Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Happy pagan fertility rite, RJack! In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Rahul Dhesi wrote: If the GPL contains any illegal terms, it should be easy to prove this. Just find some statute or case law according to which GPL-like permissions are illegal. If you can find none, then perhaps the GPL does not contain illegal terms. During the last few hundred or so postings to this group, The last few hundred. Or so. Does it not occur to you that we're all bored to tears with this minor sub-subject? It's really not that important. , you have consistently ignored the reasons I have cited for the lack of enforceability of the GPL license terms under the common law of contracts and through preemption by U.S. copyright law. Since I have cited a plethora of U.S. statute and case law supporting my arguments, you are well informed as to their nature and substance. You need only review the messages to this group to refresh your memory. These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ. They go on and on and on obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and coherent. A typical one of your posts assumes, often tacitly, something you showed in some previous post, sometime. Even you haven't got a mental overview over your many hundred, possibly several thousand, posts on this worn out topic. Please put your arguments in a coherent form on a web site, somewhere. You may continuously intone phrases such as *If* the GPL contains any illegal terms... and ...*perhaps* the GPL does not contain illegal terms until hell freezes over and nothing will ever be resolved. The ifs and perhaps lead only to repetition. Likewise, debating semantics concerning the meaning of illegal or similar words leads only to repetition. We're completely agreed on this point. Furthermore, this repetition is boring and highly undesirable on this mailing list. If you wish to claim the GPL is enforceable then you may wish to present your own arguments as to why it is, just as Eben a license is not a contract Moglen did and we'll let the readers of the World decide. Its enforceability is a sensible default assumption. The GPL was put together by a competent lawyer, is perfectly clear in what it says, is perfectly reasonable in what it says, has so far stood the test of time, and has been ruled valid by judges whenever it has been challenged in court. Your arguments, on the other hand, as much as I can make them out, seem based on arcane interpretations of USA law, sometimes citing cases going back the best part of a century judged in social conditions which simply don't exist any more. They also seem based on the notion that absolute logical consistency holds in law. So put your argument up on a web site, and leave some room here for people to talk about something interesting. Sincerely, Rjack :) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Alan Mackenzie wrote: Happy pagan fertility rite, RJack! . . . whining . . . . . . more whining . . . Its enforceability is a sensible default assumption. The GPL was put together by a competent lawyer, I didn't know Richard Stallman was a lawyer. Was that pseudo-fact also a default assumption? is perfectly clear in what it says, is perfectly reasonable in what it says, has so far stood the test of time, and has been ruled valid by judges whenever it has been challenged in court. The GPL has never been interpreted by a U.S. court. Your arguments, on the other hand, as much as I can make them out, seem based on arcane interpretations of USA law, sometimes citing cases going back the best part of a century judged in social conditions which simply don't exist any more. They also seem based on the notion that absolute logical consistency holds in law. So put your argument up on a web site, and leave some room here for people to talk about something interesting. As long as the Free Software Foundation claims enforceability under U.S. law and harasses folks through bogus lawsuits, I shall counter their attempts at socialist propaganda. Countless blogs mindlessly repeat their fiction and this demands correction. Rulings in non-U.S. jurisdictions are irrelevant to me as I have explicitly disclaimed knowledge of non-U.S. law. You Marxist folks may wallow in Stallman's socialism all you wish. I don't expect you to grasp or follow U.S. law. Dogs don't do nuclear physics and socialists don't do capitalism. If you don't like or understand the arguments I present, then by all means use your kill-filter to raise your comfort level. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..
Rahul Dhesi wrote: [...] a summary with references in the Wikipedia. You can read the opinion at http://www.internetlibrary.com/pdf/Wallace-IBM-7th-Cir.pdf . Wikipedia side, here's the summary: 1. [FOSS contributors can't charge] Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge. ... Linux and other open-source projects have been able to cover their fixed costs through donations of time and 2. [FOSS is junk] People willingly pay for quality software even when they can get free (but imperfect) substitutes. Open Office is a free, open-source suite of word processor, spreadsheet and presentation software, but the proprietary Microsoft Office has many more users. Gimp is a free, open-source image editor, but the proprietary Adobe Photoshop enjoys the lion's share of the market. and 3. [FOSS is doomed] The number of proprietary operating systems is growing, not shrinking, so competition in this market continues quite apart from the fact that the GPL ensures the future availability of Linux and other Unix offshoots. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
FSF v. Cisco [first ever NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by the FSF's goons]
This is getting interesting: (In light of the deadlines, from PACER) - 03/06/2009 8 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Paul G. Gardephe from Daniel B. Ravlcher dated 3/6/09 re: Plaintiff requests an adjournment of the pre-trial conference currently scheduled for March 18, 2009, at 11:00 AM, to April 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM or to any other date not prior to April 20, 2009. ENDORSEMENT: The application is granted. No further extensions will be granted. So Ordered. ( Pretrial Conference set for 4/21/2009 at 10:00 AM before Judge Paul G. Gardephe.) (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 3/6/09) (js) (Entered: 03/06/2009) 03/09/2009 9 ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER: It is hereby ordered that Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc., has until April 17, 2009, to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint file on December 11, 2008, by Plaintiff Free Software Foundation. No further extensions will be granted. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on (3/9/2009) (jfe) (Entered: 03/09/2009) 04/08/2009 10 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Aaron Kyle Williamson on behalf of Free Software Foundation, Inc. (Williamson, Aaron) (Entered: 04/08/2009) 04/08/2009 11 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Daniel Ben Ravicher on behalf of Free Software Foundation, Inc. (Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered: 04/08/2009) - regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
can't charge for GPL software ..
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge .. That is incorrect .. Buy a DVD or CD for 32 or 64 bit computers: SimplyMEPIS-32 Big DVD $29.95, SimplyMEPIS-32 Value CD $17.95 For 64 bit computers only: SimplyMEPIS-64 Big DVD $29.95, SimplyMEPIS-64 Value CD $17.95 http://www.mepis.org/store ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: can't charge for GPL software ..
Doug Mentohl wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge .. That is incorrect .. Tell it to - Frank H. Easterbrook Senior Lecturer in Law East 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 phone: 773-702-9579 email: frank_easterbr...@law.uchicago.edu - http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/easterbrook - Easterbrook, Frank Hoover Born 1948 in Buffalo, NY Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Nominated by Ronald Reagan on February 25, 1985, to a new seat created by 98 Stat. 333, 346; Confirmed by the Senate on April 3, 1985, and received commission on April 4, 1985. Served as chief judge, 2006-present. Education: Swarthmore College, B.A., 1970 University of Chicago Law School, J.D., 1973 Professional Career: Law clerk, Hon. Levin H. Campbell, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 1973-1974 Assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1974-1977 Deputy U.S. solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, 1978-1979 Principal employee, Lexecon, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, 1980-1985 Assistant professor of law, University of Chicago, 1978-1981 Professor of law, University of Chicago, 1981-1985 Race or Ethnicity: White Gender: Male - http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=678 not me. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rahul Dhesi wrote: [...] a summary with references in the Wikipedia. You can read the opinion at http://www.internetlibrary.com/pdf/Wallace-IBM-7th-Cir.pdf . Wikipedia side, here's the summary: 1. [FOSS contributors can't charge] Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge. ... Linux and other open-source projects have been able to cover their fixed costs through donations of time and 2. [FOSS is junk] People willingly pay for quality software even when they can get free (but imperfect) substitutes. Open Office is a free, open-source suite of word processor, spreadsheet and presentation software, but the proprietary Microsoft Office has many more users. Gimp is a free, open-source image editor, but the proprietary Adobe Photoshop enjoys the lion's share of the market. and 3. [FOSS is doomed] The number of proprietary operating systems is growing, not shrinking, so competition in this market continues quite apart from the fact that the GPL ensures the future availability of Linux and other Unix offshoots. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) can you post the correct link where you cited this text from? n. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: can't charge for GPL software ..
After takin' a swig o' grog, Doug Mentohl belched out this bit o' wisdom: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge .. That is incorrect .. Buy a DVD or CD for 32 or 64 bit computers: SimplyMEPIS-32 Big DVD $29.95, SimplyMEPIS-32 Value CD $17.95 For 64 bit computers only: SimplyMEPIS-64 Big DVD $29.95, SimplyMEPIS-64 Value CD $17.95 http://www.mepis.org/store Morons like Terekhov are either incredibly dense, or they are seeding web searches with false information, deliberately. -- Delores breezed along the surface of her life like a flat stone forever skipping along smooth water, rippling reality sporadically but oblivious to it consistently, until she finally lost momentum, sank, and due to an overdose of flouride as a child which caused her to suffer from chronic apathy, doomed herself to lie forever on the floor of her life as useless as an appendix and as lonely as a five-hundred pound barbell in a steroid-free fitness center. -- Winning sentence, 1990 Bulwer-Lytton bad fiction contest. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack made two ludicrious claims. First, that the GPL causes promissory estoppel, and as a result, anybody can copy GPL software as he pleases, with no limitations. I will discuss this later. Second, that the GPL, if treated as causing a contract to form, is unenforceable due to illegality. Let's discuss this below. Having claimed that the GPL contains illegal terms, Rjack is having a very, very hard time specifying just what in the GPL is illegal. He sort of implied that the ilelgality came from antitrust, when he wrote: The licensing fees in the GPL are price fixed a no charge to all third parties. Price-fixing sounds like antitrust, doesn't it? But when I probed about this, Rjack denied that he was thinking of antitrust. OK, let's grant him that. And just as well, bcause we know there is no antitrust issue. We know there isn't because Daniel Wallace, in Rjack style, argued that repeatedly and lost in court about five times (!) before giving up. What else is there that could be illegal in the GPL? I can't find anything. And neither, you might have notice, can Rjack. So in his latest posting, his reasoning now essentially is: If you can't prove that the GPL is enforceable, then it must be illegal. Two problems here. First, as a practical matter, the GPL is enforceable, because it's routinely enforced. Second, even if it were not, that would not necessarily make it illegal. Illegality is just one of many possible reasons why a contract (if the GPL causes a contract to form) might be unenforceable. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack made two ludicrious claims. First, that the GPL causes promissory estoppel, and as a result, anybody can copy GPL software as he pleases, with no limitations. You're flat out lying Rahul. I never claimed that. You're a desperate, despicable, deleterious desperado indeed. Your mother should wash your mouth out with soap for claiming such things. I will discuss this later. Second, that the GPL, if treated as causing a contract to form, is unenforceable due to illegality. I have certainly claimed that. Let's discuss this below. Having claimed that the GPL contains illegal terms, Rjack is having a very, very hard time specifying just what in the GPL is illegal. Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying. He sort of implied that the ilelgality came from antitrust, when he wrote: The licensing fees in the GPL are price fixed a no charge to all third parties. Price-fixing sounds like antitrust, doesn't it? But when I probed about this, Rjack denied that he was thinking of antitrust. OK, let's grant him that. And just as well, bcause we know there is no antitrust issue. We know there isn't because Daniel Wallace, in Rjack style, argued that repeatedly and lost in court about five times (!) before giving up. If true, such claims are irrelevant. Ad hominen attacks never address issues raised in argument. Ad hominen attacks are a mark of desperation denoting that you have no rational reply. What else is there that could be illegal in the GPL? I can't find anything. You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of just denying and lying. And neither, you might have notice, can Rjack. Sure I have. You just keep denying and then lying. So in his latest posting, his reasoning now essentially is: If you can't prove that the GPL is enforceable, then it must be illegal. Two problems here. First, as a practical matter, the GPL is enforceable, because it's routinely enforced. Just show me the U.S. court decisions -- not your fantasies. Second, even if it were not, that would not necessarily make it illegal. Nice leap of logic in hedging your bet there Rahul. Illegality is just one of many possible reasons why a contract (if the GPL causes a contract to form) might be unenforceable. Name one reason other than violation of the canons of contract construction. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: FSF v. Cisco [first ever NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by the FSF's goons]
Alexander Terekhov wrote: This is getting interesting: (In light of the deadlines, from PACER) - 03/06/2009 8 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Paul G. Gardephe from Daniel B. Ravlcher dated 3/6/09 re: Plaintiff requests an adjournment of the pre-trial conference currently scheduled for March 18, 2009, at 11:00 AM, to April 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM or to any other date not prior to April 20, 2009. ENDORSEMENT: The application is granted. No further extensions will be granted. So Ordered. ( Pretrial Conference set for 4/21/2009 at 10:00 AM before Judge Paul G. Gardephe.) (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 3/6/09) (js) (Entered: 03/06/2009) 03/09/2009 9 ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER: It is hereby ordered that Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc., has until April 17, 2009, to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint file on December 11, 2008, by Plaintiff Free Software Foundation. No further extensions will be granted. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on (3/9/2009) (jfe) (Entered: 03/09/2009) 04/08/2009 10 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Aaron Kyle Williamson on behalf of Free Software Foundation, Inc. (Williamson, Aaron) (Entered: 04/08/2009) 04/08/2009 11 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Daniel Ben Ravicher on behalf of Free Software Foundation, Inc. (Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered: 04/08/2009) - Uh... Williamson and Ravicher filed the original Complaint on behalf the Free Software Foundation on December 11, 2008. Many they forgot this fact while wandering around on the streets of New York for four months. He.He. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ———x FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, INC. a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation, Plaintiffs, -against- Civil Action No. CV CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. a California corporation, Defendant ———x COMPLAINT . . . . . . . . . Dated: New York, New York December 11, 2008 Respectfully submitted, SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC. By: Daniel B. Ravicher (DR1498) Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337) 1995 Broadway, 17th Floor New York, NY 10023-5882 Tel.: 212-580-0800 Fax.: 212-580-0898 Attorneys for Plaintiff Free Software Foundation, Inc. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal. And he protests: Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying. ... You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of just denying and lying. OK, readers, I need your assistance here. I admit that I have not read everything that Rjack has ever posted. Nor, I suspect, has anybody else, with the possible exception of amicus_curious. But in the sample that I did read, I have not seen Rjack ever specify exactly what in the GPL is illegal. For a short while I thought he was referring to antitrust, but not, he said he was not. Has anybody seen any specific description from Rjack in his posts that tells us what in the GPL is illegal? I killfiled Rjack shortly after his first message showed up. I have no idea what he's yammering on about -- but I'm guessing he's pretty much a crank in the Snit mode. It doesn't matter how convincing your argument might be -- he'll just rewind and re-spew -- starting the whole thing all over again. That's the crank way. Best to just killfile him. -- RonB There's a story there...somewhere ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
RonB stated in post grrlk7$64...@news.motzarella.org on 4/11/09 8:01 PM: Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal. And he protests: Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying. ... You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of just denying and lying. OK, readers, I need your assistance here. I admit that I have not read everything that Rjack has ever posted. Nor, I suspect, has anybody else, with the possible exception of amicus_curious. But in the sample that I did read, I have not seen Rjack ever specify exactly what in the GPL is illegal. For a short while I thought he was referring to antitrust, but not, he said he was not. Has anybody seen any specific description from Rjack in his posts that tells us what in the GPL is illegal? I killfiled Rjack shortly after his first message showed up. I have no idea what he's yammering on about -- but I'm guessing he's pretty much a crank in the Snit mode. It doesn't matter how convincing your argument might be -- he'll just rewind and re-spew -- starting the whole thing all over again. That's the crank way. Best to just killfile him. LOL! You imply that you made reasoned arguments in response to my comments. Hey, I bet you that you cannot find a single example. And you *know* I am right. -- [INSERT .SIG HERE] ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
RonB ronb02nos...@gmail.com writes: Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal. And he protests: Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying. ... You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of just denying and lying. OK, readers, I need your assistance here. I admit that I have not read everything that Rjack has ever posted. Nor, I suspect, has anybody else, with the possible exception of amicus_curious. But in the sample that I did read, I have not seen Rjack ever specify exactly what in the GPL is illegal. For a short while I thought he was referring to antitrust, but not, he said he was not. Has anybody seen any specific description from Rjack in his posts that tells us what in the GPL is illegal? I killfiled Rjack shortly after his first message showed up. I have no idea what he's yammering on about Sound's about right. You certainly didn't have a clue about UI consistency and made yourself look pretty ignorant there. So same there then? -- In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
