On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:13:03 +0100, Martin Dickopp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That might be a fair interpretation except that dynamic linking is
pretty much rules out even without taking semantics into account.
As you are undoubtedly aware, many participants
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Case closed.
You really seem to believe that your statements somehow become correct
if you try to behave like a judge.
Martin
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Part II
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
As for the US, Forward Inline
Original Message
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Stallman rants about FreeBIOS
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:02:36 +0100, Martin Dickopp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:39:11 +0100, Martin Dickopp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can read about the position of the FSF here:
Part II
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
As for the US, Forward Inline
Original Message
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Stallman rants about FreeBIOS
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[... why the GPL
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://gl.scofacts.org/gl-20031214210634851.html
Moglen: Because the GPL does not require any promises in return
from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to
work. A GPL licensor doesn't say in the event of trouble But,
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
[0]: Many projects, specially system parts of GNU, have special
clauses or use the Lesser GPL to allow mixing with non-free software.
Tell me how does that work. Say on hurd (which doesn't have Linus'
exception to the GPL'd kernel). On what basis are all those
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:14:51 -0500
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You wanna write an app for our OS? Ask our permission first. Thank
you.
If you license your code under a Free Software license, then you
recived that permission[0]. The FSF doesn't care for people who wish
to
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:59:23 +0100
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tell me to respect the wishes of the author, and I'm all with you,
even if these wishes seem - at first sight - rather
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I said earlier in this thread, it is _not_ a matter of law, but of
morality. It is abundantly clear that the FSF considers any form of
linking to a library as preparation of a derivative work, and as such,
we all should simply honour the wishes
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Suppose the Earth consists of constaneously combusting pink
cheese...
Okay. And your question is?
and _you_, of all people, call others stupid frequently.
My questions were meant to highlight absurdity in your org's line of
reasoning, genius.
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Dickopp wrote:
[...]
I have no idea what you're aiming at.
I'm not surprised.
Since it becomes subsequently clear that you have no idea what you are
aiming at either, hardly a surprise.
If the works of A and B are combined to form a
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it went for EURO 6.50 on ebay a couple of weeks ago.
http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7133325141
A few years ago, I crossed a street at a red traffic light. Nothing
happend; I wasn't punished in any way. Therefore, it is now clearly
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Geez. Visit a clinic.
Are you this silly that you cannot even produce one message without
having to resort to personal attacks?
Yes, you're reading a mailing list. I'm reading and replying on
newsgroup.
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:12:29 +0100
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:37:43 +0100
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it unconvincing to argue that a program is not a derivative
work of a dynamic
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
is not a derivative of the standard 'C' library, but that the
copy that is created at run time in memory is a derivative
work of both the source code and the standard 'C' library
(or for Alex, a compilation, but that doesn't matter because
the same protections
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Can I ask all you guys a question? Can you keep the personal attacks
off the mailinglist/newsgroup/whatever? The copyright debate is at
least interesting, but I don't need my inbox clogged by this flame war
crap.
Thanks!
This message
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's the definition of a derivative work, taken
(without permission, but fair use (still) applies :-) from
101 USC 17:
| A derivative work is a work based upon one or more preexisting
| works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:37:43 +0100
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it unconvincing to argue that a program is not a derivative work
of a dynamic library just because this case is not properly covered by a
non-limitative list of illustrations.
The enumeration illustrates the way
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
So why are there numerous court decisions that deep linking of web
site material constitutes copyright infringement?
Deep Linking: Legal Certainty in Germany While Debate Continues in the
United States
September 11, 2003
With a recent decision, the German
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:31:15 +0100
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A book that refers the user to a dictionary for
the definition of a number of words is not a derivative
work of that dictionary.
So why are there numerous court
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:31:15 +0100
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A book that refers the user to a dictionary for
the definition of a number of words is not a derivative
work of that
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:59:23 +0100
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tell me to respect the wishes of the author, and I'm all with you,
even if these wishes seem - at first sight - rather outlandish. But
this lunatic fight to get the
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote: ...
I knew you'll bite. That's why I've omitted as such and said just
linking, not linking as such. It's just like the upcoming EU patent
law harmonization directive and software as such. Bwahahah.
Seriously, if A and B are
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:14:22 +
Rui Miguel Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 16:49 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:05:04 +0100
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is perfectly false in case of static linking as well. The
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
You see, there's no mention of POSIX or being needed to make
the program work. I think one can reasonably say that a statically
linked executable is covered by any other form in which a work
may be recast, transformed or adapted as far as its components
are
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
I asked you in private if you could provide decent arguments against
why you consider the GNU GPL void, but you couldn't even provide
anything to my inquiry.
I don't recall receiving any private messages from you. You're a
victim of my spam filtering, I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The thing is, you shouldn't forget that the GPL is intended as a
viral license. I would agree that linking a library is within the
realm of the law, but my suggestion is to just avoid most of the legal
obfuscation here and just ask the maintainer of
28 matches
Mail list logo
