David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
From that day on, he set off on a quest to ban proprietary software
and encourage the free sharing of source code by all means.
That was what started his unrest. It did not set him off immediately,
and by all means is certainly exaggerated. He did not, for
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
From that day on, he set off on a quest to ban proprietary software
and encourage the free sharing of source code by all means.
That was what started his unrest. It did not set him off immediately,
and by all means is certainly exaggerated. He did not, for
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 13:02:05 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh, what? The quoted section tries defining the term UNIX, not the
term operating system.
Notice the qualification
[... ITS blah-blah ...]
Both quotes indicate that already in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
adjusted term derived work - the most uncertain of all. It has legal
meaning, but they changed it.
You cant adjust key term of license and expect it to stay same.
For derived code look at: US Code title 17, kapitole 1 a §101.
He he. Now see kapitole VI
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
functionality with a _standard_ API between them. Also glibc works
There's no standard for linux kernel syscalls, my dar GNUtian dak. [g]
libc privides standard POSIX.1 XSH calls, not kernel.
regards,
alexander.
___
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Note that the topic of the quote is _not_ the syscall interface, but
the _linking_ of kernel modules into the kernel.
Go to doctor and take Eben with you.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. According to the GNU Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und
Propaganda, the topic is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Not really. I am looking for reason, why some programs using kernel can
be not-GPL, while programs using GPL library has to be GPL.
programs using GPL library has to be GPL is the GNU law crapola.
Unless you happen to live in the GNU Republic (i.e in alternative
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Kernel is pretty different than a library. It has threads of its own.
Uh moron. Threads is nothing but execution context (program counter,
etc.) and indirection for thread state relevant stuff. Expression
describing what to execute is the same. Ever heard of green
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
what about the case I am interested, linking GPL liensed dynamic
library to program. What now?
Do you know at least one court case of this?
I don't. I also don't know of at least one case regarding black
being not white. So what? Hey, if someone makes
model license
Sonny! Uncle Hasler Has spoken!!!
regards,
alexander.
P.S. http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/licensing.txt
-
Feel free to post/add this. I wrote it some time ago for a corporate
lawyer who wondered what the GPL exception was. Names and companies
removed not
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Can glibc work without linux kernel?
See URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/ports.html.
Playing idiot as usual, dak?
http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/?cvsroot=glibc
regards,
alexader.
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Man oh man. Uh moron.
http://www.archive.org/download/punkcast964/964moglen2.ogg (video)
http://www.archive.org/download/punkcast964a/964moglen2.ogg (audio)
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Yes. Linux isn't the main kernel that GLIBC supports to begin with.
Really? Did you check it with Drepper of Red Hat, GNUtian ueber moron
ams?
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Hey, if someone makes utterly idiotic claims, why don't you simply
suggest to that idiot to prove it in court of law? The glibc is
*your* defence.
It is not even licensed under the GPL, ...
Exactly.
http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensingfaq.html
quote
Hey kero, just have some fun, f.ex:
A recent press conference of the Free Software Foundation confirmed
the rumors that the GNU General Public License was found to be
incompatible with itself. This newly discovered fact may actually
cause a lot of disorder in the free software world in which
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
It is quite simple, if you link, then it is considered derivate.
Yeah, derivate. Considered.
Man, go to doctor, ams.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
It is not only what happens during run time. But also what happens
during compile time. Do you or do you not understand the difference
between telnet/telnetd and linking a program against a library? You
Just like some library, the kernel provides a bunch of
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Because GPL. Either kernel is GPL or not. If it is (and as you say
it is) then same rules apply to all programs distributed under
conditions of GPL.
One is always free to add special execptions, in the case of Linux,
that is exactly the case.
Exactly not
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
From offical dutites, yes, because Thomas went against the policies of
the GNU project (outright refusing to use the GFDL in a GNU project
Interesting. So much about GNU freedom of speech.
--- Start of forwarded message ---
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:33:16
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
From offical dutites, yes, because Thomas went against the policies of
the GNU project (outright refusing to use the GFDL in a GNU project
Interesting. So much about GNU freedom
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
From offical dutites, yes, because Thomas went against the policies of
the GNU project (outright refusing
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
And what did he failed to implement? Care to provide an example of
his refusal to adhere in *implementing* something?
Your reading comprehension _really_ is impaired. He refused to change
the license of Hurd documentation to the GFDL as prescribed by FSF
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
Shows how little you know about what linking means. When Linux runs,
or when glibc runs, they don't even share the same memory map;
Oh really? Man oh man. Part of address space reserved for the kernel
aside for a moment, how does read(int fildes, void *buf,
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Please stop posting messages that where not even intended for public
eyes. g-p-d is a private list,
Whatever. He he. My, GNU secret. I don't care.
Go bother http://www.softwarelibero.it.
http://www.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/discussioni/2003-November/008465.html
Go to doctor, ueber GNUtian retard ams.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Shows how little you know about what linking means. When Linux
runs, or when glibc runs, they don't even share the same memory
map;
Oh really? Man oh man. Part of address space reserved for the
kernel aside for a moment, how does read(int
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
It is in the libc CVS tree.
What is in the libc CVS tree?
My, uaccess stuff is in the kernel tree, stupid.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
As the maintainer of a GNU project, one is responsible for
implementing the GNU policies. That's not a matter of freedom of
^
|
Grand-Imperator's + (aka GNU President)
Of course the president of the FSF
http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2006/1030/104.html
LOL.
Man, but this is even better:
http://forums.forbes.com/forbes/board/message?board.id=stallmanreactionmessage.id=4
--
Ignorance and initial assumptions
rschott
Newbie
Posts: 4
Registered: 10-14-2006
rschott
GPLv3 is an Eldorado for Dan.
http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/10/13/free-as-in-difficult/
Free as in difficult
October 13th, 2006
Free as in freedom is the rallying cry of Richard M. Stallmans Free
Software Foundation. But these guys are anything but easy to deal with,
I
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my sdk's
library.
This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and the
example program.
How fascinating.
Hey ldb, ams' derivate means GNU-derived (incurable ueber GNUtian
retard ams'
Hey ldb, your only GNU-ethical choice is to GPL your wife and kids (as
an extra to code) and sing the GNU song:
Hoarders may get piles of money,
That is true, hackers, that is true.
But they cannot help their neighbors;
That's not good, hackers, that's not good.
When we
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
I disagree. The example program is a derivative of both the
SDK library and the Qt library.
That must be the GNU Copyleft Act Section 666 or some such. Hey, do
you have a link, Merijn?
regards,
alexander.
___
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
While the SDK library is not derived from Qt, the complete example
program is derived from both SDK library and Qt.
^^^
Hey ldb, GNUtian dak means GNU-derived (see unwritten GNU Copyleft
Act). It has really nothing to do with software derivative
Hey schizophrenic de Weerd, I think that you've been convinced at some
point that linking doesn't create software derivative works under
copyright except in the GNU Republic (i.e. under Stallman's copyleft***
not copyright, that is). Go take some medicine to end the crisis.
***) As GNU
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The unlinked work may be affected, too, if its purpose can't be met
without linking, and thus the act of linking from the enduser becomes
a formality instead of an available technical option.
What are you smoking dak?
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
If its main purpose is to be compiled and run, things are different.
17 USC 117, retard.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
Linking == modification.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections
Uh moron dak. So in the GNU Republic the status of other people's
works changes instantaneously (somehow becoming less derivative) the
moment GNUtians decide to dual-license. Go to doctor.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
quoted by Dan Lyons:
http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/10/16/off-the-record/
--
People find the GPL very hard to understand. Its not written in a
style that is a typical license style. Licensing lawyers write in a
particular style because its precise. Its hard to understand but if
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the
picture might change, depending on how much of the library is included
in the transformed source code. If, for example, you execute 'cc -E',
the resulting source code will contain the whole of
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
This is a weird example - distributing source code of a proprietary
product in order to compile and link it with GPLed libraries smacks
of putting the cart in front of the horse.
It smacks of license circumvention.
Only in your brain-damaged head. 17 USC
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the
picture might change, depending on how much of the library is included
in the transformed source code. If, for example
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
URL:http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366
You should read his later work as well.
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
In plain language:
http://www.stromian.com/Corner/Feb2005.html
quote
Rosen is too polite to call for replacing the FSF licenses with his
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
clear that even a work which as a whole represents an original work of
authorship can be a derivative work.
Uh retard dak. The first rule of statutory construction is begin at
the beginning and the second rule is read on. Original simply means
creative
Peter Yared, chief executive of ActiveGrid...
(According to Dan, Yared says he and others in the open source
community wasted two years trying to counter all the SCO-related FUD
with customers. Just as that cloud is being lifted, along comes
Stallman and the GPLv3 to mess everything up again.)
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
URL:http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366
You should read his later work as well.
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
In plain language:
http://www.stromian.com/Corner
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
Yeah right, bindings moronity.
URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
And special exception for major components (compiler, kernel, and
so on). (unless that component
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
I have here a secondary literary work covering Ulysses, consisting
pretty much exclusively of annotations.
Uh moron dak.
http://www.viewerfreedom.org/legal/20030711Intel/20030711brief.pdf
---
... copyright law requires that a derivative work incorporate
Louis B. (ldb) wrote:
Just a minor point of clarification: I'm not including Qt code in my
SDK, just an example to show how it would be used, if desired.
Utterly moronic GNUtian copyleft derivative theory was sorta argued in the
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 13th [sic :-)] CIRCUIT.
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
I would go as far as to say that in the case of software, ...
---
No. 05-04001
__
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 13th CIRCUIT
__
OMEGA, INC.,
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hey ldb, your only GNU-ethical choice is to GPL your wife and kids (as
an extra to code) and sing the GNU song:
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
Join us now and share the software;
You'll
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
considered a derivative work. If I put instructions about where to
download a copy to be used against the intent of the license, am I not
party to the process?
You are a party to GNU utter moronity, dak. Hey ams heads up, dak is
new champion.
regards,
Mike Cox wrote:
[...]
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml
GNU...GNU...GNU...To summarize: copyright assignment refers to
the process of legally changing the ownership of intellectual
property.
Hey ueber GNUtian ams, care to educate Gentoonians that
intellectual
Dan Lyons reports:
http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/10/17/bruce-perens-on-gplv3/
--
While were on the subject of the price of free software (a notion
that may seem paradoxical to some), a while back I had a chance to speak
with Bruce Perens, a well-known free software advocate,
aka Hurd (Hird stands for Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth) coined
by Thomas Bushnell, BSG, the primary architect of the Hurd
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html (he was dismissed by RMS
because he has publicly spoken against the GNU Free Documentation
License
Hey dak, both fellows have really good appetite (they should really try
to eat a bit less). And speaking of Eben,
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1139911511108
(Meet the DotCommunist)
-
Moglen puts it more simply: I know how to hook up people who have
money with the people who have
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Uh, why should he? The law is his profession. Since when should a
person not get paid for doing his job?
Are you getting paid for doing your GNU job? Your comrade ams seems to
be on public support.
http://www.update.uu.se/~ams/home/resume
-
Work Status:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
I am not getting paid for the voluntary work I do within the GNU
project, which is neither my job nor part of my job description. The
And what is your job description? I'm just curious: once and for all,
are you employed or not, dak? Or may be you're a lucky dot-com
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
benefitting the general public
Hey dak, care to address the following (2nd one below) Dan's comment
regarding the public?
http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/10/16/an-open-source-ceo-on-the-gplv3/#comments
--
Crosbie Fitch // Oct 18th 2006 at 4:03 am
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
benefitting the general public
Hey dak, care to address the following (2nd one below) Dan's comment
regarding the public?
Just a rant, and obviously so.
http
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
intended by the licensor: yes, the copyright holder has the control
There are limitations, such as free (of copyright control) distribution
of copies lawfully made and free (of copyright control) modification,
copying, and distribution of those additional exact
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
[...]
Dan's blog entry quoted a lawyer who's being consulted during the draftign
of GPLv3 who said that parts of GPLv3 aren't legally sound.
He said that GPLv3 draft is even worse than GPLv2 which nobody
understands. The legally unsound bit was about the FSF position
Go to doctor, mini-RMS.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The legally unsound bit was about the FSF position regarding
dynamic linking.
Which is not codified in either license since
Read the latest draft, moron.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Drazen Kacar wrote:
[...]
Irish copyright law gives such moral rights to individuals, the said
rights are not transferable and there's no way to give them up, as
far as Irish law is concerned.
http://www.icla.ie/index.php?information
Moral rights may be waived, but a waiver must be in
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Devices Rigged to Malfunction
Hey FSFE retard, it's malfunction in your brain, not Tivo-like devices.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
If you distribute the PostgreSQL server software linked with
the PostGIS software, then you have to comply with the GPL
for both parts of that derivative work.
If you don't distribute any server software, you do not have
to worry about what the GPL requires.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
[...]
If the content of the essay left even you with nothing to complain about, I
must have hit the mark.
He he. Chalk that down as whatever, moron. Complain about is/was right
below your moronic drivel available at the posted link. Yeah, of course,
reply didn't merit a
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
3 instances of moron later... doesn't the sun shine where you live at?
Sure. BTW, I don't see the connection, retard mini-RMS. Care to elaborate?
Uh moron. Where are you brain-free freedom guys coming from? Must be
some virus.
regards,
alexander.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
It's you who look like a virus, there's a troll under every bridge...
He he. At the end, you brain-damaged guys will be liberated (countless
violation [100+ tickets by Welte, go ask him] aside for a moment):
quasi public domain (penalty for copyright
Drazen Kacar wrote:
[...]
I don't know what is narrowly tailored waiver supposed to look like.
Something along the lines below? ;-)
http://forge.mysql.com/wiki/MySQL_Contributor_License_Agreement
2.4 You hereby waive any and all moral rights you may have in any of
the Contributions,
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Well, you can also get whitebox Linux or something like that...
[Red Hat's free-riders]
White Box Linux and Centos.
WBL is not well supported. Centos has more friends (Sun Microsystems
and OpenSolaris Project). At some point Red
support to any Red Hat Linux customer, not just
customers of Oracle products, Ellison said.
---
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Well, you can also get whitebox Linux or something like that...
[Red Hat's free-riders]
White Box Linux
of Oracle products, Ellison said.
---
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Well, you can also get whitebox Linux or something like that...
[Red Hat's free-riders]
White Box Linux and Centos.
WBL is not well supported
of Oracle products, Ellison said.
---
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Well, you can also get whitebox Linux or something like that...
[Red Hat's free-riders]
White Box Linux and Centos.
WBL is not well supported
products, Ellison said.
---
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Well, you can also get whitebox Linux or something like that...
[Red Hat's free-riders]
White Box Linux and Centos.
WBL is not well
:-)
Lunatic Brown.
LOL.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/09/06/HNfsfgpl_1.html
(September 06, 2005: FSF looking to raise $500,000 for GPL 3
evangelizing)
With the FSF estimating it may receive as many as 150,000 comments once
a draft GPL 3.0 is circulated either late this year or early in
---
Moglen: Microsoft-Novell raises GPL questions
November 2, 2006 4:58 PM PST
It's possible that Thursday's deal between Microsoft and Novell could
conflict with a provision in the General Public License (GPL), according
to Eben Moglen, the attorney for the Free Software Foundation that
Here's just one example.
By: cryptareopagite
--
Novell the Enemy and OpenXML
For those who missed it (hah!), Novell have embraced Microsoft, blown
their rights to distribute Linux under the GPL, and announced they're
going to help Microsoft try to kill OpenOffice.
I just posted
parties software patents as well as copyrights. (Finally, any
free program is threatened constantly by software patents. . . To
prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed
for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.) [Ex A (GPL) at 1].
---
Alexander Terekhov
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/patent_agreement.mspx
-
Patent Cooperation Agreement - Microsoft Novell Interoperability
Collaboration
Published: November 2, 2006 | Updated: November 2, 2006
On This Page
Covenant to Customers
Definitions Covenant to Customers
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/community.mspx
Community Commitments - Microsoft Novell Interoperability
Collaboration
Published: November 2, 2006 | Updated: November 2, 2006
On This Page
Microsofts Patent Pledge for Individual Contributors to openSUSE.org
http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/11/03/whats-really-happening-here
The breakup: Pragmatists versus extremists
November 3rd, 2006
Step back a bit and look at recent events. The GPLv3 fiasco, with HP and
OSDL griping about FSF, and Stallman refusing to accommodate corporate
types
MOG's having fun too...
http://www.clientservernews.com/
(Issue No. 666; November 6 2006 Saints Alive, Microsoft Teams with
Novell on Linux)
-
That creaking sound you just heard is Red Hat swaying back and forth on
the edge of the glacier-sized crevasse that has opened up in front of
it.
Red Hat (general counsel Webbink) predicts to become a 100% monopoly
in the Linux market in one year.
http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1228357,00.html
--
In one year's time, Webbink said, Red Hat would be the only Linux
commercial vendor left
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Seg, 2006-11-06 Ã s 07:59 +0100, Merijn de Weerd escreveu:
On 2006-11-06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We still believe that we will be the dominant player in the Linux
market, because by that time there won't be any other Linux players
Hey dak,
http://www.usedsoft.com/pdf/presseinfo/usedSoft_PM_Urteil_LG_Hamburg_Final.pdf
the case was about MS Volume licensed software (copies are made by
customers -- Dazu sagt das Urteil: Wenn die unkörperliche Übertragung
die Übergabe eines physischen Werkstücks ersetzt, dann muss auch
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
On 2006-11-06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
On 2006-11-06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We still believe that we will be the dominant player in the Linux
market, because by that time there won't be any other
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.usedsoft.com/pdf/presseinfo/usedSoft_PM_Urteil_LG_Hamburg_Final.pdf
Can you explain your email in English?
That pdf is not an email. Or what do you mean?
(Or, for a private conversation with one person
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can you explain your email in English?
That pdf is not an email. Or what do you mean?
Your email made no sense to me. I guess that's because half of it email was
in German and I can't read German. (I just quoted
http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/novell-and-moglen-meeting-as-i-write-this/
http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/moglen-arrives-at-novell-hq-in-waltham/
ROFL.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
webster elaborated:
---
As he serves the spicy, he is telling them that they can not do what they
propose due to the GPL. They do not have a license to distribute without giving
patent assurances and 'redistributability.' He will quote them the sections of
the GPL as he sniffs brandy.
As he
http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/the-moglen-meeting-happened/
-
The Moglen meeting happened
November 7th, 2006
Ive confirmed that. But no word from the professor. Novell is supposed
to put out some kind of expanded statement regarding the GPL in the next
day or two. Not sure
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll try. But slowly, okay?
Nope, still don't know what the point of your email was.
The point was first sale aka Erschöpfung aka exhaustion,
stupid. Kapis?
Please reply on usenet (I'm posting this to gnu.misc.discuss
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
If you are you must comply with the terms of the library license but your
You must not. First sale, stupid.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
No. If you are not distributing the library you need do nothing special.
Thanks, John. This clarifies things and makes a lot of sense.
Beware that the FSF (including their fierce legal acumen Eben) disagrees
with uncle Hasler, xp_newbie.
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/node/1851
--
What we can do, those who believe in freedom, those who use GNU/Linux,
or those who everywhere who believe in free markets and reject gangsters
and thugs and the destruction such people do to society? First and
foremost we must stand together
http://www.theregister.com/2006/11/07/perens_on_ms_novell/
It's a case of 'Damn the people who write the software', he told us.
Was the deal even legitimate, we wondered?
Novell is violating the GPL, he tells us. It's up to the Free
Software Foundation, which owns the copyright, to pursue this.
http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml;?articleId=193600331
---
The company is very close to announcing that it will put the mobile (ME)
and standard (SE) editions of the Java platform into the GNU General
Public License (GPL), with the Java Enterprise Edition and
601 - 700 of 2379 matches
Mail list logo
