Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

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

Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

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

Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

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

Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

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

Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

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.

Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

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

Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

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

Re: GPL question

Nicholas R. Markham wrote: I have a program that I'd like to utilize the GNU Scientific Library. Since the GSL is distributed under the GPL (not the LGPL), this means I would have to distribute my program under the GPL as well. Not at all. To begin with, I suggest you read Open Source

Re: Adobe Open Source License GPL compatible?

Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: [...] But you can't MAKE COPIES of YOUR copy Sure I can. Work is GPL'd and publicly available. I admit making copies. What's the problem? and (re)DISTRIBUTE them unless you have distribution rights. 17 USC 109. regards, alexander.

Re: Adobe Open Source License GPL compatible?

Tim Smith wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov wrote: My answer is below it. As far as the GPL is concerned, everything is compatible with it. It might not be so under jursidiction of the GNU Republic (where only Mr President Stallman knows and rules what

[Wallace v. FSF/GPL] Civil Complaint No. 1:05-cv-0618-JDT-TAB

http://linuxbusinessnews.sys-con.com/read/80782.htm Does anyone have a link to the complaint? TIA. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [Wallace v. FSF/GPL] Civil Complaint No. 1:05-cv-0618-JDT-TAB

John Hasler wrote: Alexander Terekhov writes: Does anyone have a link to the complaint? TIA. It's only available through PACER. I'm sure it'll be on Groklaw soon. Indeed. Now, PJ's trash talk aside for a moment, does anyone have a link to the amended complaint? ;-) regards, alexander

Re: Adobe Open Source License GPL compatible?

Isaac wrote: [...] don't agree with his conclusions involving first sale, Well, http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00137.html quote author=RMS The crucial point is that when we release a program under the GPL, we do not claim that all possessors of a copy have agreed to any

Re: how much is too much?

John Hasler wrote: Chad writes: I'm actually considering a dedication to the public domain. So to clarify the direct issue: My understanding is that I cannot take code that is under the GPL and copy/paste it into a project that I want to dedicate to the public domin. Correct? You

Re: how much is too much?

John Hasler wrote: Isaac writes: Well, the copyright statute says that one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder is the *preparation* of derivative works. (See 17 USC 106). You don't have to distribute or copy such works in order to infringe. Creating a derivative work

Re: how much is too much?

BTW, apropos Alexander Terekhov wrote: John Hasler wrote: [plonked] David Kastrup writes: ^^^ and What would it mean to enforce a unilateral permission? ^ in the !GPL http://groups.google.de/group

Re: Placing GPL licensed application's installer inaproperietaryapplication's installer

Wahaj Khan wrote: Yes item 2 in my email must be prohibited as its not mere aggregation, its more of merging. That's a distinction without a difference. It is mere/bare/scant aggregation. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Re: IP Newsflash

Michael Deutschmann wrote: On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: No. [the term intellectual property is] a fake blanket designed to induce people into treating patents, copyright and trademarks, instinctively, as one and the same thing. Correction: It's a fake blanket designed

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Steve wrote: Drivative works of BSD'd code (derivative literary works [modulo the AFC test] under copyright law) are subject to BSD. In source code form, such derivative works are subject to BSD and only the BSD -- you simply can't modify/extend/etc. original license (unless you're the

Re: What does the FSF advocate regarding non-free software

beirne wrote: I'm thinking through my opinions about the FSF and am trying to figure something out. I know the FSF believes that free software is the correct form of licensing, but does the FSF formally advocate the elimination of copyright laws that allow for non-free software?

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Bruce Lewis wrote: [...] Since the BSD license allows code to be used for any purpose, the purpose of creating a derivative work and distributing it under a different license is allowed. Use is irrelevant because as far as copyright is concerned, it is permitted per 17 USC 117 and the

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Bruce Lewis wrote: [...] Suppose I created a painting designed to fit under the Mona Lisa and Copyright protects software as literary works, not paintings. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Bruce Lewis wrote: [...] Furthermore, software that builds on but does not modify other software could be described by any of the three verbs in or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. Copyright protects software as literary works. Things like builds on are

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Bruce Lewis wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Heck. Boy scouts. Hey boy, try thinking of real software derivatives like human translations from one programming language to the other with the same set of protected elements in both original work and derivative work

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Bruce Lewis wrote: [...] Now you are citing someone who says Such innovations rarely will constitute infringing derivative works under the Copyright Act. Someone == United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Rarely implies it is possible. That mild and polite wording doesn't subvert

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Bruce Lewis wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You must be reading something that isn't there. The independent status of the new copyright with respect to preexisting copyright(s) in the sense that it does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Isaac wrote: [...] URL:http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html URL:http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html These cases really do not appear to be on point These cases are not really cases to begin with (that's apart from fact that orders were

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Alexander Terekhov wrote: Isaac wrote: [...] URL:http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html URL:http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak seems to be unaware the District Court of Munich I judged that the GPL

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Isaac wrote: [...] URL:http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html URL:http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak seems to be unaware the District Court

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] (http://www.ifross.de) which advocates that contractual condition Oh my, this is fun (the GPL 2b is not for kids, so to speak): http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/art7.html (Frei ab 18 Jahre) Well, I agree. :-) regards, alexander

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 21:25 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] consequence, the GPL'd stuff should be exempt from first sale... other bizarre legal constructions of his own (together with his friend Metzger) creation aside

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: [...] There's no contract from the beginning. Drop a note to Edwards of debian-legal and ask for a copy of his Will the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up? quote This document represents the author's best effort to identify the principles of common law, Federal

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] http://www.ifross.de and/or http://www.jbb.de) why the GPL is a http://oss.fh-coburg.de/events/OSSIE04/schulz_contractional_relationships.pdf (Contractual Relationships in Open Source Structures, Carsten Schulz, JBB Rechtsanwälte, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) regards

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: [...] Drop a note to Edwards of debian-legal and ask for a copy of his Will the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up? Stop distorting intentionally everything people write. Well, did you already read that Edwards article? What exactly did I distort? Start on quoting

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: [...] 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 otherwise dispose of the possession

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] Promises regarding distribution are totally baside the point. We are talking about *unilateral* grant, not a contract: http://gl.scofacts.org/gl-20031214210634851.html quote author=Moglen The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: [...] I've stated it well before you: the GNU GPL is an unilateral grant of certain rights. One of them is, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, to DISTRIBUTE COPIES, ^ 17 USC 109, stupid. MODIFIED OR NOT. Same

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak doesn't believe that I've plonked him (he joined GNUtian ams). Hint: I working in team. And, BTW, all my plonks expire on annual basis. So don't be surprised to be re- plonked at some time

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

John Hasler wrote: ... You're (almost totally) wrong, and (plonked) GNUtian dak is (mostly) right. The right to access the copyrighted content must not be confused with the incidental possession of the object that facilitates practical exercise of the right. It is access to the copyrighted

Re: inhouse forking?

fogelsharp wrote: [...] Google for GPL FAQ, I think this is covered. Thank you very much! I'll read the FAQ! Read also Michael K. Edwards' 50+ pages of utter devastation (legal) to the GPL FAQ. Drop a note to M.K.Edwards at gmail.com at ask for a copy of Will the Real GNU GPL Please Stand

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] SmartDownload could be analogized to a free neighborhood newspaper, readily obtained from a sidewalk box or supermarket counter without any exchange with a seller or vender. It is there for the taking. I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak continues to exhibit

Re: inhouse forking?

John Hasler wrote: [...] No. In fact, you don't have to make your changes public even if you do sell it: you just have to provide the to your customers. Are you GNUtian or not, Hasler? If yes, you should urgently take the FSF's license-quiz http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi (Q6).

Re: Google not supporting open-standard ?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] The LZW patent has expired. See IBM's counterclaims against SCO for unexpired one. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gnu license

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've some questions about gnu license: Try http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Including GPL and LGPL'ed software in a solution

Bernd Jendrissek wrote: [...] Make up your mind. The GNU project is certainly not about public domain/all rights abandoned. The FSF's idiotic propaganda aside for a moment, it makes it proprietary. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing

Re: Including GPL and LGPL'ed software in a solution

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I guess I should really be having this discusion with the MySQL AB (?), They will tell you all sorts of myths to scare you into buying their commercial license which will free you (and your clients) from GNU liability. That's the business model. regards,

Re: Intellectual Property II

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

Re: Intellectual Property II

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 http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=mboard=1600684464tid=caldsid

Re: Intellectual Property II

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

Re: Intellectual Property II

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

Re: Appropriate List for GPL Discussions?

D.C. Parris wrote: Is this the appropriate list for general GPL discussions? You are quite welcome. What's the grief? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org

Re: Appropriate List for GPL Discussions?

D.C. Parris wrote: [...] what is the effect of the auto-termination clause? Here's what a IALNAP (I am lawyer, not a programmer) said. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00350.html Basically, just like the rest of the GPL drivel authored by a programmer-not-a-lawyer RMS, it

Re: Appropriate List for GPL Discussions?

David Kastrup wrote: ... Hi dak, nice to see you again. Wanna be replonked for free (until next Christmas? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Appropriate List for GPL Discussions?

D.C. Parris wrote: [...] While I strongly disagree with your opinion of the GPL, I do appreciate the link. It is helpful to understand the role of the auto-termination clause (assuming the view expressed is accurate). I don't care to get into a flame war over the legitimacy of the GPL. It

Re: Appropriate List for GPL Discussions?

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 14:21 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: ... Hi dak, nice to see you again. Wanna be replonked for free (until next Christmas? Are you making a threat? I'm a willing witness ;) Hi mini-RMS, but only as witness

Re: Question about GNU Free Document License

John Hasler wrote: [...] The license states the conditions under which he, as copyright owner, has granted recipients of copies the right to distribute copies. Recepients of copies have the statutory right to distribute those copies. The copyright owner just can't grant it because it's the

Re: Intellectual Property II

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

Re: GNU General Public License?

Fung wrote: You can make profit of the GPL licence, see for example redhat. But you should be aware of one thing: using the commoncpp library will probably mean you need to license your software under GPL, so the source code must be provided. Sez who? regards, alexander.

Re: GNU General Public License?

Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html The funny thing is that the guy pretends to be a sort of anarchist. In in interview with Spiegel Online Stallman said I tend toward the left-wing anarchist idea, and to LinuxWorld Today he said I am

Re: Running modified GPL software on a server

David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] lawfully made, dispose of, possession. It is clear that this applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated yourself

Re: Running modified GPL software on a server

For the sake of nailing stupid dak once again... David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Hasler wrote: [...] No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give copies of the binaries to. 17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner

Re: GPL and other licences

David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fung wrote: I am currently doing some research on open source licences and while reading the GPL licence the following question arose: Distributing a derivative work combined from software licensed under [whatever

Re: GPL and other licences

David Kastrup wrote: [...] That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going on. We don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand, have a nice lawsuit from Wallace. Kudos to him for calling the bluff and achieving pretty good results already. For example,

Re: Running modified GPL software on a server

John Hasler wrote: [...] No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give copies of the binaries to. 17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a lawfully made copy is ENTITLED, WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of

Re: GNU General Public License?

Hey misc.int-property, enjoy GNUtian view on IP (it indeed is not property and belongs to the state _under_ _current_ _laws_). GNUtian David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fung wrote: [... the GPL ...] The GPL talks about legal regime in the GNU

Re: Extending/Redesigning GPL code into LGPL lib: possible?

GNUtian John Hasler wrote: [...] The license is a unilateral grant from you to others. It does not bind you in any way. Only in the GNU Republic. Outside the GNU Republic, IP licenses are contracts that bind licensors not to sue licensees for IP infringement. And licensees are bound by

Re: GPL and other licences

Barry Margolin wrote: [...] But that's not really a good analogy. Combining two programs is not just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a copy of the other. What do you mean by merge. They remain as two separate computer programs (or parts thereof, if you like)

Re: GPL and other licences

Barry Margolin wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barry Margolin wrote: [...] But that's not really a good analogy. Combining two programs is not just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a copy

Re: GPL and other licences

David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: GNUtian logic in action. GNUtian David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One can download a copy of GPL'd

Re: GPL and other licences

GNUtian logic in action. GNUtian David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 11:43 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Barry Margolin

Re: GPL and other licences

GNUtian logic in action. GNUtian Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 14:07 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any I accept) directly to a compilation on a tangible medium. In source code or object code form (both forms

Re: GPL and other licences

David Kastrup wrote: [...] But copyright law does not allow you redistribution of copies. The GPL grants you additional rights. You are free not to accept those additional rights. quote source=http://tinyurl.com/3c2n2 [cacd.uscourts.gov] Adobe characterizes each transaction

Re: GPL and other licences

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 16:55 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: form, you can reproduce it in object code form (as an additional copy per 17 USC 117) using compilation process (as in computing), link it together with other stuff and run. It's all allowed per

Re: GPL and other licences

Lee Hollaar wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Furthermore, 17 USC 117 entitles the owner of a lawfully made copy (source code see above) to distribute those additional copies (in object code form see above) along with the copy from which such copies were

Re: GPL and other licences

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL. Irrelevant. You still don't have the right to make copies and distribute The right to distribute lawfully made copies (without

Re: GPL and other licences

Barry Margolin wrote: [...] OK, so why are you inventing new issues, rather than addressing the topic of the thread? The OP said a derivative work combined from software licensed under the Apache Software Licence 2.0 and software licensed under the GNU GPL 2.0. This sounds to me like he's

Re: GPL and other licences

GNUtian logic in action. GNUtian Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 22:00 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL

Re: GPL and other licences

David Kastrup wrote: (to uber GNUtian ams) [...] Do you even remember what you try to be arguing about? Property is theft. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org

Re: GPL and other licences

GNUtian logic in action. Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote: [...] You can combine software to create both a plain compilation and a derived work. Only in the GNU Republic. I shall not try to draw the line, but I'd put my money on there being more derived works than you seem to think. Yeah, I

Re: GPL and other licences

[... jar ...] And here comes bloby Eben. http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/02/20/1544245.shtml?tid=117tid=123 (Professor Eben Moglen Replies) 2) Clarifying the GPL by sterno One issue that I know has come up for me is how the GPL applies in situations where I'm using GPL

Re: GPL and other licences

David Kastrup wrote: ... Dak, dak, dak. You are losing it. To comrade ams: in recognition of this event I'm unplonking you right now (many months before scheduled unplonk), congrats. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Re: GPL and other licences

Uber GNUtian Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: (to GNUtian dak) [...] No wonder why Alexander likes you enough to `unplonk' you. Erm. I've unplonked you both sometime around last Silvester. Then I've replonked you, ams. GNUtian dak didn't take my offer of free replonk, go ask mini-RMS (he volunteered to

Re: GPL and other licences

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: [...] Of course they can. The copyright holder most definitely cannot control how the software is used (unless there is a contract stipulating such), because copyright law doesn't give such rights - it's the right to make and distribute copies that is granted to the

Re: GPL and other licences

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 11:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [... legal scheme to escape copyleft ...] I resent the innuendo implicated by this cut, which could lead someone to think I wrote a legal scheme to escape

Re: GPL and other licences

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that? What they are stating is this: (MS EULA) *

Re: GPL and other licences

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [... FSF: the contract controls ... ] I don't think anything since I don't know not of what you're speaking. But the anecdotal evidence portrayed by your posts leave you very little credit as far as saying a truthful thing goes. Try

Re: GPL and other licences

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 14:35 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Keep in mind that copyright law doesn't concern itself with distribution of AUTHORIZED copies and that the act of distribution doesn't turn AUTHORIZED copies into unauthorized copies. Here you

Re: Intellectual Property II

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

Re: Intellectual Property II

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: http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

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

Re: Intellectual Property II

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

Re: Intellectual Property II

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

Re: Intellectual Property II

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

Re: Intellectual Property II

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

Re: Intellectual Property II

feasible[6]. Under German right this opinion will not represent, so that a in this country attenuation of the license threatens. - Alarm! Alarm! Alarm! regards, alexander. Alexander Terekhov wrote: German GNUtian dak didn't answer yes or no question regarding Welte attorneys (the gang

Re: GPL and other licences

Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] For example, just last week I needed a function which searches backwards a maximum of 3000 bytes from the end of file for Local Variables:, and then deletes any following lines containing mode: or eval:. I extracted the code which did the searching out of an

Re: Intellectual Property II

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

Re: Intellectual Property II

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

Re: GPL and other licences

Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] The actual source of the function I'm talking about (which is available in SourceForge) is materially different from the above. The extracted code (what you've called .locate_backwards_from_end) has been extensively changed from the original, yet is recognisably

Re: GPL and other licences

Alan Mackenzie wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:59:54 +0100: Alan Mackenzie wrote: That is true. However, when you take two short stories, commingle paragraphs from one of them with paragraphs from the other, connecting them up

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >