) and
(This is regular posting. Acknowledgments: aim_here2002, Linonut.)
Q: Bt. What the fuck ... !?
A: The context is property. Intangible intellectual property (rights
granted under IP license). IP goods. Property in short.
Q: Bt, but according to RMS, intellectual property... is a
Wei Mingzhi wrote:
and where distributing software under any license other than
the GPL (which is akin to a lottery or other permits from state, and
hence it is, of course, not a contract or a property right), or GPL
compatible license (but that's for extra regulation fee, I gather),
(This is regular posting. Acknowledgments: aim_here2002, Linonut.)
Q: Bt. What the fuck ... !?
A: The context is property. Intangible intellectual property (rights
granted under IP license). IP goods. Property in short.
Q: Bt, but according to RMS, intellectual property... is a
Linux Counter #80292 wrote:
[...]
[Followup-To: header set to gnu.misc.discuss.]
Ignored.
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(This is regular posting. Acknowledgments: aim_here2002, Linonut.)
... Much to our dismay.
A: Lunatic RMS is simply confusing reality with his dreams
David Kastrup wrote:
[... get a life ...]
That's something that Stallman
happens to have.
http://www.fsf.org/photos/rms-sign.jpg
Uh, lunatic.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
(This is regular posting. Acknowledgments: aim_here2002, Linonut.)
Q: Bt. What the fuck ... !?
A: The context is property. Intangible intellectual property (rights
granted under IP license). IP goods. Property in short.
Q: Don't you know that intellectual property doesn't exist under US
Wei Mingzhi wrote:
It is a contract, but one doesn't enter into the GPL contract as long
as copying, distribution, and modification doesn't require a license.
For example, 17 USC 109 allows distribution and 17 USC 117 allows
copying and modification (adaptation).
Read it carefully...
Forgot one thing...
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Wei Mingzhi wrote:
It is a contract, but one doesn't enter into the GPL contract as long
as copying, distribution, and modification doesn't require a license.
For example, 17 USC 109 allows distribution and 17 USC 117 allows
copying
Wei Mingzhi wrote:
Note that exact copies (not adaptations) made under 17 USC 117 can be
distributed along with the copy from which such copies were prepared.
Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this
section may be leased, sold, or otherwise
You made my day today, GNUtian Bader.
Miles Bader wrote:
silversurfer2025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
so how do I change the code to not put brackets of functions into
the next line?
...
OK, maybe I'll have to change myself instead of changing the standards
which exist.. I just liked
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
Both courts ruled (and erred) on the issue of injury (standing). It's
the same legal situation as with a case asserting patent infringement
(for example) filed by someone not owning enforceable rights.
Try reading
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/FEDERAL
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
Both courts ruled (and erred) on the issue of injury (standing). It's
the same legal situation as with a case asserting patent infringement
(for example) filed by someone not owning enforceable rights.
Try reading
http
Alabama Petrofsky wrote:
[...]
The existence of so many distributors of GPL software other than the
three defendants named here also raises serious questions whether the
injunction plaintiff seeks could be effective in preventing the use
of the Linux operating system, as those not a party
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
RMS will address the fighters now inside HP,
Let him know that IBM is trying to establish the 7th Circuit precedent
that the GPL is the legal heart of *open source* software. Perhaps he
should hurry up and file an amicus (with Eben's help).
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alabama Petrofsky wrote:
[...]
According to its Preamble, the purpose of the GPL is to guarantee
the freedom to share
and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its
users. GPL at 1. The
Preamble goes on to explain
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
It's not because you're not required to accept it. :)
Ah that. Well, it appears that Prof. Nimmer also thinks that RMS is a
lunatic. GPL has a schizophrenic approach as to whether it is grounded
in contractual or non-contractual terms. ...
You are not
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Ter, 2006-07-25 Ã s 11:35 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
with GNUtians. It's like trying to prove a negative. GNUtians postulate
that pigs can fly and then expect you to disprove their claims. Here's
Judge Newman of the United States Court of Appeals
Alabama Petrofsky wrote:
[...]
as a maximum vertical price fixing agreement, either of which would
be reviewed under the rule of reason.
Well, well, well.
-
48.1. The State of Arizona wins. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the
defendants, the Medical Society, Foundation, and its
You should GPL not only the artworks, but also your wife and kids. It's
a whole, stupid.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
And disintegral components should be GPL'd as well. He should GPL his
grandfather's dead body too. All your base are belong to GNU.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Man oh man. Priceless.
http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3-dd2-released.html
The Software Freedom Law Center chaired by Eben Moglen, one of the
world's leading experts on copyright law as applied to software
ROFL.
regards,
alexander.
___
DRM Misunderstood
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 27 2006 @ 08:18 PM EDT
I tried to explain my own disagreement with the GPLv3 in a number of
emails to the linux kernel, but obviously haven't been uniformly
successful.
And yes (responding both to you, and to another poster), I
(That's what Wallace is lacking according to (drunken in a sense)
federal judges Tinder and Young.)
DRM Misunderstood
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 02:11 AM EDT
I explain the emotions, because the legal part of the GPLv3 makes no
sense what-so-ever if you don't
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Anyway, the author does not understand GPL in either version. The
What? Linus doesn't understand the GPL? In either version? How
fascinating.
author of that diatribe would have his goals fulfilled better by using
the BSD license.
Recall that Wallace action will
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But it is even more illusionary to think that for some reason, you are
the only unappreciated person with intelligence in the universe, and
Oh dear dak, recall that I'm a (so to speak) member of Wallace SWAT.
That makes us TWO of a kind as you must perceive (at
-
DRM Misunderstood
Authored by: PJ on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 11:26 PM EDT
In your explaining it, you yourself say it's silly.
It would be silly if they used nonGPL code. Because they are using GPL
code to do it, it's a bit worse than silly. And we are saying: Be silly
with proprietary code,
Linus for President!
---
DRM Misunderstood
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 11:55 PM EDT
Forget about that old argument between the two camps. That is so
over. Instead please think more about end users, because we are never
anybody's priority in the corporate world,
-
DRM Misunderstood
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 29 2006 @ 12:09 AM EDT
I think one reason I hear why Linus is upset is the same reason that I
am - GPL 3 is fundamentally different from GPL 2. It is different
philosophically, even if the original intent of GPL 2 was closer to the
--
..and btw, sorry for being irritable
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 29 2006 @ 01:12 AM EDT
I end up being irritable, just because I find the whole GPLv3 discussion
extremely frustrating.
I'd love to be a lot more constructive in my criticism, but I've gone
through all the
(Harold[sic] Welte is a famous German GPL lunatic... anti-globalization
activist and all that)
-
No need to be sorry...
Authored by: Arker on Saturday, July 29 2006 @ 05:44 AM EDT
The fact is, the GPLv2 has been very successful for fifteen years.
Why are you automatically assuming that
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
(Harold[sic] Welte
BTW,
http://gnumonks.org/~laforge/weblog/
Tue, 25 Jul 2006
Travelling to a gpl-violations.org related court hearing tomorrow
Tomorrow morning I'll have the pleasure of travelling to Frankfurt,
where the first court hearing
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.. i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
. ii
ARGUMENT
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
This alone is such a hilarious piece of nonsense. Any copyright
license applies to all legal recipients of the licensed material.
void f(const std::string email_address) {
if (email_address == [EMAIL PROTECTED])
throw A_Real_Idiot(David Kastrup);
.
.
301 - 400 of 2379 matches
Mail list logo
