date:20100505

Nicolas Neuss lastn...@kit.edu writes:

 Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
 writes:

 Using them would place their employer or the commercial organization
 to which they belong under the obligation of publishing all of the
 source code for any released product that included your library. As a
 result, most people working on commercial published software, or who
 contemplate doing so in the future, simply avoid gpl libraries
 altogether.

 Here is a question which I find rather interesting: Is in-house use of
 GPLed software allowed?  It is quite clear that using GPLed software by
 a single developer to run a commercial web server for example is
 allowed.  But in the case of multiple developers inside a company one
 could either argue that the company operates as an entity, or
 alternatively that the company by letting one of their developers
 combine GPLed software with their own product is forced to give her/him
 the whole software under GPL.

In-house use would be outside of the scope of the GPL, since no
distribution would occur.

A more interesting question would be what happens with respect to
holdings, and the daughter companies.  In this case, I would argue
distribution occurs (invoicing would have to occur legally AFAIK), and
therefore GPL would apply.  Which doesn't mean that YOU would get access
to the code of course, only that the daughter company who buys it from
another daughter company would get it (and be able to hire YOU instead
of the sister company if them need a patch and the sister is unable or
unwilling to provide it).


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

2010-05-05 Thread Nicolas Neuss

p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:

 In-house use would be outside of the scope of the GPL, since no
 distribution would occur.

This means that in-house distribution to employees would not count as
distribution in the GPL sense.  OK, this might indeed be the most
reasonable point of view.

Nicolas
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Nicolas Neuss lastn...@kit.edu writes:

 p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:

 In-house use would be outside of the scope of the GPL, since no
 distribution would occur.

 This means that in-house distribution to employees would not count as
 distribution in the GPL sense.  OK, this might indeed be the most
 reasonable point of view.

Yes, definitely.

First, the most efficient companies won't have any distribution.  The
new software would be instealled on the file server, and everybody
could use it from here.

And even in the less efficient companies, employees don't install
softwarem (it's the job of the IT jockeys).

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


On 2010-03-21 11:22:57 -0400, John Hasler said:


They are not required to publish it.  They are merely required to
distribute it along with the binaries.  If you offer source to everyone
to whom you sell binaries you are done.


In practice this amounts to publication. Every customer would receive 
the source; every customer has the right to make it public; it would 
only take one customer excercising this right to make the source 
publicly available.




--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


On 2010-03-21 15:29:44 -0400, John Hasler said:


They might, but there are cases where they did not.


One can't rely on this unlikely possibility, which becomes increasingly 
unlikely the more sales are made.



The point is that
_you_ are not required to publish anything.


It hardly matters who does the publishing. The point is that the source 
still becomes publicly available.



Offering source to everyone
who receives binaries from you satisfies your GPL obligations.  You can
ignore requests for source from anyone else.

Of course, if the possibility that someone might pass the software on
worries you, the solution is simple: don't link to GPL works.



Which is why many developers choose to avoid this possibility and use 
LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/Apache licensed libraries instead. And now we've 
come full circle.


warmest regards,

Ralph


--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
writes:

 On 2010-03-21 15:29:44 -0400, John Hasler said:

 Of course, if the possibility that someone might pass the software on
 worries you, the solution is simple: don't link to GPL works.


 Which is why many developers choose to avoid this possibility and use
 LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/Apache licensed libraries instead. And now we've
 come full circle.

Sure.

And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me?

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

2010-05-05 Thread RG

In article 878w9k1k8l@thumper.dhh.gt.org,
 John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote:

 Ralph writes:
  I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic
  means of ensuring maximal adoption.
 
 You assume that everyone has maximum adoption as their primary goal.

Indeed, if maximal adoption were the goal the best way to achieve that 
would be to simply renounce the copyright and release the code into the 
public domain.

rg
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

2010-05-05 Thread RG

In article ho7v0o$rf...@news.eternal-september.org,
 Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com 
 wrote:

 On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:
 
  Sure.
  
  And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me?
 
 Not only am I not imposing anything on you, I've already offered to pay 
 you for a commercial license. So you can have your cake (GPL licensing) 
 and eat it too (paid commercial licensing).
 
 My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements 
 regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many 
 commercial developers, and therefore whenever possible, they choose 
 non-GPL alternatives.

That's a much better way of putting it than your original formulation.

 In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in 
 terms of getting code open sourced.

...

 I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic 
 means of ensuring maximal adoption.

Here is where you are imposing your choices on others.  Not everyone 
shares this quality metric of yours.  Some people have goals other than 
insuring maximal adoption, like, oh, I don't know, making money for 
example.  Such people might want to use the copyright laws not to force 
others to create open-source software but to create artificial scarcity 
in order to drive up prices.  One can argue whether or not this strategy 
will be effective.  One can argue (as Stallman does) that one ought not 
choose this quality metric for moral or political reasons.  But neither 
the quality metric nor the strategy are unreasonable a priori.

rg
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


On 2010-03-22 10:52:58 -0400, John Hasler said:


You assume that everyone has maximum adoption as their primary goal.


I assume that the author's goal is maximizing the amount of open source 
- and in fact, it is Pascal's stated goal - that others who use his 
library will open their source code for him to see and use - a 
perfectly reasonable desire. I just don't think anyone whose source is 
closed is going to open that source code simply to use a library - if 
they are constrained not to open their source, they simply won't use 
GPL libraries.


In order to accomplish this primary goal - greater amounts of open 
source - you need users and contributors. Possibly counterintuitively, 
the goal of maximizing open source is actually better accomplished by 
*not* choosing the GPL. The GPL drives potential users away, and 
potential users are potential contributors, bug fixers, etc. Instead, 
these potential users will become users of some other library which is 
LGPL, or BSD, etc. licensed, and they will become open source 
contributors to those other libraries, not to the GPL licensed project.


Again, recognition of this dynamic is what drove the creation of the 
Library GPL (now the Lesser GPL) in the first place.


warmest regards,

Ralph


--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

RG rnospa...@flownet.com writes:

 In article ho7v0o$rf...@news.eternal-september.org,
  Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com 
  wrote:

 On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:
 
  Sure.
  
  And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me?
 
 Not only am I not imposing anything on you, I've already offered to pay 
 you for a commercial license. So you can have your cake (GPL licensing) 
 and eat it too (paid commercial licensing).
 
 My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements 
 regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many 
 commercial developers, and therefore whenever possible, they choose 
 non-GPL alternatives.

 That's a much better way of putting it than your original formulation.

 In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in 
 terms of getting code open sourced.

 ...

 I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic 
 means of ensuring maximal adoption.

 Here is where you are imposing your choices on others.  Not everyone 
 shares this quality metric of yours.  Some people have goals other than 
 insuring maximal adoption, like, oh, I don't know, making money for 
 example.  Such people might want to use the copyright laws not to force 
 others to create open-source software but to create artificial scarcity 
 in order to drive up prices.  One can argue whether or not this strategy 
 will be effective.  One can argue (as Stallman does) that one ought not 
 choose this quality metric for moral or political reasons.  But neither 
 the quality metric nor the strategy are unreasonable a priori.

Indeed these are the questions.  I will have to think more about it, and
may be change the licence in the future (perhaps this year).

I also would like to contribute some of my code to some common library
and this would certainly require a change of license anyway.


But I need more time to think about it and work on it.


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

2010-05-05 Thread Nicolas Neuss

David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:

 It does not get you anything additional, but it gets you something
 _less_: a proprietary product that uses your own code to draw your
 user base away from you.

This is quite understandable - I would not really like seeing Microsoft
use my code.

However, when I was in search for a license for code of mine -Femlisp, a
PDE solver written in Common Lisp- I stood before the question which
license to choose[*].  A commercial license did not make much sense,
because the code was (and is) not yet commercially valuable.  However, I
wanted to retain at least some possibility of providing enhanced value
(in the form of additional features) within a commercial setting.  A GPL
license would make this business model impossible for everyone -
_including me_ as soon as other people would start contributing relevant
portions of code under the GPL.  Therefore, I decided in favor of the
(modified) BSD license.

Nicolas

[*] More precisely, I asked my university for permission to use either
GPL or BSD, and then had the choice.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


On 2010-03-22 16:51:46 -0400, John Hasler said:


I guess this is why Linux has been totally eclipsed by BSD.


1. Linux isn't a *library*, it's an operating system. A GPL operating 
system doesn't force GPL licensing for any application that runs on it. 
A GPL library *does* force GPL licensing for any program that links 
with it.


Again, the LLGPL was created for precisely this purpose.

2. Mac OS X is BSD Unix. It has existed for half the time that linux 
has, and has more than 5 times the web client share of linux, so yes, 
BSD is on its way to eclipsing linux as a client OS.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems

warmest regards,

Ralph


--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


On 2010-03-22 20:28:25 -0400, John Hasler said:


No it isn't.


The Open Group which does the official UNIX certification would beg to differ:

http://www.opengroup.org/public/prods/brand3581.htm
http://www.opengroup.org/homepage-items/c399.html


It's a heavily modified Mach single-server kernel with a
partial BSD userland.  And Apple contributes little or nothing back.


http://www.apple.com/opensource/

lists scores of open source components that form part of Mac OS X and 
to which Apple contributes its enhancements.


The market reality is that many programmers work on projects that are, 
at least in part, closed source. Open source licenses other than the 
GPL allow these programmers to use and contribute to open source 
projects.


warmest regards,

Ralph



--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

2010-05-05 Thread refun

In article 871vfbzrb8@thumper.dhh.gt.org, jhas...@newsguy.com says...

 The Berkeley license as well as _some_ other Open Source licenses permit
 them to keep some of their changes secret.  This is the very reason some
 programmers use the GPL.

While I respect Pascal's decision to use whatever license he wants to use, it 
might be worth noticing that a good majority of Common Lisp libraries(besides 
Pascal's and a handful of others) are licensed under BSD, LLGPL, MIT or public 
domain. 

GPL seems to be an unpopular choice for Common Lisp code, especially libraries. 
This means that in practice, people will pick a license which grants them more 
effective rights, and doesn't force them to release the code to their entire 
application just because they used a handful of functions from another library 
which is licensed under GPL. In most of the cases, even if other people don't 
have the intention of going commercial, they like to have the option, which is 
why GPLed libraries are usually unpopular with Common Lisp developers. 
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


On 2010-03-22 22:48:27 -0400, John Hasler said:


Purchasing a certificate granting the right to label one's product UNIX
does not make it a BSD.


Being a derivative of 4.4 BSD makes it a BSD; Being certified by the 
Open Group makes it a UNIX. Mac OS X is a BSD UNIX.





The market reality...


...is irrelevant to many of us.


Many may wish it weren't relevant, but it is. The FSF recognized that 
the GPL was a poor match for the market realities of library use nearly 
20 years ago when the FSF created the GNU Library Public License, now 
the Lesser GPL, for precisely this reason.





...is that many programmers work on projects that are, at least in
part, closed source.  Open source licenses other than the GPL allow
these programmers to use and contribute to open source projects.


The Berkeley license as well as _some_ other Open Source licenses permit
them to keep some of their changes secret.  This is the very reason some
programmers use the GPL.


People and organizations who want to keep code secret are going to do 
so. It is naive to think that they will change their whole business 
model just to use a library. Instead, they will use libraries with 
licenses that allow them to keep some code private while still open 
sourcing other code thus contributing to the sum total of open source 
code.


warmest regards,

Ralph



--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

2010-05-05 Thread Lieven Marchand

Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
writes:

 In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in
 terms of getting code open sourced. Users who need to keep their
 source closed either won't use it, or will use in in a way that allows
 them not to open the source (e.g., Paul Graham's viaweb and their use
 of the GPL CLISP).

As far as I can tell, GPL CLISP would allow you to distribute your
commercial applications compiled and dumped with it.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


On 2010-03-23 04:53:04 -0400, Lieven Marchand said:


As far as I can tell, GPL CLISP would allow you to distribute your
commercial applications compiled and dumped with it.


My understanding is that if your published application (commercial or 
otherwise) uses facilities of CLISP not generally available in other 
lisps (i.e., CLISP specific extensions to common lisp) then you would 
be required to release the source of your application under the GPL.


IOW, an application that could just as easily be distributed using sbcl 
or ccl, etc. does not need to open its source, but one that is clisp 
specific does.


warmest regards,

Ralph

--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


On 2010-03-23 09:11:03 -0400, Hyman Rosen said:


It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for normal
definitions of is.


Mac OS X *is* descended from 4.4 BSD for normal definitions of is.

Mac OS X *is* a UNIX by the only legal definition of UNIX and for 
normal definitions of is.


The license under which Apple releases its open source doesn't change 
Mac OS X's BSD heritage, and it doesn't invalidate Mac OS X's UNIX 
certification.


warmest regards,

Ralph

--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

2010-05-05 Thread Pillsy

On Mar 23, 9:11 am, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:

 On 3/22/2010 8:01 PM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:

  2. Mac OS X is BSD Unix. It has existed for half the time that linux
  has, and has more than 5 times the web client share of linux, so yes,
  BSD is on its way to eclipsing linux as a client OS.

 It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for normal
 definitions of is.

 Look at http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-105/.
 The mix of licenses is broad, but many of Apple's own OS components
 are licensed under the APPLE PUBLIC SOURCE LICENSE, found at
 http://www.opensource.apple.com/license/apsl/.

If Raffael had said that OS X is a BSD-licensed Unix, your argument
would be on point (and Raffael's would be very, very silly). However,
he said nothing of the sort.

Whether it's a BSD Unix or not has nothing to do with its licensing,
and never has. The BSD Unix codebase was intentionally licensed in
such a way as to allow people to make and sell partially or wholly
closed-source, commercial derivatives. Over the years, a lot of
vendors have taken advantage of this opportunity, including Sun, NeXT,
Apple and, IIRC, Digital.

Cheers,
Pillsy
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

2010-05-05 Thread Pillsy

On Mar 21, 10:14 pm, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
 Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
 writes:
[...]
  Which is why many developers choose to avoid this possibility and use
  LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/Apache licensed libraries instead. And now we've
  come full circle.

 Sure.

 And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me?

He shouldn't, and AFAICT isn't trying to.

Upthread, you said that you allow people to use your libraries at the
price of abiding by the GPL. Pointing out that the price you charge is
too high for a given market is not remotely the same thing as forcing
you to choose a different price. Indeed, people attempt to negotiate,
better prices with vendors all the time. Of course, vendors refuse to
lower their prices in response to such requests with a good deal of
frequency as well.

When the consideration being exchanged is just a pile of currency,
this is all regarded as so mundane that people hardly notice it. The
only thing that's different here is that the negotiation is over
source code instead of money.

Cheers,
Pillsy
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: chrisv is a liar. chrisv is a piece of shit.

2010-05-05 Thread One Shot, One Kill


RJack u...@example.net wrote in message 
news:1mwdnbvv-ozttjxwnz2dnuvz_sadn...@giganews.com...
 One Shot, One Kill wrote:
 chrisv chr...@nospam.invalid wrote in message 
 news:gjdhq5tgi1emdk5rd90snnm78137s0a...@4ax.com...

 chrisv is a liar. chrisv is a stupid piece of shit.


 Did chrisv piss in your Wheaties bowl this morning?
that dickless moron is too stupid to piss on himself.

 Such venom. Such rancor.
try reading the garbage that chrisv posts and then try telling me about 
venom and rancor.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

2010-05-05 Thread Thomas A. Russ

David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:

 Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
 writes:
 
  Mac OS X *is* descended from 4.4 BSD for normal definitions of is.
 
 Not really.  Darwin may be, but all the graphical folderol running on it
 is rather descended (or written new) from older MacOS code not based on
 BSD.

Well, actually, a fair bit of the graphical code on OS X comes from the
NeXT operating system and graphics library.  The older MacOS code has
slowly been dropped from the Mac OS over the years.

(The classic Mac OS actually used a Pascal interface.  The current Mac
 OS uses Objective C.)

-- 
Thomas A. Russ,  USC/Information Sciences Institute
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


On 2010-03-23 09:41:02 -0400, Hyman Rosen said:


Since much of the discussion in this newsgroup
focuses on license features and requirements, saying that Mac OS X
is BSD needlessly confuses that issue.


Saying that Mac OS X is BSD is:

1. true

2. a counterexample to the claim that linux is trouncing BSD UNIX.

The original claim was that linux was dominating BSD UNIX because of 
the GPL. The 5x web client numbers for Mac OS X show that non-GPL 
licensed UNIX (here, BSD, APSL) in fact has much greater numbers than 
GPL linux.


Finally, the APSL requires that modifications to *covered code* (i.e., 
the APSL library or code you are using in your larger work) be open 
sourced if your larger work is distributed. You are not required to 
open source the whole larger work, something that the GPL *does* 
require, and the LGPL, like the APSL, does not.


warmest regards,

Ralph


--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


On 2010-03-24 15:23:28 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:


Actually, MacOSX is just NeXTSTEP, and is older than Linux, so it's not
surprizing it has more web clients than Linux.  After all, NeXTSTEP was
the system where the web was INVENTED, and where the first web browser
was ever IMPLEMENTED!


And the laser printer was first connected to the Xerox Alto, but you 
don't see many of those at graphic design firms.


NeXTSTEP never had a significant web client share once numbers of 
internet users grew into the tens of millions. The numbers matched OS 
usage - 95% of these new users were on Windows, and the overwhelming 
majority of the remainder were on Mac OS. That's why NeXT had to sell 
the company to Apple, itself a minority player.


Mac OS X has 5x as many web clients as Linux because of what Apple did 
with NeXT, not because NeXT was ever a popular client platform.


warmest regards,

Ralph

--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

2010-05-05 Thread Andrew Haley

In gnu.misc.discuss Raffael Cavallaro 
raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote:
 On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:
 
 My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements 
 regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many 
 commercial developers, and therefore whenever possible, they choose 
 non-GPL alternatives.

The choose non-GPL alternatives because they want their software not
to be free, unlike the libraries they use.

 In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in 
 terms of getting code open sourced.

But history says otherwise.  For example, there's a lot of code in gcc
that is there because the customer was told that if they wanted their
gcc extension (custom back-end, front-end changes, etc) they'd have to
release it under the GPL.

 I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic
 means of ensuring maximal adoption. Ironically, the FSF understood
 this dynamic which is why they created the Library GPL, now known as
 the Lesser GPL.

There's nothing ironic about it.  The FSF seeks to maximize freedom,
so licenses code whichever way works best.  Libraries sometimes have
different needs from applications.

Andrew.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


On 2010-03-25 06:06:09 -0400, Andrew Haley said:


There's nothing ironic about it.  The FSF seeks to maximize freedom,
so licenses code whichever way works best.  Libraries sometimes have
different needs from applications.


Which is why I suggest that Pascal's lisp libraries would be more 
useful licensed under the LLGPL than the GPL. It's ironic because the 
FSF is the creator of the GPL, and even they recognized that the GPL 
was a poor fit for libraries which is why they created the Library (now 
Lesser) GPL.

--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


On 2010-03-25 09:51:04 -0400, Hyman Rosen said:


The FSF does not believe that the GPL is a poor fit for
libraries.


The release of the Library GPL is an implicit recognition of the fact 
that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries. Renaming it to the Lesser GPL 
isn't likely to convince anyone old enough to remember, or intelligent 
enough to do a little research.


warmest regards,

Ralph

--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

2010-05-05 Thread Peter Keller

In comp.lang.lisp Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
 On 3/25/2010 10:05 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
 Licenses covering a work as a whole are hard to press
  when the material they cover is functionally a drop-in
  replacement of existing non-free libraries. That makes
  mere aggregation a really good defense.
 
 This is completely wrong. The GPL applies to work as a whole
 only when the GPL-covered work is made part of a combined
 work and that combined work is copied and distributed.
 
 Your statement sounds as if you continue to believe incorrectly
 that a program which uses a dynamically linked library covered
 by the GPL is subject to the GPL even when it is copied and
 distributed without that library. That is not so. Copyright law
 is about copying, and when a GPL-covered work is not being copied
 and distributed, the GPL cannot come into play. What the program
 does when it runs is not relevant for falling under the GPL because
 the GPL does not restrict running covered works.
 
 Similarly, mere aggregation is irrelevant to libraries which
 are statically linked into programs. Such a combined work is
 not a mere aggregation of the library and the other components.
 Mere aggregation refers to including a covered work on a medium
 of distribution along with other works.

Not that I really care, and I probably won't post in this thread again,
but the GPL V2 has to say:

However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need
not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of
the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.

So, that covers one not having to ship the glibc sources with your
project just because you linked with it. However, if you have a modified
version of the glibc in your package, then you'd have to make the modified
sources available.

Then it goes on to say:

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs.  If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library.  If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
Public License instead of this License.

It is that permit linking proprietary applications phrase which is the rub.
It doesn't mention static or dynamic, so one must assume both. Hence, the
LGPL.

If you're still curious, then read the faq:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html

It has a few different scenarios about what it means to link with a GPL library.

Later,
-pete


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


On 2010-03-25 09:59:52 -0400, Tamas K Papp said:


I disagree -- I don't think that the FSF considers the GPL a poor
fit for libraries.  Quite the opposite (see [1]).  They just
recognized that in certain situations, some people would prefer
something like the LGPL, and I guess that they wanted to give them the
choice.  But the GPL is still the option they recommend, even for
libraries.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html


I don't put much stock in such rationalizations. IOW, having released 
the Library GPL, they realized that it was in many ways superior to the 
GPL from both the user and the open source perspective. They've been 
backpedaling ever since, and the frankly silly renaming of the Library 
GPL to the Lesser GPL is a clear sign of this ongoing attempt at damage 
control.


I.e., when I say they recognize that the GPL is a poor fit for 
libraries, I'm saying that their actions (release of the LGPL and 
subsequent renaming) speak louder and more convincingly than their 
words (the link you provide).




Regarding the broader issue (of how people license their libraries): I
think this is an optimization problem where people have heterogeneous
objective functions, and thus trying to convince people to pick
another license is not always a worthwhile.

It is possible that someone using a GPL/LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/... license
is perfectly aware of the advantages and disadvantages, it is just that
they decided to make a different choice.  In which case, threads like these
are unlikely to be fruitful.


I don't think their objective functions differ much from mine. I think 
they don't appreciate how the license plays out in the real world. 
Those who support the GPL for libraries think that by doing so they 
maximize the promotion of open source. I contend that the LGPL or 
Apache or APSL license lead to greater amounts of open source because a 
GPL library excludes one of the largest pools of possible contributors 
- professional developers who work on closed source projects. These 
potential contributors will instead either


1. reinvent that particular wheel in a closed source fashion (loss to 
free software)
2. use a library with a license that doesn't require any publication 
such as the bsd, or mit. (possible loss to free software)
3. use a library with a license that requires publication only of 
covered code such as the LGPL, APSL, Apache, etc. Only this last case 
inevitably results in more open source.


So by releasing a library under the GPL one provides as many ways for 
open source to lose as to win. Choosing the winning path in the first 
place by releasing the library under the LGPL/LLGPL/Apache etc. license 
leads to the biggest gains for open source. Again, the recognition of 
this reality is what led to the Library GPL in the first place. So 
people who support the GPL for libraries are unwittingly advocating for 
freedom in a way that actually results in less open source.


Even if I don't convince my correspondents here, I do hope that some of 
those reading this thread will develop a more nuanced view of open 
source licenses. I've said what I have to say, so (undoubtedly much to 
your relief), I'll stop.


warmest regards,

Ralph
--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

2010-05-05 Thread Peter Keller

In comp.lang.lisp Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
 Hyman Rosen wrote:
 On 3/29/2010 3:07 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  Hyman Rosen wrote:

fix(f) != f

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GNU GPL Version 3: The Law Making Process

2010-05-05 Thread Andrew

On 29 Mar, 14:00, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
 On 3/26/2010 1:29 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2007/03/delusions_of_gr.html

 Wow. A website dedicated to glorifying the denial of freedom to
 software users is whining about GPLv3. Shocking, just shocking.

And one from a site funded by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, yet
another right-wing think tank.  The Progress and Freedom Foundation is
in turn funded by, among others, ATT, Microsoft, Verizon, etc., etc.

See When Think Tanks Attack,
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/06/tanks.php :

Why are all these think tanks so down on Open Source? Well, the Small
Business Survival Committee is concerned that using open source will
expose small business to the risk of lawsuits. Citizens Against
Government Waste is concerned that the Government might waste money on
Open Source. Defenders of Property Rights is concerned that Open
Source might be a threat to intellectual property rights. However, I
was able to detect a common theme to all their criticism. They all
seem to be funded by Microsoft.

Andrew.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

2010-05-05 Thread VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO

OK I'm so fucking tired of this.

I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.

BSD is free. GPL is free.


Alexander, please stop drinking de Raadt's Kool Aid.

Or Shut up and Hack. Come to this list when PCC is good enough
to be on OpenBSD by default.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 5 May 2010 NYCBUG: Kevin Figueroa on packet manipulation with Scapy

2010-05-05 Thread secretary

blockquote
what=official NYC*BUG announcement
edits=

Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 23:20:36 -0400
To: annou...@lists.nycbug.org
From: NYC*BUG Announcements annou...@lists.nycbug.org
Subject: [announce] NYC*BUG this week
Reply-To: annou...@lists.nycbug.org

* Upcoming meetings

* LOPSA PIC Conference

* BSDCan

* * * *

May 05, 2010
Scapy

6:45 PM, Suspenders Restaurant
http://www.suspendersbar.com/location.php

Scapy is one of the most powerful packet manipulation programs currently
available. One of its powerful features lies within its capability in
creating and decoding packets using numerous different types of
protocols. In addition, it also has the ability send and receive
packets, plus performing a number of useful penetration testing tasks,
such as, handling tasks like scanning, tracerouting, network discovery
and certain attacks. It serves duties like sending invalid frames, and
creating double encapsulated packets in order to perform VLAN hopping.
Perform Nmap-like scan much faster, inject 802.11 wireless frames, and
combine different types of custom manipulation techniques within a
single packet.

Kevin Figueroa has been a life-long resident of the Bronx. Over the last
13 years he has developed skills on a wide range of cyber security,
which lead him to various certifications as, A+, Network +, Security +,
and CEH. He has spoken at the several Cyber Security Conference in the
world. Kevin is the President and Senior Security Analyst for K T
International Consulting, Inc, which provides a spectrum of cyber
security services like, security analysis, penetration testing,
compliance audit, wireless security assessment, and reverse engineering
analysis. K T International Consulting, Inc. has successfully managed
projects for clients like, The Federal Reserve Bank, CitiGroup,
MacQuesten Inc. and many Fortune 500 companies. He is also the founder
of Bronx Academy of Intelligent Technologists (BAIT). This academy
focuses on teaching cyber security, certification courses, and
preforming IT security research and Development. By grooming children
and young adults on future technologies and how to secure these
technology the students will be a great asset in securing the future of
Corporations and national infrastructure.

June 2 2010, Nikolai on an Introduction to GDB for System Administrators
and Programmers

http://www.nycbug.org/index.php?NAV=Home;SUBM=10265

* * * *

May 07, 2010

LOPSA PICC Conference (sysadmins and all invited!)

Sysadmins and IT professionals!

Training! Talks! Fun!

Hyatt Regency, New Brunswick, NJ. (1 hour by train from Penn Station;
then a 3 block walk:

http://lopsanj.org/events/picc10/a-special-note-for-people-from-new-york-city-and-philly.html

)

Non-profit, community-oriented. Unix/Windows/Storage/Networking!

Regional Conferences are your best conference value!

* * * *

BSDCan is coming!

May 11-14 in Ottawa, Canada

http://www.bsdcan.org
___
announce mailing list
annou...@lists.nycbug.org
http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/announce

/blockquote

Distributed poC TINC:

Jay Sulzberger secret...@lxny.org
Corresponding Secretary LXNY
LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization.
http://www.lxny.org
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.


VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:

OK I'm so fucking tired of this.

I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.

BSD is free. GPL is free.



Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will soon
reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends.



Alexander, please stop drinking de Raadt's Kool Aid.


De Raadt's Kool Aid resides in the World of Reality. His philosophical
Kool Aid consists of Use it for anything you want, just be honest
about where it came from.



Or Shut up and Hack. Come to this list when PCC is good enough to be
 on OpenBSD by default.



PCC doesn't need more hackers. PCC and the BSD's need more donations and
support from commercial vendors for drivers.

I put my money where my mouth is and proudly donate.

http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html

http://bsdfund.org/projects/pcc/

Sincerely,
RJack :)


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

RJack u...@example.net writes:

 VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
 OK I'm so fucking tired of this.

 I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.

 BSD is free. GPL is free.


 Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will
 soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends.

A few people told RMS when he started.  Now it is a whole hissing and
yelling bunch.  That they bother is the best proof that they are wrong.
And they know it.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

RJack u...@example.net writes:

 David Kastrup wrote:
 RJack u...@example.net writes:

 VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
 OK I'm so fucking tired of this.

 I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.

 BSD is free. GPL is free.

 Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will
  soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends.

 A few people told RMS when he started.  Now it is a whole hissing and
  yelling bunch.  That they bother is the best proof that they are
 wrong. And they know it.


 There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe the
 GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that copyright
 permissions be licensed at no charge to all third parties.

More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who
believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its
permissions.

And that's what counts, regardless of where you think your nut-jobs may
be hanging out.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.


David Kastrup wrote:

RJack u...@example.net writes:


VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:

OK I'm so fucking tired of this.

I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.

BSD is free. GPL is free.


Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will
 soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends.


A few people told RMS when he started.  Now it is a whole hissing and
 yelling bunch.  That they bother is the best proof that they are 
wrong. And they know it.




There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe the
GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that copyright
permissions be licensed at no charge to all third parties.

The United States Supreme Court held in the famous Sony Betamax case:

[A] use that has no demonstrable effect upon the potential market for,
or the value of, the copyrighted work need not be prohibited in order to
protect the author's incentive to create. The prohibition of such
noncommercial uses would merely inhibit access to ideas without any
countervailing benefit. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City
Studios, Inc., 464 US 417.

When Stallman worshipers like DAK read this citation, their eyelids slam
shut and they retreat into their tidy world of denial and make-believe.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.


David Kastrup wrote:

RJack u...@example.net writes:


David Kastrup wrote:

RJack u...@example.net writes:


VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:

OK I'm so fucking tired of this.

I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.

BSD is free. GPL is free.

Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion 
will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban 
Legends.

A few people told RMS when he started.  Now it is a whole hissing
 and yelling bunch.  That they bother is the best proof that they
 are wrong. And they know it.

There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe 
the GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that 
copyright permissions be licensed at no charge to all third 
parties.


More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who 
believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its 
permissions.


Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* believe
the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I await with 'bated breath for
your documentation.


And that's what counts, regardless of where you think your nut-jobs 
may be hanging out.




Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

RJack u...@example.net writes:

 David Kastrup wrote:
 RJack u...@example.net writes:

 David Kastrup wrote:
 RJack u...@example.net writes:

 VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
 OK I'm so fucking tired of this.

 I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.

 BSD is free. GPL is free.

 Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion
 will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban
 Legends.
 A few people told RMS when he started.  Now it is a whole hissing
  and yelling bunch.  That they bother is the best proof that they
  are wrong. And they know it.

 There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe
 the GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that
 copyright permissions be licensed at no charge to all third
 parties.

 More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who
 believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its
 permissions.

 Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* believe
 the terms of the GPL can be ignored.

You are changing the topic: of course you are free to ignore the terms
of the GPL and it explicitly says so itself.  What you are not free to
do is ignore its terms _while_ making use of its permissions.

 I await with 'bated breath for your documentation.

You are changing the topic, namely judges who *do* believe.  So please
name a few judges who believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored
_while_ making use of its permissions.

You won't find any.  And that's the point.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.


David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
 You won't find any.  And that's the point.

Since it is YOU GNUtians who are crying copyright violation,
copyright violation... which is a tort and on a large scale it is even
a crime, IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE THE CLAIM YOU IDIOT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

It is a logical fallacy to presume that mere lack of evidence of
innocence of a crime is instead evidence of guilt. Similarly, mere lack
of evidence of guilt cannot be taken as evidence of innocence. For this
reason (among others), Western legal systems err on the side of caution.
Simply the act of taking a defendant before a court is not adequate
evidence to presume anything. Courts require evidence of guilt to be
presented first, adequate for the court to find that the charge has been
substantiatedi.e., that the prosecution's evidential burden has been
metand only after this burden is met is the defense obliged to present
counter-evidence of innocence. If the burden of proof is not met, that
does not imply that the defendant is innocent. Hence, in such a case,
the defendant is found not guilty, except in Scotland, where the jury
also has the option to return a verdict of not proven.

Also, as a hypothetical example of an argument from personal
incredulity, defined above, suppose someone were to argue:

- I cannot imagine any way for Person P to have executed action X
without committing a crime Y

- Therefore, Person P must be guilty of crime Y.

Merely because the person making the argument cannot imagine how
scenario A might have happened does not necessarily mean that the
person's preferred conclusion (scenario B) is correct. As with other
forms of the argument from ignorance, the arguer in this instance has
arrived at a conclusion without any evidence supporting the preferred
hypothesis, merely for lack of being able to imagine the alternative.

The same principles of logic apply to the civil law, although the
required burdens of proof generally are different. As well, these
principles of logic apply to the introduction of a given component of a
legal case by either a complainant or a defendant. That is, the mere
lack of evidence in favor of a proposition put forth by a party in a
legal proceeding (e.g., the assertion she couldn't have left the house
and returned in time to do X... is offered without evidence in support)
would not properly be taken as evidence in favor of an alternative
explanation (e.g., she did leave the house and return in time to do
X...).

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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: Significance of the GP licence.


On 5/5/2010 8:11 AM, RJack wrote:

Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* believe
the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I await with 'bated breath for
your documentation.


Sure, here you are:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510
PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
MYSQL AB, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
SARIS, District Judge.
...
With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has
not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits or irreparable harm. Affidavits submitted by the parties'
experts raise a factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini
program is a derivative or an independent and separate work
under GPL ¶ 2. After hearing, MySQL seems to have the better
argument here, but the matter is one of fair dispute. Moreover,
I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the
Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the breach.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.


On 5/5/2010 10:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

the case was about alleged contract breach


It doesn't matter what the case was about. Your fellow crank
asked for links to US federal judges who *do not* believe
the terms of the GPL can be ignored, and I provided a link
to a US judge who shows in her order that she does not believe
that the terms of the GPL can be ignored.

Of course you and your fellow cranks will disregard evidence
which contradicts your cherished but incorrect beliefs even
when this evidence is exactly what you asked for. That's what
makes you cranks after all.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.


Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 5/5/2010 8:11 AM, RJack wrote:
  Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* believe
  the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I await with 'bated breath for
  your documentation.
 
 Sure, here you are:
 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510
  PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
  v.
  MYSQL AB, et al., Defendants.
  ORDER
  SARIS, District Judge.
  ...
  With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has
  not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

[...]
  I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the
  Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the breach.
   ^^

Yes, the case was about alleged contract breach, you retard. NOT
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MORON.

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf
(COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License))

  COUNT VIII 
  Breach of Contract (GPL License)
  ^^


Take your meds Hyman, take your meds.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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: Significance of the GP licence.

Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:

 Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 5/5/2010 8:11 AM, RJack wrote:
  Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* believe
  the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I await with 'bated breath for
  your documentation.
 
 Sure, here you are:
 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510
  PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
  v.
  MYSQL AB, et al., Defendants.
  ORDER
  SARIS, District Judge.
  ...
  With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has
  not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

 [...]
  I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the
  Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the breach.
^^

 Yes, the case was about alleged contract breach, you retard. NOT
 COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MORON.

 http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf
 (COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License))

   COUNT VIII 
   Breach of Contract (GPL License)
   ^^

I read Count VIII here, so let us look at the other counts:

COUNT I
(Federal Trademark Infringement)

COUNT II
(Federal Unfair Competition: False Designation)

COUNT III
(Violation of Federal Trademark Dilution Statute)

COUNT IV
(Common Law Trademark Infringement)

COUNT V
(Breach of Contract) [not the GPL, but rather a trade agreement]

COUNT VI
(Unjust Enrichment)

COUNT VII
(Quantum Meruit)

Count VIII
Breach of Contract (GPL License)

Count IX
Violation of M.G.L.c. 93A§11

The relief asks for:

A(iv): Progress/NuSphere violated the GPL License and thus, their rights
under the GPL were automatically terminated.

B Primarily and permanently enjoin
(iii) Progress/Nusphere from  copying, modifying, sublicensing or
distributing the MySQL program.

D Award compensatory and _punitive_ damages [...] (punitive damages for
contract violation of a contract without punitive terms?)


I mean, you are pretty much cherry-picking again, aren't you?

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:

 David Kastrup wrote:
 [...]
 You won't find any.  And that's the point.

 Since it is YOU GNUtians who are crying copyright violation,
 copyright violation... which is a tort and on a large scale it is even
 a crime, IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE THE CLAIM YOU IDIOT.

Well, I didn't find any.  And you don't find any even though you wish
you would.  And all those that wish they'd find such a judge don't.

So yes, we have

More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who
believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its
permissions.

And that's what counts, regardless of where you think your nut-jobs
may be hanging out.

Now of course this is not mathematical evidence since obviously, judges
being not bound by logic but only by their own choices (which usually
include not being displaced for incompetence).  So there is no proof
but merely statistics.  And the statistics so far support your opinion
with a staggering 0%.  You are still waiting for your outlier to appear
that you can then declare the only existing verdict.  The way you argue,
that will be enough to proudly parade this around long after it has been
overturned.  So far, you are batting exactly zero.  Should you ever get
a single hit, you'll declare your batting average to be 1.0 for all
future.  And probably even believe it.  But you are not there yet.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.


Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 5/5/2010 10:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  the case was about alleged contract breach
 
 It doesn't matter what the case was about. Your fellow crank

The fact that Judge Saris *rejected the plea for injunction* regarding
alleged breach of the GPL while she was not supposed/allowed to rule
*sua sponte* that certain provisions of the GPL are unenforceable is NOT
a proof that she believes that certain terms of the GPL can NOT be
ignored. Got it now, retard?

Go contact her asking to clarify her ruling *rejected the plea for
injunction* for you utter idiot.

http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/boston/saris.htm

Take your meds Hyman, take your meds.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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: Significance of the GP licence.


David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
 A(iv): Progress/NuSphere violated the GPL License and thus, their rights
 under the GPL were automatically terminated.
 
 B Primarily and permanently enjoin
 (iii) Progress/Nusphere from  copying, modifying, sublicensing or
 distributing the MySQL program.

DENIED

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510

Uh moron dak.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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: Significance of the GP licence.

2010-05-05 Thread John Hasler

David Kastrup writes:
 Award compensatory and _punitive_ damages [...] (punitive damages
 for contract violation of a contract without punitive terms?)

Presumably based on the noncontract claims.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.


On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored


That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank
universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge
who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I gave
him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be
ignored (I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ...
source code ... didn't cure the breach.) None of your twisting
and spinning can change the simple and obvious fact that here is
a judge who does not believe that the terms of the GPL can be
ignored.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.


On 5/5/2010 10:56 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

DENIED
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510


That's because the standards required for a preliminary
injunction are high. In the judge's words:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510
In any event, even if MySQL has shown a likelihood of success on
these points, it has not demonstrated that it will suffer any
irreparable harm during the pendency of the suit, particularly in
light of the sworn statement that all source code for Gemini has
been disclosed and the stipulation, given by Progress during the
hearing, that the end use license for commercial users will be
withdrawn. Finally, because the product line using MySQL is a
significant portion of NuSphere's business, Progress has
demonstrated that the balance of harms tips in its favor regarding
the use of the MySQL program under the GPL.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.


David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
 If she considers a breach ...

She did NOT rule that there was a breach, you retard. She ruled quite
the opposite:

With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has
not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits or irreparable harm.

HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED

*HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED*, YOU IDIOT.

And yes, the case was about alleged contract breach, you retard. NOT
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MORON.

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf
(COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License))

  COUNT VIII 
  Breach of Contract (GPL License)
  ^^


regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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: Significance of the GP licence.

Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:

 David Kastrup wrote:
 [...]
 If she considers a breach ...

 She did NOT rule that there was a breach, you retard. She ruled quite
 the opposite:

 With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has
 not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
 merits or irreparable harm.

You are confusing the decision about the preliminary injunction with the
ruling.  And you _did_ forget again what the discussion was about.  But
I admit that you did not use moron or idiot in your reply.

 *HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED*, YOU IDIOT.

Ah well, at least not in its first sentence.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

Sonny! Uncle Hasler has spoken! 

John Hasler wrote:
 
 David Kastrup writes:
  Award compensatory and _punitive_ damages [...] (punitive damages
  for contract violation of a contract without punitive terms?)
 
 Presumably based on the noncontract claims.

MySQL's case/claim *regarding the GPL* was a contract case, NOT
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. MySQL complained about other non-contract (tort)
matters as well in addition to the GPL contract claim.

Judge Saris was not supposed/allowed to rule sua sponte that certain
provisions of the GPL are unenforceable and she simply denied the plea
for injunction regarding alleged breach of the GPL on other grounds.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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: Significance of the GP licence.


Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 5/5/2010 10:56 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  DENIED
  http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510
 
 That's because the standards required for a preliminary
 injunction are high. In the judge's words:
 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510

With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has
not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits or irreparable harm.

HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED

*HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED*, YOU IDIOT.

And yes, the case was about alleged contract breach, you retard. NOT
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MORON.

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf
(COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License))

  COUNT VIII 
  Breach of Contract (GPL License)
  ^^


Take your meds Hyman, take your meds.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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: Significance of the GP licence.


Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored
 
 That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank
 universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge
 who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I gave
 him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be
 ignored (I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ...
 source code ... didn't cure the breach.) None of your twisting

She is simply saying that the GPL provision of automatic termination
on a slightest breach is UNENFORCEABLE you idiot.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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: Significance of the GP licence.

Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:

 Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored
 
 That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank
 universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge
 who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I gave
 him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be
 ignored (I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ...
 source code ... didn't cure the breach.) None of your twisting

 She is simply saying that the GPL provision of automatic termination
 on a slightest breach is UNENFORCEABLE you idiot.

Do you still remember what we were talking about?  We were talking about
the non-existence of judges who are of the opinion that you can make use
of the GPLs permissions without heeding its terms.

If she considers a breach likely healed because the terms _have_ been
heeded after substantial delay, does that mean that she thinks one needs
not heed the terms?

I have no doubt that you'll form a sentence containing idiot or
moron as a reply, but please do try to remember what the topic was.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.


David Kastrup wrote:
 
 Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
 
  David Kastrup wrote:
  [...]
  If she considers a breach ...
 
  She did NOT rule that there was a breach, you retard. She ruled quite
  the opposite:
 
  With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has
  not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
  merits or irreparable harm.
 
 You are confusing the decision about the preliminary injunction with the

I'm confusing noting, silly dak.

With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has
not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits or irreparable harm.

HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED

*HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED*, YOU IDIOT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

And yes, the case was about alleged contract breach, you retard. NOT
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MORON.

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf
(COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License))

  COUNT VIII 
  Breach of Contract (GPL License)
  ^^


regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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: Significance of the GP licence.


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 5/5/2010 10:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

the case was about alleged contract breach


It doesn't matter what the case was about. Your fellow crank asked
for links to US federal judges who *do not* believe the terms of the
GPL can be ignored, and I provided a link to a US judge who shows in
her order that she does not believe that the terms of the GPL can be
ignored.


With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or
irreparable harm. . . but the matter is one of fair dispute.

Even Glenn Beck couldn't spin this to mean an affirmation of the
validity of GPL terms. ROFL.



Of course you and your fellow cranks will disregard evidence which
contradicts your cherished but incorrect beliefs even when this
evidence is exactly what you asked for. That's what makes you cranks
after all.


ROFL. This, from a GNUtian moron who claims a copyright license is not a
contract.

Sincerely,
RJack :)



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored


That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank 
universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge who

does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored.


The judge never interpreted the terms of the GPL. She merely
acknowledged the existence of a contract which some GNUtians
hope to deny is a contract.

I gave him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be 
ignored (I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ... source

code ... didn't cure the breach.) None of your twisting and spinning
can change the simple and obvious fact that here is a judge who does
not believe that the terms of the GPL can be ignored.


You're playing semantic games. [A} judge who does not believe the terms
of the GPL can be ignored means a judge who interprets the GPL terms to
be enforceable. No federal judge has ever construed the terms of the GPL
at all. Moove the goalposts Hyman -- it won't help --
but mooove them anyway if it makes you feel better.

This is an identical situation to those who claim nonexistent GPL
settlement victories.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Justice draws nigh


All this bantering about prior cases is moot.

The SFLC has just filed a request for a pre-conference motion for 
summary judgment against Westinghouse. The near future now holds all the 
answers about GPL enforcement. I'm sure Judge Scheindlin will suffers no 
fools in this action.


Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Justice draws nigh


RJack wrote:

All this bantering about prior cases is moot.

The SFLC has just filed a request for a pre-conference motion for 
summary judgment against Westinghouse. The near future now holds all the 
answers about GPL enforcement. I'm sure Judge Scheindlin will suffers no 
fools in this action.





Seems Westinghouse has undergone an assignment for the benefit of
creditors in California.

http://bankruptcy.cooley.com/2008/03/articles/the-financially-troubled-compa/assignments-for-the-benefit-of-creditors-simple-as-abc/

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Sufficient motivation?


As of a week or so ago, I am now the owner of a refurbished
Insignia NS-WBRDVD BluRay disk player. Revised firmware for
it may be downloaded here:
http://insigniaproducts.com/products/dvd-players-recorders/NS-WBRDVD.html

As it happens, other people and I have trouble connecting
to the internet wirelessly with this player:
http://community.insigniaproducts.com/t5/Blu-ray-and-DVD-Players/NS-WBRDVD-cannot-connect-to-wireless-network/td-p/2684/page/36

Once BestBuy settles with the SFLC, I may be sufficiently
motivated to go and build the firmware for myself and see
what I can figure out.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Justice draws nigh

RJack wrote:

RJack wrote:
All this bantering about prior cases is moot.

The SFLC has just filed a request for a pre-conference motion for
summary judgment against Westinghouse. The near future now holds all the
answers about GPL enforcement. I'm sure Judge Scheindlin will suffers no
fools in this action.

Seems Westinghouse has undergone an assignment for the benefit of
creditors in California.

http://bankruptcy.cooley.com/2008/03/articles/the-financially-troubled-compa/assignments-for-the-benefit-of-creditors-simple-as-abc/

SFLC rats footnoted it:

On April 27, Plaintiffs attempted to confer with counsel for
Westinghouse regarding the discovery request, but were told that
Westinghouse has undergone an assignment for the benefit of creditors in
California and is unlikely to continue to defend itself in this matter

is unlikely to continue to defend itself in this matter

So when the defendant told SFLC rats that the defendant is unlikely to
continue to defend itself in this matter SFLC rats contemplate two
motions:

Plaintiffs in this action for copyright infringement write to request a
pre-motion conference in contemplation of two motions against defendant
Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC (Westinghouse), The first
contemplated motion is for summary judgment of infringement and an award
of appropriate remedies. The second contemplated motion is to compel
discovery. Plaintiffs propose a single pre-motion conference be held
during the week of May 17, or otherwise at the Court's earliest
convenience.

LOL!

SFLC rats contemplate two motions...

http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-108.pdf

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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: Significance of the GP licence.


On 5/5/2010 4:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz


Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.


On 5/5/2010 2:26 PM, RJack wrote:

This is an identical situation to those who claim nonexistent GPL
settlement victories.


Yes, it is. In both situations anti-GPL cranks cannot
bring themselves to believe what has long been obvious
to anyone else, so they twist and spin to avoid facing
the truth.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.


Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 5/5/2010 2:26 PM, RJack wrote:
  This is an identical situation to those who claim nonexistent GPL
  settlement victories.
 
 Yes, it is. In both situations anti-GPL cranks cannot

http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz

 bring themselves to believe what has long been obvious
 to anyone else, so they twist and spin to avoid facing
 the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

Commonly in an argument from ignorance or argument from personal
incredulity, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false,
implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this
gap in knowledge as evidence in favor of an alternative view of his or
her choice. Examples of these fallacies are often found in statements of
opinion which begin: It is hard to see how..., I cannot understand
how..., or it is obvious that... (if obvious is being used to
introduce a conclusion rather than specific evidence in support of a
particular view)

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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: Significance of the GP licence.


On 5/5/2010 5:31 PM, RJack wrote:

Sayeth Hyman Rosen:
Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link.

Sayeth Hyman Rosen:
Commonly in an argument from ignorance or argument from personal
incredulity, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false,
implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this
gap in knowledge as evidence in favor of an alternative view of his or
her choice.


Wishful Thinking: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wishthnk.html
Form:
I want P to be true.
Therefore, P is true.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.