Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[John Hasler]

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.

[RJack]

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




Bullshit. Linux and GPL is only growing. The BSDs are dying.

Its a shame because BSD is a GREAT system.


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.


BSD and PCC needs friendly people and hackers, not useless whiners 
pieces of shit like you.




I think I misunderstood what you're trying to say. Please remove the
dick from your mouth. That'll improve your enunciation dramatically.


Have a nice Victor!
  _ _
 |R|   |R|
 |J| /^^^\ |J|
_|a|_  (| "o" |)  _|a|_
  _| |c| | _(_---_)_ | |c| |_
 | | |k| ||-|_| |_|-|| |k| | |
 |  |   / \   |  |
  \/  / /(. .)\ \  \/
\/  / /  | . |  \ \  \/
  \  \/ /||Y||\ \/  /
   \__/  || ||  \__/
 () ()
 || ||
ooO Ooo

___
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]

"VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO"  writes:

>> Don't worry. The GPL license and the "Free Software" religion will
>> soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends.
>
> Bullshit. Linux and GPL is only growing. The BSDs are dying.
>
> Its a shame because BSD is a GREAT system.
>
>> > 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.
>
> BSD and PCC needs friendly people and hackers, not useless whiners
> pieces of shit like you.

That probably counts as friendly.

Anyway, one sales theory of BSD fans is that it is more
business-friendly, so why the lack of donation and support?

-- 
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]

John Hasler wrote:

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.


Ahhh... Johnny. Since you've been fucked by the best you certainly pass 
the test! You've seriously earned your bragging rights!



  Have a nice day Johnny Boy!
  _ _
 |R|   |R|
 |J| /^^^\ |J|
_|a|_  (| "o" |)  _|a|_
  _| |c| | _(_---_)_ | |c| |_
 | | |k| ||-|_| |_|-|| |k| | |
 |  |   / \   |  |
  \/  / /(. .)\ \  \/
\/  / /  | . |  \ \  \/
  \  \/ /||Y||\ \/  /
   \__/  || ||  \__/
 () ()
 || ||
ooO Ooo
___
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.

[John Hasler]

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]

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

Bullshit. Linux and GPL is only growing. The BSDs are dying.

Its a shame because BSD is a GREAT system.

> > 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.

BSD and PCC needs friendly people and hackers, not useless whiners
pieces of shit like you.


___
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]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

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






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."



Sayeth RJack:
ROFL.
___
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]

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: 
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.

[Alexander Terekhov]

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  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  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]

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]

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.

[RJack]

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

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[RJack]

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.

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov  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  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  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]

Alexander Terekhov  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.

[Alexander Terekhov]

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  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  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]

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:
> 

"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  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  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]

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  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  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]

Alexander Terekhov  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.

[Alexander Terekhov]

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  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  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]

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:

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.

[Hyman Rosen]

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.

[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.

[Alexander Terekhov]

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  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  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]

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  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  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]

Alexander Terekhov  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.

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  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:
>> 
>>  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]

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:
> 
>  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  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  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]

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]

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:

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.

[Alexander Terekhov]

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
substantiated—i.e., that the prosecution's evidential burden has been
met—and 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  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  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]

RJack  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> RJack  writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup wrote:
 RJack  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.

[RJack]

David Kastrup wrote:

RJack  writes:


David Kastrup wrote:

RJack  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]

David Kastrup wrote:

RJack  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]

RJack  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> RJack  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]

RJack  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]

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.

[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

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 3/9/2010 12:14 PM, RJack wrote:

The federal courts of the United States ignore CAFC authority in
areas outside their unique patent appeals areas.


Since the CAFC reasoned out the case correctly, we can expect that
other courts will do the same.


Ratchet up your hopes Hyman. Ratchet up your hopes. Imagine a victory
just like you imagine settlement agreements.

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]

On 3/9/2010 12:14 PM, RJack wrote:

The federal courts of the United States ignore CAFC

> authority in areas outside their unique patent appeals areas.

Since the CAFC reasoned out the case correctly, we can
expect that other courts will do the same.
___
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]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 3/9/2010 11:48 AM, RJack wrote:

"Copyleft" style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law.


No, that's not correct. A court has enforced an open license: 
 Copyright holders

who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the
modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As the Second
Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976),
the "unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, would
constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar to
any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the
proprietor of the copyright." Copyright licenses are designed to
support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or
enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of 
compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and

explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar- denominated fee, is
entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation
of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license
restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to
enforce through injunctive relief.


Take your citation to the courts in Zimbabwe Hyman. The federal courts
of the United States ignore CAFC authority in areas outside their unique
patent appeals areas.

CAFC copyright decisions are valuable only as toilet paper in federal
courthouse restrooms. I hope and pray the SFLC cites to your CAFC
decision. ROFL.

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]

RJack  writes:

> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>> Well there's little prospect of that experiment taking place,
>> thankfully.
>
> The GPL is gasping for breath Alan. It'll soon be DEAD. Get over it
> Alan. "Copyleft" style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law.

Quite right, since they are no contracts and the recipient did not sign
them.  And the GPL says so itself.  But that does not change that
_copyright_ stays enforceable, and while that is the case, a license
like the GPL which gives conditions for additional permissions is likely
welcome to the recipients of software.

Once copyright falls, the GPL is a piece of toilet paper, while the
"licenses" like shrink-wrap and click-through which require the
recipient to agree to obnoxious restrictions on the rights that would
properly be his under copyright, will still be able to affect people who
did agree to be bound in that manner.

> You may, perhaps, continue to extol the virtues of the GPL under the
> patchwork of laws of Europe but it's dead in the USA.

Stay away from your keyboard during your wet dreams.

-- 
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]

On 3/9/2010 11:48 AM, RJack wrote:

"Copyleft" style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law.


No, that's not correct. A court has enforced an open license:

Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have
the right to control the modification and distribution of
copyrighted material. As the Second Circuit explained in
Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976), the
"unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven,
would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that
work similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the
license granted by the proprietor of the copyright."
Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to
exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that
right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of
compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure
and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-
denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition.
Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently
speculative, these types of license restrictions might well
be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through
injunctive relief.
___
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]

Alan Mackenzie  writes:

> In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup  wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie  writes:
>
>>> Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for
>>> the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it.
>
>> Well, that's half of the story.  Linux has been written to support a
>> preexisting GNU userland.  And that userland has a tradition of being
>> popular and freely available quite before Linux.
>
> What is the reason for that popularity (amongst developers), if it's not
> the GPL.

Quality.  It was "traditional" for UNIX utilities to dump core when fed
random garbage.  And availability.  GNU utilities ran on more than just
UNIX systems.

> GPL vs. BSD license was one of the few big differences between the
> projects way back then.

Uh, not even at Linux birthtime (1991) there was a complete freely
available BSD system.  But there already was a GNU userland under
DOS/Windows and some other systems.  Life saver.

>> And BSD became freely available only some time after GNU/Linux.
>
> Yet how does that explain why Linux is so much more popular amongst
> developers than a BSD kernel?  BSD became freely available at a very
> early stage of the development of GNU/Linux, early enough to catch up
> on its merits.

Still not with a GNU userland.

>> The GNU userland is unpopular among BSD developers because, well,
>> they are BSD developers.  And because their kernel of choice already
>> comes in one package with a userland.
>
> The BSDs include some GNU stuff,

Not the normal userland.  It already has one.

> just as GNU/Linux includes some BSD licensed stuff.

But there is no preexisting GNU alternative for that which it includes
BSD licensed.

>> So quite a lot of popularity of GNU/Linux comes from GNU, and not
>> necessarily just because GNU is GPLed.
>
> Would you argue that GNU would have become just as popular (amongst
> its developers), had it been licensed under something like the BSD
> licence?  I would doubt that very much.

Speculative history.  We won't find out.

> Well there's little prospect of that experiment taking place,
> thankfully.

Yup.

-- 
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]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:


Well there's little prospect of that experiment taking place,
thankfully.


The GPL is gasping for breath Alan. It'll soon be DEAD. Get over it
Alan. "Copyleft" style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law. You
may, perhaps, continue to extol the virtues of the GPL under the
patchwork of laws of Europe but it's dead in the USA.

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.

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup  wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie  writes:

>> Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for
>> the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it.

> Well, that's half of the story.  Linux has been written to support a
> preexisting GNU userland.  And that userland has a tradition of being
> popular and freely available quite before Linux.

What is the reason for that popularity (amongst developers), if it's not
the GPL.  GPL vs. BSD license was one of the few big differences between
the projects way back then.

> And BSD became freely available only some time after GNU/Linux.

Yet how does that explain why Linux is so much more popular amongst
developers than a BSD kernel?  BSD became freely available at a very
early stage of the development of GNU/Linux, early enough to catch up on
its merits.

> The GNU userland is unpopular among BSD developers because, well, they
> are BSD developers.  And because their kernel of choice already comes
> in one package with a userland.

The BSDs include some GNU stuff, just as GNU/Linux includes some BSD
licensed stuff.

> So quite a lot of popularity of GNU/Linux comes from GNU, and not
> necessarily just because GNU is GPLed.

Would you argue that GNU would have become just as popular (amongst its
developers), had it been licensed under something like the BSD licence?
I would doubt that very much.

>> If, for some currently inconceivable reason, Linux was relicenced
>> under what you call a "free as in freedom" licence, many developers
>> would cease development.

> The Linux kernel developers tend not to be all too religious about
> licensing.  Well, they do, but they call their religion pragmatism.

That pragmatism being that they can get on with development without
bothering too much about the licence, which they know they can trust.
How happy would these folks be about being unpaid hackers for, e.g.,
Apple?

>> This might leave a mere rump, scarcely larger than the groups which
>> maintain the BSD kernels.

> I doubt it.

Well there's little prospect of that experiment taking place, thankfully.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

___
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]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> We are not talking about the age of the BSD license(s), but the time
> when a complete BSD type operating system became available freely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7tvI6JCXD0

Hth, silly dak.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  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  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]

RJack  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie  writes:
>>
>>> In gnu.misc.discuss RJack  wrote:
>>>
 Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point?
 You are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually
 have to make sense. What's your rhetorical focus?
>>> Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason
>>> for the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it.
>>
>> Well, that's half of the story.  Linux has been written to support a
>> preexisting GNU userland.  And that userland has a tradition of being
>> popular and freely available quite before Linux.
>>
>> And BSD became freely available only some time after GNU/Linux.
>
> You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
>
> "The University of California at Berkeley has a long history of
> pioneering software development and software distribution
> models. Having existed in some form since the early 1980s, the BSD
> licence can claim to be the oldest of the open source licences.

We are not talking about the age of the BSD license(s), but the time
when a complete BSD type operating system became available freely.

USL v. BSDi was settled just in 1993.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi>

-- 
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]

David Kastrup wrote:

Alan Mackenzie  writes:


In gnu.misc.discuss RJack  wrote:


Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point?
You are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually
have to make sense. What's your rhetorical focus?

Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason
for the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it.


Well, that's half of the story.  Linux has been written to support a 
preexisting GNU userland.  And that userland has a tradition of being

 popular and freely available quite before Linux.

And BSD became freely available only some time after GNU/Linux.


You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

"The University of California at Berkeley has a long history of
pioneering software development and software distribution models. Having
existed in some form since the early 1980s, the BSD licence can claim to
be the oldest of the open source licences. In fact its long life has
resulted in there being more than one version, and it is slightly
misleading to speak of the BSD licence as a result. Although the history
of its evolution is an interesting one, for the purposes of this
document we will confine ourselves to detailing the last major revision
that resulted in what is today called the modified BSD licence or the
new BSD licence."
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/modbsd.xml

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]

Alan Mackenzie  writes:

> In gnu.misc.discuss RJack  wrote:
>
>> Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point? You
>> are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually have to
>> make sense. What's your rhetorical focus?
>
> Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for
> the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it.

Well, that's half of the story.  Linux has been written to support a
preexisting GNU userland.  And that userland has a tradition of being
popular and freely available quite before Linux.

And BSD became freely available only some time after GNU/Linux.  The GNU
userland is unpopular among BSD developers because, well, they are BSD
developers.  And because their kernel of choice already comes in one
package with a userland.

So quite a lot of popularity of GNU/Linux comes from GNU, and not
necessarily just because GNU is GPLed.

> If, for some currently inconceivable reason, Linux was relicenced
> under what you call a "free as in freedom" licence, many developers
> would cease development.

The Linux kernel developers tend not to be all too religious about
licensing.  Well, they do, but they call their religion pragmatism.

> This might leave a mere rump, scarcely larger than the groups which
> maintain the BSD kernels.

I doubt 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]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In gnu.misc.discuss RJack  wrote:

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In gnu.misc.discuss RJack  wrote:



Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow
some proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a
real operating system. Microsoft hates the thought that folks
will understand the GPL is unenforceable. That's the reason
Microsoft embraced the GPL -- it suppressed new competition.



Perhaps the Linux kernel will continue to be improved under a
free (free as in freedom) license such as BSD or Apache.


You still don't get it, RJ.  The GPL is the most popular free 
licence, and that popularity has a reason.


Working on a BSD kernal is so much less popular than working on 
Linux. That has a reason, too.




Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point? You
are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually have to
make sense. What's your rhetorical focus?


Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for
the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it.  If, for
some currently inconceivable reason, Linux was relicenced under what
you call a "free as in freedom" licence, many developers would cease
development.


Let them go home, place their candle under a basket and buy Microsoft
software. No problem there.

This might leave a mere rump, scarcely larger than the groups which 
maintain the BSD kernels.




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.

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss RJack  wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> In gnu.misc.discuss RJack  wrote:

>>> Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow some 
>>> proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a real
>>> operating system. Microsoft hates the thought that folks will
>>> understand the GPL is unenforceable. That's the reason Microsoft
>>> embraced the GPL -- it suppressed new competition.

>>> Perhaps the Linux kernel will continue to be improved under a free 
>>> (free as in freedom) license such as BSD or Apache.

>> You still don't get it, RJ.  The GPL is the most popular free
>> licence, and that popularity has a reason.

>> Working on a BSD kernal is so much less popular than working on
>> Linux. That has a reason, too.


> Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point? You are
> correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually have to make
> sense. What's your rhetorical focus?

Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for the
popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it.  If, for some
currently inconceivable reason, Linux was relicenced under what you call
a "free as in freedom" licence, many developers would cease development.
This might leave a mere rump, scarcely larger than the groups which
maintain the BSD kernels.

> Sincerely,
> RJack :)

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

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

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[RJack]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In gnu.misc.discuss RJack  wrote:

Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow some 
proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a real

operating system. Microsoft hates the thought that folks will
understand the GPL is unenforceable. That's the reason Microsoft
embraced the GPL -- it suppressed new competition.


Perhaps the Linux kernel will continue to be improved under a free 
(free as in freedom) license such as BSD or Apache.


You still don't get it, RJ.  The GPL is the most popular free
licence, and that popularity has a reason.

Working on a BSD kernal is so much less popular than working on
Linux. That has a reason, too.



Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point? You are
correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually have to make
sense. What's your rhetorical focus?

Sincerely,
RJack :)




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