Did you chek it with RMS, mini-RMS? Microsoft is developing its
software for the benefit of someone else (who is willing to pay)
as well.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
rjack wrote:
[...]
Kunze Letter
http://www.nccusl.org/nccusl/meetings/UCITA_Materials/kunze-ucita.pdf
Oh that's great. Eben should send another similar letter to the DISTRICT
COURT OF FRANKFURT AM MAIN, I suppose.
DISTRICT COURT OF FRANKFURT AM MAIN On behalf of the people JUDGMENT
The GPL
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
If you want analogies, Intellectual Property is to Patents, Copyrights,
Trademarks and Trade Secrets what All Living Beings Have Lungs is to
amoebas, cattle and afids.
A false expression, disguised of sensible generalisation.
As we read the Framers'
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1950825836;fp;2;fpid;1
-
In opening the seminar, the Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre's executive
director, David Vaile, said the purpose of the event was not to reach a
consensus but to ventilate issues surrounding GPL3, in particular its
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Seg, 2006-12-04 Ã s 09:16 +0100, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Intellectual property is a form of property which, like physical
property, can be bought or sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise
transferred, wholly or in part. Accordingly, some or all
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh moron. Property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone
who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her
consent.
Intellectual property is property
John Hasler wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
Intellectual property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone
who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her
consent.
Then you agree that trade secrets are not property.
Eh?
To the extent that appellee
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...] Property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone
who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her
consent.
Entierly true.
Intellectual property is property.
No, since a) intellectual property has no meaning and
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone
who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her
consent.
Intellectual property is property.
So why
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Well, this is about theft of *Trade*Secrets* not of intellectual
property. My my, what a perfect example of a misnomer ip really is.
Trade secrets are a form of intellectual property, stupid.
regards,
alexander.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6140514.html
---
Linux lab cuts staff, focuses on legal issues
By Stephen Shankland, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: December 4, 2006, 10:27 AM PT
* ZDNet Tags: Legal,
* Open source,
* Linux,
* Layoffs,
* Intl Business
http://www.builderau.com.au/blogs/betaliving/viewblogpost.htm?p=339270743
-
GPLv3 would prevent MS/Novell
By Chris Duckett | 2006-12-04 14:07:36
Print this | E-mail this | Leave a comment
According to the Free Software Foundation's general counsel, Eben
Moglen, GPL version 3 would
---
Name: Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 12/3/06
Chung Leong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 12/3/06 wrote:
That's a strange way to argue it. You're speaking as
though there's a normal market in which new drugs
without patent protection would be developed. Let say
we remove this market
Name: Anil Maliyekkel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 12/3/06
Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 12/3/06 wrote:
---
Do you think penicillin was invented because Alexander
Fleming or St Mary's Hospital (where he was working) was
looking to make a huge profit?
...
Btw,
In comments to:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061204130954610
(Novell Forking OpenOffice.org)
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 10:40 AM EST
one stupid comment per person per article is enough.
Careful there PJ: being arrogant on top of being ignorant
LOL.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061203015212989
(Why the Novell Deal is Bad SCO's Memo in Support of Motion for SJ: We
Did Not Breach the GPL)
We have read IBM's scathing Memorandum in Opposition to this SCO motion
already, but here's SCO's Memorandum in Support of its
I mostly agree with troll Steven.
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:59:12 +
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ter, 2006-12-05 às 18:49 -0600, John Hasler escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva wrote:
When you buy a piece of land, does it say your contract that
rjack wrote:
[...]
I suppose you call Richard Stallman and the Free Sofware Foundation a
democracy? The free in free software is euphemistic and semantic
gobbledegook. RMS is an absolute dictator -- a mini Stalin -- concerning
supposedly free software.
Of hypocrisy and the FSF
rjack wrote:
[...]
Having invented a new copyright license that is not a contract, arch
legal beagle Professor Moglen now is busyily inventing a new copyright
license that is not only effective retroactively but assumes control of
non GPL distribitors' patent rights. Rumors say that in the
Aragorn (registered Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux user #223157) wrote:
[...]
The word commercial is thrown in by this person solely for the purpose of
bloating his argument. There is nothing in the GPL that states that
software cannot be sold commercially,
So now they're going to try the hard work of
Aragorn (registered Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux user #223157) wrote:
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 18:19, Alexander Terekhov stood up and
addressed the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
Aragorn (registered Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux user #223157) wrote:
[...]
The word commercial is thrown
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
Ideas are not covered by any law, having them covered would be quite
bad.
http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=196601593
-
IBM sues maker of Intel-based mainframe clones
Paul McDougall
InformationWeek
(12/05/2006 9:00
Joseph S. wrote:
[...]
In effect, GPLed software is more inaccessible for study and inspection
than shareware? By fear of contamination.
Yup. The GPL family is highly toxic (according to GPL experts like RMS,
Eben Moglen, and FSF's GPL Compliance Lab):
cyanide - LGPL - GPLv2 - polonium 210 -
http://spl.haxial.net/gnu-gpl/
Richard Stallman has the license-writing skills of a monkey. I
discovered this when I tried to write an accurate and concise
summary of his license.
Following I tear the GPL to shreds, and then explain why each
shred is poorly written for a license
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
If you don't remember: the postings about it here were really amusing
regarding Terekhov's grip on reality: he paraded the verdict here
I remember that you took exception to my characterization of the German
phrase In Übrigen wird die Klage abgewiesen
Ben Pfaff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No. 06-2454
DANIEL WALLACE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
The OP said that they add features that are not provided if the GPLed
scripts are used.
Features like freedom. Man, run to doctor, ams.
regards,
alexander.
--
Don't Buy Harry Potter Books
-- http://www.stallman.org
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
An informative read is The Dangers of Software Patents:
http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html
There are also certain software developers for whom getting a patent
licence is extremely hard. We Free Software developers. You see Free
Software has been so
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
An informative read is The Dangers of Software Patents:
http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html
The advocates of software idea patents ask you to take for granted
that no matter what harm or trouble or nuisance these patents may
cause, they must be promoting
Any idea what makes arch legal GNU beagle Eben one of the world's
leading experts on copyright law as applied to software, rjack?
regards,
alexander.
--
Don't Buy Harry Potter Books
-- http://www.stallman.org
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
rjack wrote:
[...]
One must be careful to define Component[] in context.
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2006/2pet/6invit/2005-1056.pet.ami.inv.html
Although the court of appeals correctly held that software can be a
component of a patented invention
rjack wrote:
[...]
Its information content is transferred from disc to disc without a
single molecule being transferredâjust as the information in this Brief
is transferred to a photocopy without a single molecule being
transferred. RMS
Sorry if it was not clear, but that Chinese
I find it rather interesing that this recent instance of a penumbra
blah-blah filed by the SFLC is basically copy and paste from Eben's
SFLC underling Dan of PubPat brief in LabCorp v. Metabolite.
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/AmicusBriefs/PUBPAT_LabCorp_SCt_Brief.pdf
The Supreme Court
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Vandenberg.pdf
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Shell.pdf
Simply put, software is not a process ... but merely represents a
processs, says Shell.
What Shell wants is this:
quote
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Vandenberg.pdf
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Shell.pdf
Simply put, software is not a process ... but merely represents a
processs, says Shell.
regards,
alexander.
--
Boycott Exxon-Mobil
-- www.stallman.org
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Vandenberg.pdf
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Shell.pdf
Simply put, software is not a process ... but merely represents a
processs, says Shell
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Vandenberg.pdf
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Shell.pdf
Simply put, software is not a process ... but merely represents a
processs, says Shell.
What Shell wants
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
This isn't a ground-breaking article, but there didn't seem to be any
articles that described tivoisation in moderate detail, so I wrote one:
Tivoisation explained - implementation and harms
[http://www.softwarefreedom.org/publications/msvatt.pdf]
Toward the end, arch legal GNU beagle Eben eloquently states:
Thus, this Court's precedent repeatedly sets out that software, which
is nothing more than a set of instructions -- an algorithm -- to be
performed by a computer in order to
Just a subject change. Unpaid GNUtian volunteers without money*** might
want to notice and comment. TIA.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[http://www.softwarefreedom.org/publications/msvatt.pdf]
Toward the end, arch legal GNU beagle Eben eloquently states:
Thus, this Court's precedent
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
oops, one more thread to the kill list.
.-.
| |
\ \
.--.. \
() '
(_) .__ _
()
(___) _ _ _.-
regards,
alexander.
--
rjack wrote:
[...]
The CAFC should be reversed.
Maybe. Well, but taking ideas from Switzerland (-based international and
non-political association of approximately 4,000 industrial property
attorneys from over eighty countries (including the United States)) and
Shell, either the SCOTUS
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I.e. you could modify the GPL into being a non-free license, and
still call it the GPL.
That does not follow.
Yes, it does, if and only if you are permited to modify the GPL. But
the GPL is licensed under the following terms:
| Everyone is
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
A operating system can exist perfectly fine without a kernel, ...
Only a GNU operating system? LOL.
regards,
alexander.
Join the boycott of Chinese products
-- www.stallman.org
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[... TRIPS ...]
It doesn't say shall be protected as you please.
Nor does it say shall ONLY be protected. Why do you think
it does?
Because the meaning of shall implies the *ONLY*.
Only in the GNU Republic, district governed by mini-RMS.
regards,
http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2007/01/mysql_changes_l.html
--
Open Source WeblogMySQL changes license to avoid GPLv3
January 04, 2007
Heres an announcement that almost got drowned out by festive cheer:
MySQL has changed the license it uses for its open source database
Hey Ciaran, do you really take that bullshit lunacy seriously?
I'm just curious. (Perhaps you're just a full-time lobbyist on
payroll and that's just your job, nothing more... no?)
regards,
alexander.
--
Please do not buy from Amazon
-- Richard Stallman
Jay Belanger wrote:
Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
No one asked me to make that, but I knew people would find it useful, so I
made it - and a lot of people have said thanks.
There are many more here:
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/texts/
Let me add my thanks, too.
+1
Freedom and all that... great new home for Eben and the entire GNU gang.
http://www.sealandgov.org/index.html
--
About Sealand
Sealand was founded as a sovereign Principality in 1967 in international
waters, six miles off the eastern shores of Britain. In late June of
2006, the island
---
Developer News
February 16, 2007
GPL Draft Has Microsoft/Novell Deal in Mind
By Sean Michael Kerner
NEW YORK -- When the the third draft of the General Public License
(define) comes out, look for language that addresses the recent
Microsoft-Novell patent deal.
Members of the Free
Uncle Hasler, uncle Hasler,
John Hasler wrote:
me writes:
i've not changed any code in foo, i simply want to use the binary. can
i distribute the original unmodified binary foo with my proprietary
software and not become obligated to GPL my software?
Yes. Note, however, that you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3) [17 USC 106(3)], the
owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this
title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the
authority of the copyright owner, to sell or
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
US law says that if you own a lawfully made copy of a work you can sell it
or otherwise dispose of it without permission of the copyright owner. Note
that a copy is a _tangible object_ such as a book, a CD, a floppy, or a
hard drive. However, this bit of law has no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
you can totally blow off the GPL and treat it like LGPL??
--
[...]
sections of the LGPL are an impenetrable maze of technological
babble. They should not be in a general-purpose software license.
[...]
The LGPL concedes that the GPL is a better, more
-John Sullivan
Hey FSFer, shirts aside, any chance to see your 2006 forms pretty soon?
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/8557.htm
I'm really interested in your 2006 expenses... especially related to
(apparently never ending) GPLv3 saga. ;-)
regards,
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [using his a-la RMS totally moronic tool in
reply to FSFer wjsullivan]
You might want try and check https://www.fsf.org/order/
FSF doesn't have that particular shirt anymore, but there are some
other good ones.
Yeah, such as the GNU GPL vaporware related
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You'll find that judges are no mechanical idiots.
Let's take a look at US appelate court's (panel of three judges)
interetation of the GPL:
quote
Authors who distribute their works under this license, devised by the
Free Software Foundation, Inc., authorize not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
can we all please stop talking in parables and references to topics we
may not all share the detailed background knowledge of? I'd like a
straight answer with the entire answer within the text.
is the GPL basically not enforceable assuming you work around it
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/03/in_search_of_gp.html
Topics: Consumer/Personal Tech
In Search Of GPL Version 3: The Long Road To Nowhere
By Charles Babcock,
10:37 PM ET, Mar 15, 2007
A month ago, I started down a path that I hoped would lead me to a
Alan Curry wrote:
[... rms ... rms ... rms ...]
Hey Alan, would you please comment on the following opinion from
Humberto Fontova (feel free to comment on related side node below
as well):
sidenote
source=http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.asp?ID=27342commentID=824270
Date:
Alan Curry wrote:
[...]
It appears to be mostly about the Cuban government. It says nothing about GNU
and barely anything about rms (it mentions that he gave a speech there, but
from what you reposted I can't even determine what he spoke about).
Try google, Alan. From what I gather it was a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The talk is entitled Free Software and Freedom: Free Software in Ethics
and in Practice.
I thought he is supposed to be busy with the GPLv3.
--
A Decision from FSF in 2 Weeks on Novell-MS Deal
-- When you want to know more but don't know where to look.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The Empire the iPhone: 'Technology Platforms,' the Commons, and the
Way We Live Now.
I thought he is supposed to be busy with the GPLv3.
--
A Decision from FSF in 2 Weeks on Novell-MS Deal
-- When you want to know more but don't know where to look.
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198001444
quote
The next version of the open source license is dividing the community,
and it isn't even out yet
[...]
Bare facts: What's the difference betweekn free and open? Ask Richard
Stallman, who wrote the first GPL.
LOL.
http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/archives/070319-110231.html
--
« BrainShare: The Heart of Novell
March 19, 2007
BrianShare: Mountains Out of Molehills?
Thus far, I have not seen Novell spare a lot of expense on the glitz for
this show. Massive catered meals, audio-visual
ROFL
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070317032834650
--
FSF Corrects Novell's Steinman and a Request to End the Mystery
Monday, March 19 2007 @ 02:41 PM EDT
I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this interview with Novell's
Director of Marketing, Justin Steinman. He is
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9126255519.html
Mar. 19, 2007
Salt Lake City -- In a small conference room across the street from the
location of Novell's BrainShare conference, free-software advocate Bruce
Perens attacked Novell's patent deal with Microsoft and said that Novell
was
A seminar to explain the nuances of GPLv3, alas, postponed.
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/02/22/gpl_seminar/
---
GPL advocates urged strikethroughtold/strikethrough to pay for love
By Dan Goodin in San Francisco ? More by this author
22 Feb 2007 02:14
Freedom is just another word
http://technocrat.net/d/2007/3/24/16783/
Next GPL3 Draft to be Released on Wednesday
Bruce Perens Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:52:51 PDT Open Source Software
At the FSF general meeting today, Richard Stallman announced that the
third discussion draft of GPL version 3 will be released on
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/108831/fsf-to-tweak-gplv3-to-bust-up-ms-novell-deal.html
FSF to tweak GPLv3 to bust up MS Novell deal
7:32AM, Tuesday 27th March 2007
The Free Software Foundation, non-profit group that owns rights to much
of the Linux operating system, says it will seek to
http://lwn.net/Articles/227857/
A new GPLv3 timetable
[Posted March 26, 2007 by corbet]
From:Brett Smith brett-AT-fsf.org
To: corbet-AT-lwn.net
Subject: GPLv3 timetable update
Date:Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:40:33 -0400
FYI: the information below is being sent to our
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
[snip bullshit]
Yada, yada, yada. As if first sale (copyright exhaustion in EU
speak) were nonexistent not only in the GNU Republic but everywhere.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[snip bullshit]
Yada, yada, yada. As if first sale (copyright exhaustion in EU
speak) were nonexistent not only in the GNU Republic but everywhere.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yada, yada, yada. As if first sale (copyright exhaustion in EU
speak) were nonexistent not only in the GNU Republic but everywhere.
That would only allow you to transfer your copy, not make
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As if first sale (copyright exhaustion in EU
speak) were nonexistent
Well, I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not going to check with a
lawyer right now, but if there was such a loophole in the GPL, wouldn't
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
As if first sale (copyright exhaustion in EU
speak) were nonexistent
Well, I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not going to check
with a lawyer right now, but if there was such a loophole in the
GPL, wouldn't someone have exploited it by now?
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
Note that only copyright owners have standing to sue.
Sonny, uncle Hasler has spoken!
True, since the Free Software Foundation (license drafter)
persistently claims for decades to the entire world that the GPL is a
license and not a contract, then it is really hard
Installation Information
In our earlier drafts we devoted much care to devising a detailed
technical definition of the cryptographic information that would
enable GPL licensees to install functioning modified versions,
without affecting legitimate uses of encryption. The result was a
Inherently Unmodifiable Copies
We do not object to the practice of conveying object code in a mode not
practically susceptible to modification by any party, such as code
burned in ROM or embedded in silicon. What we find ethically
objectionable is the refusal to pass on to the downstream
Network Access and Other Limitations
The definition of Installation Information states that the information
provided must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the
modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely
because modification has been made. We did
Standing ovations to Eben! :-)
quote
User Products
In our earlier drafts, the requirement to provide encryption keys
applied to all acts of conveying object code, as this requirement was
part of the general definition of Corresponding Source. Section 6 of
Draft 3 now limits the applicability
Paracopyright
What was the second paragraph of section 3 in Draft 2, concerning so-
called anticircumvention law, has been broken up into two paragraphs.
In the first paragraph we have replaced the reference to the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act, a United States statute, with a corresponding
Ephemeral Propagation
Some have expressed concern that our technical restrictions provisions
would extend to such cases as the ordinary use of a walkup Internet
kiosk. We do not believe ephemeral propagation of this sort should
amount to conveying anywhere, and are confident that it is not
Patents
Software patenting is a harmful and unjust policy, and should be
abolished; recent experience makes this all the more evident. Since
many countries grant patents that can apply to and prohibit software
packages, in various guises and to varying degrees, we seek to protect
the users of
Elvey wrote:
FYI, their (Adaptec Support's) latest response:
Send GNU legal beagle Eben on them, Elvey. They will capitulate
immediately. :-)
regards,
alexander.
--
Its odd that PJ would duck a subpoena because she says shes a
paralegal and has a high respect for the legal system.
--
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
The reason there have not yet been many court tests of the GPL is that most
infringers capitulate immediately upon being confronted.
And in other news, RMS has bought a house and a nice big car (in
addition to a whole bunch of genuine DVDs with latest Hollywood
http://blog.actonline.org/2007/04/perens_invokes_.html
quote
April 10, 2007
Perens Invokes the Nuh Uh! Defense, Calls Us Names
Following up on a piece he wrote about my recent GPLv3 analyses, Peter
Galli interviewed [http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2112267,00.asp]
free software
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Koh Choon Lin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the title is misleading: Paying for good software will lead
others to think that free means free of charge.
That blog does mean free of charge. It's a freeware blog, not a free
software blog.
C'mon, Guh-NÜ
quote
1. The language of GPLv3 is difficult to understand.
A license should clearly inform people what they can and cannot do.
GPLv3 does neither. Lawyers assume that they could understand it if only
they were software engineers, and engineers assume that the lawyers
grasp it. Both are wrong.
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog/2007/04/index.html
quote
And Now ... Life After GPLv3
Not that it wasnt wonderful. I enjoyed almost every minute of it, and
Im going to write about the ones that can be told, some day. But for me
and for my colleague Richard Fontana, after months of
http://www.links.org/?p=221
-
Moglen Celebrates the Increase in the Chocolate Ration
Eben Moglen blogs about the GPLv3
[http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog/2007/04/index.html] and what a
wonderful guy he is. But Im not going to get into a GPLv3 vs. GPLv2 vs.
anything else debate, since Im
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
Take a look at RedHat
IPO scam money aside for a moment, let's see...
1997: net loss1318 (-)
1998: net loss3738 (-)
1999: net loss6388 (-)
2000: net loss 43053 (-)
2001: net loss 86773 (-)
2002: net loss 139949 (-)
2003: net loss6734
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
Dunno why I bother, but... RedHat does far more software development
than Adobe. ^
|
Eh? |
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Sex, 2007-04-27 Ã s 17:21 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
Dunno why I bother, but... RedHat does far more software development
than Adobe
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Sex, 2007-04-27 Ã s 17:21 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
Dunno why I bother, but... RedHat does far more software development
than Adobe
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
Isn't that pattern pretty normal for high-tech startups?
Ask those poor folks who lost the money in Linux and .com IPO scam.
I've sold and shorted (Put-Optionsscheine) the techs in 99 and it was
rather too earlier, but in the end it turned small profit, not loss.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
rjack wrote:
[...]
The CAFC should be reversed.
Maybe. Well, but taking ideas from Switzerland (-based international and
non-political association of approximately 4,000 industrial property
attorneys from over eighty countries (including the United States
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=8808
-
FSF cosies up to Apache
By Matthew Broersma, Techworld
The Free Software Foundation says it is on track to build Apache License
compatibility into the upcoming GPL version 3, despite 11th-hour
problems that scuppered the feature in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Suppose I used some GPL code (e.g. linux kernel linked lists) in my
own project, which is also under GPL. However I have the copyright for
the bits that I wrote, possibly more than a non-trivial %90 of it. Can
I still dual license the project?
Your project
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Suppose I used some GPL code (e.g. linux kernel linked lists) in my
own project, which is also under GPL. However I have the copyright for
the bits that I wrote, possibly more than a non-trivial %90 of it. Can
I still dual
801 - 900 of 2379 matches
Mail list logo
