Re: Guidelines for Creating GNU Spaces
Joe Fineman writes: Uses an invalid security certificate, it says. You are lacking the CAcert root certificate. http://savannah.gnu.org/tls/tutorial/ -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Vertically Integrated Permaculture Mosaic
Ramana Kumar writes: I wish I could write that more clearly. Let me know if you understand or not. It's fairly clear. You've transitioned from re-inventing the cooperative to re-inventing the barter club. You might want to read up on peoples experiences with both over the decades. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The future of Skype for Linux
Haines Brown writes: And yet a skype application is part of debian... I can't find it: thumper/~ 19 apt-cache search skype earcandy - Sound level manager for PulseAudio bitlbee-plugin-skype - Skype plugin for BitlBee skyped - Daemon to control Skype remotely pidgin-skype - Skype plugin for libpurple messengers pidgin-skype-dbg - Skype plugin for libpurple messengers (debug symbols) python-skype - Skype API wrapper for Python skysentials - extra functionalities for Linux Skype client All of these packages are in Contrib, which indicates that they depend on something non-free. As they do. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Why backquotes in GNU documentation?
I wrote: [Balanced delimiters are] useful how? Miles writes: For instance, they can be used by a program invoking the compiler (emacs, an IDE, etc) do highlighting of the enclosed text. That would be useful if it were done anywhere but Gnu documentation. It isn't. -- 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: Why backquotes in GNU documentation?
Miles writes: ...the usefulness of balanced delimiters... Useful how? I find it amazing that people go to such great lengths to try (emphasis here...) and fix this. I've never tried to fix this. -- 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: Why backquotes in GNU documentation?
Dave writes: GNU `make' Now, I was wondering what could be the reason behind this convention. Why not use just straight quotes also in front of the quoted word? It's an attempt to emulate proper left and right single quotation marks in ASCII. I don't like it. -- 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: The GPL and groupthink
David Kastrup writes: If you compare the writings of the founding fathers of communism with the actions of existing communist parties and governments, you'll find it hard to believe that _anybody_ knows what communism is. That applies to any political ideology whose advocates have ever achieved political power. -- 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.
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO writes: BSD and PCC needs friendly people and hackers, I don't think these trolls qualify on either count. In the good old days we were trolled by the likes of John Dyson and Jay Maynard: jerks, but competent hackers. Now we just get dorks. -- 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.
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO writes: BSD and PCC needs friendly people and hackers, not useless whiners pieces of shit like you. David Kastrup writes: That probably counts as friendly. When I was deciding between FreeBSD and Linux John Dyson's trolling pushed me toward Linux. However, as I was not a commercial user they probably didn't want me anyway. BSDi certainly didn't, despite my having paid them $1000 to be one of their beta testers. -- 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.
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: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
RJack wrote: The truth of the matter is that there is no victory for open source licenses. Open source licenses and proprietary are interpreted using the exact same rules. You assume that this victory is part of a battle between Open Source licenses and closed source ones. There is no such battle. -- 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Raffael Cavallaro writes: 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. They might, but there are cases where they did not. The point is that _you_ are not required to publish anything. 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. -- 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Ralph writes: The Open Group which does the official UNIX certification would beg to differ: Purchasing a certificate granting the right to label one's product UNIX does not make it a BSD. The market reality... ...is irrelevant to many of us. ...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. -- 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Ralph writes: Mac OS X is BSD Unix. No it isn't. It's a heavily modified Mach single-server kernel with a partial BSD userland. And Apple contributes little or nothing back. -- 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Raffael Cavallaro 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. 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. As a result, most people working on commercial [closed source] published software, or who contemplate doing so in the future, simply avoid gpl libraries altogether. And that's fine, just as it is fine that some of us avoid non-free libraries because source is not available or the terms are too restrictive. Nicolas writes: Here is a question which I find rather interesting: Is in-house use of GPLed software allowed? Yes. But in the case of multiple developers inside a company one could either argue that the company operates as an entity... It does. -- 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
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. -- 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Raffael Cavallaro writes: Possibly counterintuitively, the goal of maximizing open source is actually better accomplished by *not* choosing the GPL. I guess this is why Linux has been totally eclipsed by BSD. 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. Most never become contributors at all. -- 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Pascal Bourguignon writes: And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me? Explain. -- 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: Compliance detection tool
RJack wrote: The erroneous non-precedential Jacobsen decision is strictly limited to the one past defendant in a nation of 310 million people. So... what's your point? While it is not a binding precedent it is still a precedent which can and will be cited. Non-binding precedents are routinely cited in US courts. It is not erroneous unless a higher court says so. -- 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: Compliance detection tool
David Kastrup writes: Let's be fair. An overruled court decision (even if it does not change the consequences, namely the necessity to comply) is better than nothing. No, it's worse than nothing. With nothing you are only arguing against your opponent. With a overruled decision you are arguing against an appellate court. The latter is far more authoritative even if the precedent is not binding. I think that you would find that most lawyers would never cite an overruled decision. -- 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: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida
Hyman Rosen writes: You are very confused. I don't think he is confused at all. It's all quite deliberate. He's trolling. -- 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: Settlements
David Kastrup writes: There has been some deadline in the 70s or so when things were the other way round, so if you get hold of material definitely published before that time by an _authorized_ publisher and without copyright notices, you might be successful with that defense. That's what got ATT on BSD Unix. Other than that: slim chance. Which is what I said: You _might_ manage innocent infringement. But, as I noted, it would be pointless because you would still have to come into compliance or cease distributing which is all that the SFLC demands anyway. Innocent infringement merely reduces the penalties. It is not a free pass for copyright infringement. -- 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: Settlements
David Kastrup writes: My wife shredded all that stuff is not seen as a valid defense in other business matters, so this would be no difference. Due diligence can be expected of business people. The most that My wife shredded all that stuff would get you is innocent infringement http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Innocent_infringement (but you will have to show that you stopped infringing the instant you were notified by the plaintiff). Damages may be reduced but probably not eliminated and an injunction will still issue. Since cessation of infringement is what the SFLC asks for this would be rather useless. -- 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
RJack writes: Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding. If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court precedents why has it not been appealed thereto? -- 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: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
Victor Tarabola Cortiano writes: How do one steals free software? BY making off with copies (i.e., tangible property) belonging to someone else. Copyright infringement is not theft (and no, that does not mean it is not illegal nor is a judgement as to whether it is right or wrong). -- 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: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
Hyman Rosen writes: Lawsuits are not graded on style points, they are judged by outcomes. But there have been no lawsuits, just out of court settlements in favor of the plaintiffs. As to registration, look at this: http://www.gonzagaip.org/blog/?p=149 among others. While you clearly need either a registration application or a refusal before going to trial, it is not at all clear that one is required before filing. If the court does insist on one (which it will only do if the defendant brings it up) and you don't have it when you file your case will merely be dismissed without prejudice and with instructions to refile after you get it. It is also not clear to me that the complaint must mention the registration status of the work. -- 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: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
Hyman Rosen writes: Remember, the undoubtedly intoxicated judge would likely not see the wisdom of your approach. So when _is_ Mr. Terekhov going to put his money with his mouth is and launch a large-scale exploitation of his interpretation of the legal status of the GPL? I suggest he target Busybox. -- 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: As the GPL fades
Victor Cortiano writes: Alexander, you're just another OpenBSD zealot who dislikes the fact that OpenBSD is not considered free by FSF's guidelines. OpenBSD _is_ considered Free by the FSF. The original BSD license is not compatible with the GPL, but that does not make it non-free. The revised BSD license is compatible with the GPL. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html. Besides, OpenBSD uses the revised BSD license for the stated purpose of allowing commercial use of its software. That commercial actually means proprietary software. That does not make it non-free. -- 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: As the GPL fades
jellybean stonerfish writes: ...trying to prove Stalman and the fsf are cult leaders. David Kastrup writes: Uh, I can consider a lot of plausible definitions for cult leaders where I would not disagree with that idea. I agree, but that's utterly irrelevant to the legal significance of the GPL model license. -- 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: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
As contrasted to a contract, we don't have a binding agreement between two parties. The second party retains the choice of accepting the terms, and the first party does not have the option to sue for breach of contract. In particular, the license does not obligate the licensor to act in any way. It is a prospective, unilateral grant to anonymous licensees who are not obligated to deliver any consideration to the licensor. -- 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: Psystar/Apple/First sale on Groklaw
Alan Mackenzie writes: It means what is says: that the legitimate owner of a copy of software may sell it without having to ask the copyright holder for permission. Note that copy here means a _tangible, physical object_. No right to create copies is implied. It doesn't say that the seller may violate the terms of the governing licence in the act of selling it. Copyright licenses do not apply to people who merely purchase copies (_tangible, physical objects_) from legitimate owners. Therefor such people do not acquire any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. This means that there is no way that they can legally place additional copies into circulation without acquiring licenses. Of course, if the software is Free Software they can acquire licenses by simply exercising the rights granted therein (and become bound by the terms thereof). To the extent that the license purports to forbid the licensee to sell copies that he legitimately owns (or otherwise yield rights he would have as owner of a copy) it is not a copyright license but a civil contract enforceable under state law. Since the purchaser of the copy is not a party to said contract he is not bound by it. The licensor's recourse should the licensee under such a contract sell a copy (which he legitimately owns) in violation of the contract is to sue him for breach of contract. He has no cause of action against the buyer (as long as they buyer does not attempt to exercise any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner). This is all irrelevant to Free Software licenses as they never require anyone to yield any rights that they would have in the absence of the license. -- 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: Psystar/Apple/First sale on Groklaw
David Kastrup writes: lawfully made is not something that sticks and covers all in perpetuity. If I have a contract with a reseller about royalties per copy, he is selling lawfully made copies. If the reseller decides, after selling the copies, not to actually pay any royalties and disappears, the copies become illegitimate copies _after_ the fact and are subject to confiscation. Not under US law. You can confiscate only unsold copies. The sold copies were made and sold with your permission. The fact that the guy never paid you is between you and him. The buyers of the copies purchased them in good faith and own them free and clear. In a similar vein, creating copies according to the permissions given by the GPL does not mean that I am free to ignore the GPL after creating the copies. I don't see the similarity. As soon as you made a copy you became a GPL licensee and subject to the terms of the GPL. -- 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: GPL upheld on appeal in France
David Kastrup writes: It would not seem like a particularly important victory. I think it is an obvious and predictable victory, but still an important one as it has a court establishing that the GPL is _not_ the same as public domain. This is obvious, but many trolls have asserted that it is so loudly and so frequently for so many years that they have actually convinced many members of the public. -- 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: why aren't gnu utils normalized?
Barry Margolin writes: I think the answer to his general question, then, is that it would take an enormous amount of work to get all commands to be consistent this way. There are lots of commands that work on similar kinds of data, and they each have options that are specific to what they do, as well as some options that are more general. Reconciling all of these, including dealing with some of the conflicts (especially with traditional single-letter options) would be a huge undertaking. It would also be impossible to do so without breaking existing scripts. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: choice of law clauses and GPL
Tim Smith writes: I don't see why choice of law clauses would necessarily be additional restrictions. To me, it seems they are more like definitions. They are telling you that the meaning of the license is interpreted under a particular established law. If the license, when interpreted under that law, does not impose any additional restrictions, why couldn't it be GPL compatible? My thinking exactly. Note that a choice of law clause doesn't mean that any disputes must be litigated in the courts of the jurisdiction whose law is specified. The courts of one state or country are willing and able to apply the law of another state and country when handling a contract or license case. Perhaps they are confounding choice of law and choice of venue. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: choice of law clauses and GPL
Alan Mackenzie writes: I believe you're wrong here, too. It just sounds absurd. Judges and lawyers are only trained to operate under their own respective legal systems. Please back up your assertion with something solid, say examples. SCO. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Licensing issues with a research project
Tassilo writes: Well, still the EPL FAQ [1] says, that you cannot combine GPL with EPL code in one module. Unless you are the copyright owner, in which case you can make an explicit exception. Remember, these are model licenses, not laws. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
Hyman Rosen writes: And what meaning do you glean from all this? He wants to pretend that the special scrutiny applied to contracts of adhesion should apply to the GPL. This is nonsense, of course, as a licensee can be no worse off for having accepted the GPL since it only grants rights otherwise denied him by law. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
Hyman Rosen writes: That's why we're discussing the transfer issue. It's possible that a transfer of copyright to a GPL-hostile entity could cause downstream distribution to be disallowed. Well, there is promissory estoppel, of course. I would also argue that the downstream licenses are not new licenses granted at the time of acquisition of copies but prospective licenses granted by the author to everyone who ever might receive a copy. I argue that I can grant you a license now to my work which you may exercise any time in the future should you come into possession of a copy of a copy. Since I, the current copyright owner, am granting you a license now, the possibility that someone else might acquire the copyright between now and the time that you acquire a copy of the work is irrelevant. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
Hyman Rosen writes: There is no need for a signed license in the absence of a conflicting transfer. It is not at all clear that the GPL is not a signed license in the broad sense in which judges often interpret signed. Signed written document does not necessarily mean a quill pen scratching on parchment. It merely implies an individual's explicit agreement to a set of terms recorded in a permanent medium. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
Tim Smith writes: Where does it say it only is for cases where the license and the transfer happen at roughly the same time? If they don't there is no conflict to resolve. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
Tim Smith writes: Industry practice overrides a statutory requirement for a signature? The USA has no such statutory requirement (I assume that by signature you mean an autograph signature. One can make a legally-binding commitment without putting pen to paper.) -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
I wrote: The USA has no such statutory requirement (I assume that by signature you mean an autograph signature. One can make a legally-binding commitment without putting pen to paper.) Tim Smith writes: Well, what do you think a written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed, which is how the statute phrases it, means? Here is 204 (a) in its entirety: (a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. Thus the requirement for a written instrument is for transfer of ownership of rights, not licensing. In any case, in writing and signed does not mean pen and ink under US law. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Google to launch PC operating system
Alan Mackenzie writes: I must say, I'd welcome a system where I can get straight to a browser without having to go through the excessiveness of X-Windows and a typical window-manager like KDE or GNOME. While X is currently necessary desktop environments[1] such as KDE and Gnome certainly are not. Neither is a window manager, though it is convenient. [1] KDE and Gnome are _not_ window managers. They also are not the only desktop environments. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Google to launch PC operating system
Hyman Rosen writes: Sufficiently clever clients can then run in two modes depending on this. I assume the KDE and GNOME environments might be such sufficiently clever programs. They are not programs at all. Each is a collection of programs and libraries with a coordinated look and feel. Each desktop environment includes at least one window manager, but you can use any combination or permutation of KDE and/or Gnome programs with any window manager (which is, as far as X is concerned, just another client). -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Another GPL violation settled
Rui Maciel writes: What exactly do you perceive to be a loss? According to Rjack you lose unless you go to trial and get a favorable judgement. Thus by his standard both sides lose almost every suit filed in the USA. Even when one side pays the other tens of millions of dollars. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Fw: [FSF] FSF Settles Suit Against Cisco
Hyman Rosen writes: The lawsuit is filed as a copyright violation claim, with the attendant requests for relief based on that claim. The claims are what the FSF wants _if_ the defendant is unwilling to come into compliance. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Fw: [FSF] FSF Settles Suit Against Cisco
Rjack writes: When there is no docketed settlement agreement and the plaintiff dismisses his case WITH PREDJUDICE, then you think the plaintiff is entitled to his unchallenged version of success? So where _is_ the challenge from Cisco? -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Fw: [FSF] FSF Settles Suit Against Cisco
Alan Mackenzie writes: Your evasiveness is eloquent indeed. Who are you posting for? You are a shill, a nasty unprincipled spiv, disseminating poison and disinformation. Who are you? You exaggerate his importance. He's just a troll. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Fw: [FSF] FSF Settles Suit Against Cisco
Alan Mackenzie writes: This news is particularly welcome here, since it makes it that much harder for those with unconventional modes of thinking to distort the reality in the mailing list. You would think so, wouldn't you? Soon enough we'll be told that the judge was drunk or some such nonsense. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Fw: [FSF] FSF Settles Suit Against Cisco
Rjack writes: I also read a copy of the joint agreement between Cisco and the FSF... Post it. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Cisco v FSF dismissed
So they settled out of court (you tell this from the fact that both parties consented to the dismissal). As usual. So what? Most lawsuits in the USA are settled out of court. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Cisco v FSF dismissed
Alexander Terekhov writes: Why would Cisco *NOT* consent to the dismissal of a lawsuit against Cisco with prejudice? Why *WOULD* the plaintiffs consent to the dismissal of a lawsuit against Cisco with prejudice? Because Cisco agreed to give them what they wanted, most likely. What settlement are you talking about? The one the parties signed in private. Please provide the details. You'll have to ask the parties. It's their settlement. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: loading proprietary code from GPL
noamtm writes: Does the GPL (v2) allow a GPL'd program to dynamically load and execute proprietary code? What does the program do if the proprietary code is not available? What does the proprietary code do if the program is not available? Is the program able to load and execute more than just the one piece of proprietary code? Is there any other program that can load and execute the proprietary code? Was the proprietary code written for this specific purpose? -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: reinvent (for GPL) code u wrote for employer who owns it?
Barry Margolin writes: How can you use the clean room procedure when the original programmer is writing the new program? There are no teams, there's just one guy. Think about who is suggesting this. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: TomTom, the GPL and patents
rjack writes: By the way, your four freedoms are really restrictions cloaked in socialist semantics. They are not restrictions at all. What is a restriction is copyright: it is the government telling you what you may and may not do with your own property. Why is that not socialist? Hyman writes: The purpose of distributing under the GPL is so that users can run, read, modify, and share the software they receive. If something would prevent them from doing these things, then their freedoms are vitiated. Under those circumstances, there is no point in distributing software them, and so the GPL forbids it. Only if it is something _you_ do, such as requiring them to agree to a patent license (or sublicense) that would prevent them from exercising the rights they would otherwise heve under the GPL. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Zonker on Open Source licenses ..
Hyman Rosen writes: Even if they are correct, it's still up to the rights holders to do something about it if they haven't been asked. But of course we have no way to know that they haven't been asked: such things need not be made public. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: GPL software on a webserver - released or not?
John Geddes writes: Does the very act of loading the code onto any webserver constitute releasing the software? No. The GPL comes into effect when you transfer ownership of a copy of a work licensed under it. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: Which OS You Are Using?
Koh Choon Lin writes: Interested to get a feel of the type of OS users are using on this list. Debian/Sid -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: 'Nuther voluntary dismissal contemplated
Tim Smith writes: Why would you expect a dismissal? Presumably he expects Cisco to realize that the FSF is not bluffing, realize that it would lose big in court, and quickly settle on the FSF's terms. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org 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: RMS - Cloud Computing is a trap/stupid
I wrote: Cloud computing does not yet exist. That which is being sold as such is really just a form of timesharing. Alfred M. Szmidt writes: It is actually worse, timsharing was sensible, since you still could gather your data (you got a shell account). You don't go back far enough. You didn't move your data from TSO to Multics except by typing it back in. Even the FORTRAN compilers weren't compatible. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: GPL 2(b) HUH?
Hyman Rosen writes: Only if putting the new scheduler into Linux involves enough changes to the rest of Linux to be considered a significant work of authorship. Otherwise, Linux + new scheduler is just a combined work. So putting a new chapter nine into Harry Potter does not create a derivative? -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: public domain to GPL?
amicus_curious writes: You can assert a copyright on the work as a whole where you have made some unique changes to the original expression, but you have to register it first. You don't have to register the work until just before you file suit. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Is public domain possible?
Jerry writes: So is it possible to write a program and state on the program (eg. in the About box) that it is public domain and thereby make the program public domain? You can make it public domain for most purpoeses but in some jurisdictions there are rights that you are not permitted to give up. This is unlikely to matter in most cases, though. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: public domain to GPL?
Jerry wrote: Now I'm confused. Always ignore everything Terekhov writes. He is a troll and is deliberately trying to confuse you. It seems, according to the author of the above quote, that it is possible to modify a public domain program and copyright the modified version as a whole. You will have created a derivative of the public domain work and will automatically acquire copyright in it. If that is true, then I figure maybe I can GPL a modified version of a public domain program. You can distribute such a work under the terms of the GPL (or any other terms you wish). The original work, of course, remains in the public domain as do the portions of it that your derivative includes. Someone could excise those parts and use them as public domain as long as he doesn't include any of your work. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: public domain vs GPL
Jerry writes: It says: Public domain material is compatible with the GNU GPL. What does that mean? It means that works distributed under the GPL can be combined with works in the public domain and the result distributed under the GPL without violating the GPL. This is an obvious consequence of the fact that there are no restrictions at all on public domain works. Does it mean that the GPL can be put on a modified version of a public domain program? That too (it's really the same thing). -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: public domain to GPL?
Jerry writes: Is it possible to take a public domain program and modify it and put the GPL on the modified version of the program? Of course. Make sure that the program is truly in the public domain, though. Few are. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Why GnuZilla?
Alfred M. Szmidt writes: It is better to use something like gNewSense, which is 100% free software. But includes non-free documentation. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Why GnuZilla?
Alfred M. Szmidt writes: [gNewSense] only includes free documentation. No GFDL documents with front cover texts, back cover texts or invariant sections? -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Why GnuZilla?
Alfred M. Szmidt writes: [gNewSense] only includes free documentation. I wrote: No GFDL documents with front cover texts, back cover texts or invariant sections? Alfred M. Szmidt writes: Such documents are also free documents, so are verbatim only documents. Debian does not agree. Neither do I. However, neither Debian nor I have denounced the FSF as anti-freedom because of this disagreement. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Why GnuZilla?
I wrote: They are built from source identical in all respects (including licensing) to that used to build the programs distributed by Mozilla except for the absence of the Mozilla-owned trademarks and a few non-free files. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceApe and also in /usr/share/doc/iceweasel/copyright Christian Herenz writes: So... I still don't get it - what is different in Icecat Icecat is an FSF project, not a Debian one. There are FSF people here who can explain it better than I can. - except from the minor tweaks. Debian removed all Non-Free content, Icecat is derived from the Mozilla sources completely independently of Debian. Icecat is unrelated to Debian. Could you maybe explain the situation a little bit deeper. Read the references I gave you and ask specific questions. And I still don't get why gNewSense does uses thier own rebranded version and not IceCat. I don't know anything about that. Perhaps you should ask them. I am new to this NG, so I am not familiar with the tone here - but at the moment I am thinking if this will be my last post in this group. You are welcome to stay or leave. It is entirely up to you. If you are that touchy, though, you might be happier with moderated forums than with Usenet. Do you really think, that it is polite to answer to a serious question with one word, without further explanation. Yes. Maybe, if you do not want to communicate, you should not post in a newsgroup? I've been posting to newsgroups for more than 25 years. Perhaps, if you cannot read a message for its content and not get offended by some sort of imaginary tone you should not post to a newsgroup. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Why GnuZilla?
Christian writes: ...you are not the person I would like to communicate with anymore.. Ok. Put me in your killfile and be happy. Then I would suggest to go out and have a real life... I was out at 6AM this morning feeding the horses, as I am every morning. Living on a farm is pretty real. Weather is nice today. I have hay down and it is about to rain here. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Why GnuZilla?
I wrote: Icecat is an FSF project, not a Debian one. There are FSF people here who can explain it better than I can. Alfred M. Szmidt writes: Icecat is a GNU project, and not an FSF one. See? I said there were people here who could explain it better than I can. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Why GnuZilla?
/usr/share/doc/iceweasel/copyright/ Should read /usr/share/doc/iceweasel/copyright -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Free software and making money.
mike3 writes: I heard someone claiming that Free software (as in Freedom for the users), or the GNU project, or RMS, is against making money. You heard incorrectly. Is this so? I think Free software is about Freedom for the users, and not anything to do with making or not making money. Correct. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Court overrules Copyright Act !!
mike3 writes: I'm not quite clear as to what this implies. Does it mean that the GPL won't work any more, or something else? It means that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that Free Software licenses are fully enforceable and that violators can be required to pay statutory damages and be subject to injunctions. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Open source licenses upheld
I'm looking forward to the day when Mr. Terekhov declares SCOTUS a pack of drunkards. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: LGPL vs. GPL
Ciaran O'Riordan writes: Well, if the source is visible, people can examine it and see where the problem is, but I think people should also be allowed fix problems (bugs and security holes) and should be allowed to make modifications to reduce pointless frustration. In the US they can.[1] And when they do fix bugs, improve security, or improve the functionality, they should be allowed to publish their modifications so that their work can benefit everyone. If you wrote the patch you own the copyright and can publish it if you wish as long as you don't include any significant amount of the original code.[1] [1] Unless they have entered into a contract in which they agree not to. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: GPLv3 question regarding server applications
Bruce C. Miller writes: At least the v2 simply states that if it is made available to the public then the source must be available as well. To me, available to the public includes having it on the internet for anyone to connect to, and being a server project like this one... They mean made _available_, not made accessible. If the public can get copies of the program they must be able to get copies of the source. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code
mike3 writes: Nh... a REAL programmer writes in MACHINE CODE... one *bit* at a time and has only 2 keys on the keyboard: 1 and 0... :) Never wrote in binary, but the first program I ever got paid to write was written in hex using a dumb terminal and a computer with only a hex monitor. Writing hex for the RCA 1802 actually isn't too bad. The Intel 80386, on the other hand... -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Circumventing the GPL
Tim Smith wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission? Because you agreed not to sell them without source when you accepted the GPL which you did when you made the copies. It is the people you distribute the copies to who get the benefit of first sale. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Circumventing the GPL
Hyman writes: Authors can give up some exclusive rights. Yes, copyright owners can give up some rights: the one in your example has done so. In the scenario I propose, the author has completely honored the GPL - with every copy he sells, he includes the source, and has no further obligation. He has also sold his right to distribute source to the buyer of the copies. Quite legal. There may be a deal he has entered into not to distribute the program in particular ways, but that's fine - he's the author, he's not obligated to distribute if he doesn't want to. He no longer can distribute source: he sold that right. The person who has purchased the copy... ...Has also purchased the exclusive right to distribute the source and is therefor one of the copyright owners. The person who has purchased the copy is then free to sell it without getting permission from the copyright holder, the author. Because that sale does not require a license, the recipient has not received it under the terms of the GPL, and has no one from whom he can demand the source code. The owners of the work that your author based his work on can sue both parties (both of whom now own an interest in the copyright in the work under discussion) for copyright infringement when they attempt to distribute the work without complying with the terms of the GPL. The purchaser's claim of first sale will be disallowed because of his ownership of the exclusive right to distribute source, which makes him a part-owner of the copyright. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: About first sale doctrine
Ciaran writes: I can't follow all the mails on this list, but just to distill the discussion down: Is someone on this list claiming after Company X sells a source+binary copy of some GPL'd software to Buyer Y, that, in the USA, Buyer Y can then pass on or resell the binary (without the source) without being bound by the requirements of the GPL? Yes, but under US law a copy is a tangible object. Thus you can purchase a complete set of Debian CDs from CheapBytes and then sell each CD seperately even though some of the CDs contain only binaries. You cannot, however, download a set of Debian ISOs, burn them to CDs, and sell the binary ones seperately since you did not purchase those CDs but made them yourself, thus accepting the terms of the GPL. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Circumventing the GPL
Hyman writes: The manufacturer sells copies of software to a reseller, in full compliance with the GPL, shipping binaries and source. He has not sold any rights. The reseller has not bought any rights. You wrote that the manufacturer had been paid by the reseller for agreeing not to make source available to anyone but the reseller, leaving the reseller, who has a license (the GPL), the only one free to distribute source. That is the sale of a right by the manufacturer to the reseller. He may do only what copyright law allows - he may choose to distribute under the GPL, or he may choose to distribute under first sale. He owns part of the copyright (the right to distribute source). -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- A telling admission by AaronWilliamson(AW1337)
Jacobsen v. Katzer is about the Artistic License which lacks a termination clause and is so poorly drafted as to be nearly incomprehensible. I don't think it's relevant to the GPL. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Circumventing the GPL
Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that company B contract with company A to do this? If so company A is company B's agent and the GPL is violated, not circumvented. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Circumventing the GPL
I wrote: The sale is then no longer an arms-length transaction. A US Federal judge will see right through the subterfuge and tell A that it is a distributor. Hyman writes: Why does it have to be arms-length? In order to be a first sale under the intent of the law. First sale clearly contemplates a transaction such as walking into a bookstore, grabbing a book, plunking down $20, and walking out. You propose a contract wherein the seller gives up some of his exclusive rights as author. Surely you don't expect the court to let A get away with not providing source when A has acquired the exclusive right to do so. Where is the subterfuge? In the attempt to evade the intent of the GPL. A software developer is perfectly free to enter an arrangement whereby he agrees *not* to distribute software. If the software is GPLed, he cannot require recipients not to distribute, but he is free to choose not to distribute his own software, and to accept payment for doing so. Yes, of course he is. There is nothing illegal about what you propose. It just won't work as a GPL evasion. Do you think no one has ever tried to use a similar scheme to evade his obligations before? The courts have seen it all. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Attorney fees
Alexander Terekhov wrote: That's not a settlement. Settlements are often not filed with the court. See USL v UC for example. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Attorney fees
I wrote: The competitors you created in step one can create competing GPL versions with the same features. David Kastrup writes: That's a nice theory. In practice, you can't hope to keep pace with the original authors in almost any case unless development died altogether or they left. We are talking about the main line going closed-source. That provides both motive and opportunity. Consider X. Many projects don't survive the original authors leaving (or even just aging) even without forking or competition. If no one cares then it doesn't matter, does it? If Open Office went closed-source many people would care, and many of them would be in a position to do something about it. Again, consider X. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Attorney fees
rjack wrote: the SFLC dimisses its cases immediately after filing Something like 97% of lawsuits in the US are settled out of court. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Attorney fees
Tim Smith writes: The other way, which is the one I believe courts usually go with, is for the court to ask what would have happened if D had obeyed the actual license that D had. He would not have received whatever benefits he received as a consequence of not obeying the license. Those would go to the copyright owner, less any direct expenses the infringer could prove, plus any damages the copyright owner could prove. This is all assuming, of course, that the copyright owner elects not to demand statutory damages. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: When is a GPL program which runs in a web site 'conveyed'?
David Kastrup wrote: The software still comes with something like a if you don't accept, return this for a refund IIRC. Meaning, of course, return the copy of the software. Copies are tangible objects. The copy is embodied in the computer. If you don't like the terms return the copy: i.e., the computer. In my opinion the real problem with these contracts is that the terms are not revealed at the point of sale, but the courts don't seem to agree. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: When is a GPL program which runs in a web site 'conveyed'?
rjack wrote: Do you *really* believe that the GPL can bind all those downstream third-party beneficiaries? Hyman writes: Of course. It doesn't bind them. It grants permission to them. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Free software, free speech, human dignity
David Kastrup writes: Seizing is hard without any cooperation, and that is where the prison may come in: not complying with a court order. In the US the creditors get a court order authorizing seizure, which in this context means taking by force. If you punch out the deputy you'll get arrested, but otherwise they'll just come and take your stuff (assuming you have possessions worth seizing). Bank accounts are easy to seize, of course. I may be wrong about this, but I don't think sitting this out is an option. It would be a stupid thing to do since by actively participating you could retain assets that you would probably lose otherwise but I see no reason you'd go to prison. In any case the original question was about going to prison solely due to inability to pay a debt. That isn't going to happen here. I wrote: Of course, if you tried to conceal assets you could end up in prison for fraud, but that's a different matter. David Kastrup writes: I don't see how you could be accused of fraud when you don't cooperate. I don't either. I meant stuff such as putting bank accounts in false names, reporting things stolen when they were not, etc. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Free software, free speech, human dignity
I wrote: Please define human dignity. Andreas Röhler writes: Maybe let's regard a picture to grasp it. Let's look at Nelson Mandela. A politician. I wrote: The GPL is neither law nor treaty. Andreas Röhler writes: Don't we say licence agreement? Is an agreement not like a treaty? Not much, no. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Free software, free speech, human dignity
Andreas Röhler writes: Now imagine someone loses his case accused of GPL-violation and can't pay the court's fees or indemnities. That's fairly possible as his business, missing GPLed software then, might go bankrupt same time. Do you image a court, who sends a mother to prison for 10 or 20 Euro, will hesitate to send him for serveral thousand? In the US inability to pay a debt can never result in imprisonment. I doubt that it can in Germany. OK, take breath. Sounds heavy, but its just some exercise reflecting things we enjoy both. Sounds like trolling to be. Or perhaps just crackpottery. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Free software, free speech, human dignity
David Kastrup writes: I think if you _don't_ declare personal bankruptcy, prison is actually an option of the courts (if the readily accessible belongings can't cover your debts). I don't think it is here. I believe that the creditors can file a petition for involuntary bankruptcy (one does not declare bankruptcy: one petitions a court for it). I think that if you attempt to ignore the whole affair the creditors will just get court orders allowing them to seize your property and divide it among themselves. It would be dumb thing to do because you would end up worse off than if you had filed a voluntary petition but I don't think you could end up in prison. Of course, if you tried to conceal assets you could end up in prison for fraud, but that's a different matter. In practice no one with enough assets to be worth fighting over would do such a thing anyway. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Free software, free speech, human dignity
Andreas Röhler writes: First thing is human dignity... Please define human dignity. ...the right of free speech is derived from it. So you say. As we are human beings, we should not risk being injailed for our publishings for example, as it's the case nowadays. Less so nowadays than through most of history, actually. From human dignity results: every law, every treaty must be understandable by the leverage intelligent, or to say by the majority. Talk to your politicians. That affects GPL: We should neither need nor maintain special counselling firms to tell the contents of the GPL. If it is so, it's wrong, it violates human dignity the extent, counselling is needed. The GPL is neither law nor treaty. It's degree of complexity is, however, partially dictated by laws over which the FSF has no control. If FSF violates human dignity by itself, it will not be taken serious claiming derived minor items as free Software. What does that mean? -- Things should be as simple as possible, and no simpler --A. Einstein. John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: When is a GPL program which runs in a web site 'conveyed'?
Philipp Schmidt writes: I have read the GPL several times, and besides the cited FAQ I don't see a reason why you may not be allowed to offer remote X access to a linux system running (modified) GPL programs as long as you make sure that the remote user can't get access to the actual program code. And we are far away from planning such almost direct access. There isn't any, unless the code is licensed under the Affero GPL or the GNU Affero GPL (you'd know if it was). Ignore rjack. He's a troll, and not a very competent one. The GPL is a set of _permissions_: by distributing under it a copyright owner grants recipients of copies certain rights otherwise reserved by copyright law to the copyright owner. Thus if the GPL was void in the US (it is not) no one other than the copyright owner would be allowed to distribute GPL licensed software at all. For the future, can you advise me how to differentiate between lawyers talking law-speech and trolls talking nonsense? ;-) The same way you differentiate between programmers talking software-speech and trolls talking nonsense. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Copyright source code
spasmous2 writes: I downloaded some code that has a copyright notice in it. It's unclear to me what this means though. It means that someone claims to own the copyright in it. What does the notice say? Can I use the code to make money or distribute the code to someone else? Maybe. What does the author say? Do I need to pay a royalty to the author? Maybe. What does the author say? The code is a C translation of a Public Domain Fortran code. There may or may not be enough creative expression in that to qualify for copyright protection. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
