Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html
--
This would not be a presentation about the GPL by me if emphasis was not
placed on what you see before you now. This license is
Not a Contract.
You are not required to accept this License
http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html
Because the deterrent effect of denying the right to have and use and
distribute free software is not enough in and of itself to break most
patent aggression schemes. Where we have satisfied ourself that narrow
targeted patent
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Uh, you are being confused.
Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is the
author.
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/12/linux_gpl30_letters/
Regarding
-
Since when has he felt like that. Last time I remembered, the kernel
people (including Linus) were real big on being the superior software
Gods. Isn't that why we can't have binary
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Uh, you are being confused.
Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is
the author.
So you disagree with him and still quite him?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Uh, you are being confused.
Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is
the author.
So you disagree with him and still quite him?
I partly agree with him. I mean
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Uh, you are being confused.
Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is
the author.
So you disagree with him and
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Then it does not make sense that you just throw in a quote as your
sole contribution.
Yet another malfunction of dak's sense barometer. NAD. WAD.
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:27:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Isaac wrote:
[...]
It's not a mistake. Preaching the gospel of first sale according to
Alexander
appears to be a life mission.
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/e123816845315e68
quote
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:00:56 -0600, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isaac writes:
17 USC 117 is a limitation on the copyright holders rights that allows an
owner of a copy of software to make copies necessary to install and run
software without having any permission from the copyright
Isaac wrote:
[...]
I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy
of software rather than having license it. Courts in the US don't
seem to recognize such a thing.
Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold
and not licensed.
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:10:17 +0100, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Isaac wrote:
[...]
I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy
of software rather than having license it. Courts in the US don't
seem to recognize such a thing.
Other courts have
Isaac wrote:
[...]
While it's true that some courts have decided that, the majority position
seems to be otherwise. I'm not sure which court decision that line is
from, but I suspect we can find decisions from other district courts
in CA contrary to this one.
Regarding 17 USC 117, take also
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally
OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on
another computer at my dacha. The key is
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Nope. It gives you additional rights depending on conditions. You
can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave
it be. No contract. There is no obligation to accept the conditions.
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Nope. It gives you additional rights depending on conditions. You
can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave
it be. No contract. There is no obligation to accept the conditions.
^^^
Your ignorance works against you,
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
sale.
Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are
talking about distribution of unauthorized copies.
The act of distribution doesn't turn authorized copies into
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
sale.
Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are
talking about distribution of unauthorized copies.
The act of distribution
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:03:02 +0100, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
sale.
Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are
Isaac wrote:
[...]
It's not a mistake. Preaching the gospel of first sale according to Alexander
appears to be a life mission.
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/e123816845315e68
quote authors=Jeffrey Siegal, Isaac
What about the first sale doctrine? Indeed, if users own
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Conditional authorization does not magically turn into
unconditional authorization.
A promise on my part to forbear from distribution right under first
sale and instead do what you decree is a covenant, not a
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 19:18 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Wallace on predatory pricing:
---
Predatory pricing
The GPL establishes a predatory pricing scheme. Setting the maximum
price of intellectual property at “no charge” removes all motive to
compete.
Error no.1: it's not
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Error no.1: it's not intellectual property but copyright that's being
discussed
Copyright 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
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:41 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Error no.1: it's not intellectual property but copyright that's being
discussed
Copyright is a form of property
No. It is an artificial government granted temporary monopoly over a
work.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:41 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Error no.1: it's not intellectual property but copyright that's being
discussed
Copyright is a form of property
No. It is an artificial government
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Copyright is a monopoly over the distribution of a work
All property rights imply some form of ownership (monopoly in GNU
speak) on enjoyment and exploitation of property. But distribution
right is severely limited by first sale (which is nonexistent in
I wrote:
US copyright law does not allow installation on more than one computer at a
time without permission of the copyright owner.
Isaac writes:
What provision of US copyright law says this?
Title 17 Chapter 1 § 106 (1)
I don't see such a limit in 17 USC 117.
§ 117 is a limitation on
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 14:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Copyright is a monopoly over the distribution of a work
All property rights imply some form of ownership (monopoly in GNU
speak) on enjoyment and exploitation of property.
But copyright
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 16:52 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[... monopoly ...]
William M. Landes and Richard Posner:
-
A property right is a legally enforceable power to exclude others
from using a resource, without need to contract with them. So if
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 16:52 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[... monopoly ...]
William M. Landes and Richard Posner:
-
A property right is a legally enforceable power to exclude others
from using a resource,
Wallace on predatory pricing:
---
Predatory pricing
The GPL establishes a predatory pricing scheme. Setting the maximum
price of intellectual property at no charge removes all motive to
compete. The Supreme Court has analyzed predatory pricing in a Sherman
Act § 1 civil action:
[T]his is
Wallace concludes:
---
Conclusion
The plaintiff Daniel Wallace in his Complaint has directly or
inferentially alleged that the defendants have:
(1) used an express contractual agreement to conspire with named
co-conspirators and;
(2) engaged in an unreasonable restraint of trade by pooling
German GNUtian dak didn't answer yes or no question regarding
Welte attorneys (the gang at ifross) wild fantasies that the GPL
is a contract coupled with AGB based on German concept of
conditions subsequent.
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup
Hey dak, have some fun. The gang at ifross in action.
http://www.heise.de/ct/06/04/046/
For English-only readers:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=de_entrurl=http://www.heise.de/ct/06/04/046/
-
GPLv3 - Legislation in contract form
[...]
Penetration in danger?
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were
pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't
link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or
statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary in
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] is at it again:
[ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ]
[ 2 meaningless lines of original content ]
Do we see a pattern here? We have here a person who pokes around
apparently all day, every day, on Google, finds stuff and repeatedly
reposts it into
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] is at it again:
[ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ]
[ 2 meaningless lines of original content ]
Hey Rahul, but the most charming piece regarding GNUtian legal system
from you is this:
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 18:28 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
- When you get GNU software by anonymous ftp, *there is no contract*
and you have no legal right to use it. You are granted rights by the
GPL that you did not have, but these are not legal rights, because
you cannot enter into
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] is at it again:
[ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ]
[ 2 meaningless lines of original content ]
And he follows up with 48 more lines of quoted content!
Does anybody remember the zumabot? We seem to have a
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sources.d/msg/3c633bf50d950b8c
(early Rahul Dhesi, before he was brainwashed by GNU)
You mean that people can't know better and learn in almost 20 years?
Know better what? The FSF hired lawyers are telling to the
Just to stress...
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/
LWN: A while back, you said something about getting an answer from
Linus on the Linux kernel license. Since there is a COPYING file
that makes it clear that the kernel is governed under the GPL,
where's the
Recent court decisions in Germany?
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf
You are confusing a `critique' of a court decision, and the actual
court decision. The courts decision was in favour of the GPL.
In short, what Moglen says is perfectly correct, and what
Portuguese Judges wouldn't show such a high level of tolerance against
people who make fun of the Judicial system as Wallace is doing.
There are rules for dealing with frivolous litigants.
I think Wallace is quite serious (though loony), and I think that the judge
thinks he is serious, too.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Recent court decisions in Germany?
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf
You are confusing a `critique' of a court decision, and the actual
court decision.
That utterly defective judgement (keep in mind that the context is
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it
Sitecom didn't bothered. So what?
would seem like it would have to be printed on _very_ expensive paper
in order to be worth less than that.
Oh dear. I take it that you agree that the GPL is a
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it
Sitecom didn't bothered. So what?
If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded
without waiting for an injunction, wouldn't
-
As to the definition of derivative work, the uncertainty is
experienced by those who would like to make proprietary uses of
GPL'd code, and are unsure whether a particular way of making a
proprietary enhancement to a free work will certainly or only
arguably infringe the free developer's
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
FSF's brief #37 in Wallace v FSF:
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 together with another program that is not licensed
under the GPL: In
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
BTW, FSF's reply to Wallace's fourth amended complaint is due today,
IIRC. I'd appreciate of someone with Pacer account can post it here,
TIA.
Since recently, tuxrocks.com's coverage of Wallace v. GPL got pretty
selective (the motto is we won't let Wallace
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
I offer EURO 20 (through PayPal) for #35 plus #36 above (I need one
copy of each brief). Anyone?
Erledigt.
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=mboard=1600684464tid=caldsid=1600684464mid=333225
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 17:01 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Since recently, tuxrocks.com's coverage of Wallace v. GPL got
pretty selective (the motto is we won't let Wallace troll the
community, I suppose; interestingly enough, the pro-GPL stance
seems to impact publication of some
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
RHEL: over 1500 EUR for subscription
They charge for per seat services (mostly bug fixes delivery), not
GPL'd software as IP. That monetization model fails with stable high
quality software (vendor lock-in through certification of other stuff
for
Just to count two immediate possibilities. There are hundreds more.
Two possibilities on two ends of the spectrum, the usual cost is
around 45 USD from my brief check (GNU Source CD's, and OpenBSD CD's).
Thogh, if you have 5000 USD (~4000 EUR), getting the GNU Deuluxe
Distribution package is a
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: ...
My, you're dense.
http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf
Terekhov likes to quote material without having actually read it
himself. Wallace more or less claims that the GNU GPL allows for
price fixing, more exactly, that it requires all parties to distribute
copies of GPLed software for no fee.
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 22:49 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf
Terekhov likes to quote material without having actually read it
himself. Wallace more or less claims that the GNU GPL allows for
price fixing, more exactly, that it
56 matches
Mail list logo
