Now, it's finally possible for you to enlarge your penis
http://www.sonkom.info/ss/
Hey man, stop throwing away your money
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:28:29AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/10/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the past, UW has (in my opinion) played deliberate word games to
retroactively revoke the Freeness of a prior Pine license, and this license
is clearly non-free *without* any
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:28:29AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Also, if I recall correctly, there was a gnu project to write a pine
replacement, but I don't know where that stands. Probably it's
not complete because of a lack of development effort.
Well, there's nano -- and if you want the pine
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
When I try to reconcile early case law -- just from the US circuit
courts -- on the copies, derivative works, collections, and dungheaps
made during run-time, and which routine uses are infringing and which
aren't, the little engine in my non-lawyer head threatens to
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.a. it specifies (art. 7, XII) that computer programs are protected by
copyrights.
2.b. it further specifies (art. 7 § 1) that computer programs have
specific legal provisions (all contained, nowadays, in our Computer
Programs Law [Lei
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.a. it specifies (art. 7, XII) that computer programs are protected
by
copyrights.
2.b. it further specifies (art. 7 § 1) that computer programs have
specific legal provisions (all contained, nowadays, in our
This book gives a history of how software was granted copyright
protection gradually through case law in the US:
A. CLAPES, Softwars, London, Quorum Books, 1993, 325 p.
I found it both useful and agreeable, albeit slightly outdated being
more than ten years old.
Kind regards
Batist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With respect to authorization to accept contract terms, a court
shouldn't honor a check that was blank when you signed it unless you
endorsed it after it was filled in.
IIRC, they do honor them in the case of checks!
Writing a blank check is a bad idea, of course.
Not
[Raul Miller]
However, I can present my point of view without resorting to this argument:
...
Does that make sense?
Much clearer, thanks. I was annoyed by the increasingly fine
hair-splitting - thanks for bringing the level back to the realm of the
meaningful.
signature.asc
Description:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Switching sides again, if someone asserted that the mere
aggregation clause applied, and used program behavior to make that
assertion, and I believed that mere aggregation did not apply, I
would show how the program
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Once again: if Section 0 does not apply, then the GPL does not apply,
and therefore the GPL can't grant you license to copy that work.
Ok... are you arguing that you *still* have to comply to the license of
the non-GPLd
Raul Miller wrote:
However, on the flip side -- if binaries are the same work as the sources under the eyes of the law, then you can't construct any licenses which treat sources differently from binaries. They're the same. Anyone who has the right to distribute binaries also has the right to
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. Binaries are the same work as (the anthology of) their sources, in
the eye of the Law 9609/98.
If I understand you correctly, this means that under Brazilian law,
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. Binaries are the same work as (the anthology of) their
sources, in the eye of the Law 9609/98.
If I understand you correctly, this means that
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[an argument, much of which would make sense in a parallel universe
where the GPL is on the law books as 17 USC 666]
I am not a lawyer (or a fortiori a judge), so all that I can do to
explain why this isn't valid legal reasoning is to point you at
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I'm not going to say that your point of view isn't perfectly valid
as your own point of view; but I don't have any reason to believe that
it's a good predictor of how a court case involving the FSF suing
FooSoft for linking against GNU
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a brocardo (legal axiom) in our doctrine: He who can
do more, can do less (horrid translation to quem pode mais,
pode menos [Quién puede más,
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with your wish, with respect to certain of my works.
Unfortunately, under 17 USC, the only way to avoid transfer of my
termination interest in copyright assignments and licenses is for my
work to have been a work made for hire.
[geez, this branch was still spamming d-d too]
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, a court case does not have to be argued that way.
No, but if it's to have a
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, the termination is not for 35 years after the grant.
And, in the case of the GPL, everyone gets an independent
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The law as written says that you do not have permission to copy
except as granted by a license. Thus the GPL's license grant
is not only applicable, it's the issue which is most likely
On 5/11/05, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With respect to authorization to accept contract terms, a court
shouldn't honor a check that was blank when you signed it unless you
endorsed it after it was filled in.
IIRC, they do honor them in the case of
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL does not grant the right to sublicense.
Section 6's grant does not depend on an agent having a valid
license.
Horse, pulp, etc. I'll even point you at a message where I made the
case that sublicense isn't workable:
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL does not grant the right to sublicense.
Section 6's grant does not depend on an agent having a valid
license.
Horse, pulp, etc. I'll even point you at a message where I made
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At no point did I assume that the GPL was a statute, nor a
magical creature.
In other words, you're begging the question. (And arguing a
straw man.)
I stand by my man, straw or otherwise. In any given jurisdiction
there are rather clear
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I stand by my man, straw or otherwise. In any given jurisdiction
there are rather clear rules about how to extract meaning from the
available evidence of a contract between two parties (or more, if it's
a contract to form a corporation;
On 5/10/05, Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 01:51:53AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Well, I have to admit it didn't occur to me that anyone might think my
opinion represented an opposite consensus. More widely recognized
debian-legal personages such as Raul
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The drafter of this offer of contract has shouted from the rooftops
that he has made no attempt to conform it with the applicable law.
You make it sound like RMS is attempting civil disobedience.
As I understand it, he's attempting to
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The drafter of this offer of contract has shouted from the rooftops
that he has made no attempt to conform it with the applicable law.
You make it sound like RMS is attempting civil
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fine. I have been goaded into rebutting this specimen.
Most of this is focused on contract law issues. I've written a
separate post suggesting the obvious alternative (Tort law)
Since Section 0 says that the GPL grants you license to
30 matches
Mail list logo
