Richard Stallman wrote:
You are focusing on the definition of derived work, but that is not
really the issue. Copyright also covers use of a work as part of a
larger combined work.
Your silly claims like If a.o is under the GPL and talks to b.o
which talks to c.o, the GPL covers all three
Yorick Cool wrote:
[...]
The reasoning is pretty simple. As Sean said, it is based on the
understanding that the GPL is a contract.
Yeah. Except that everybody and his dog knows that the FSF's
position is that GPL != contract. Moglen and RMS now call it
The Constitution (of the GNU
On 9/12/05, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Alexander Larry Lessig?
Alexander
Alexander CC share-alike licenses don't try to infect compilations
(collective
Alexander works).
So? That changes nothing to the fact Lessig considers the GPL -- the license
we're
talking about
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[...]
I will grant you Lawrence Lessig even though a few minutes' Googling
http://www.google.com/search?q=Lessig+GPL+insane
yields
http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2005/02/thoughts_on_sof.html
Quite refreshing. ;-)
quote
Similar concerns from an another
Don Armstrong wrote:
[...]
The argument of the FSF has been (and continues to be, TTBOMK) that
dynamic linking with a GPLed work forms a derivative work when the
binary is distributed.
I have yet to see any arguments from the FSF apart from baseless
and totally lunatic claims regarding
On 9/12/05, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative and then you
have to
accept them all (including the dynamic linking business), or you admit
you can depart with any of their assertions.
And where can I find more details
On 9/14/05, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... FSF: assert(!is_contract(GPL)); ...]
Alexander Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative
and then you have to
Alexander accept them all (including the dynamic linking business), or you
admit
Alexander you can
On 9/14/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:14:21AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works.
That may be true in the GNU Republic.
Exclusive
On 9/14/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
As an anarchist I
You're brainwashed GNUtian.
regards,
alexander.
permission for a compilation work.
Copyright doesn't establish exclusive right to prepare (original)
compilations (the term compilation includes collective works).
Compilation is entirely separate work from its constituents. You'd
need permission to prepare a derivative compilation (by
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The license on visual studio doesn't really matter here. What
matters is the license on the SDK (which has fairly generous terms
for stuff you write yourself).
It follows that if sell a Windows program that you've made
On 9/15/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
It follows that if sell a Windows program that you've made without
if you sell, I meant.
Microsoft SDK which has generous terms (what are they, BTW?)...
When you're talking about what you need to build generic programs
I said
On 9/16/05, Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
My, what a lunacy. Regarding FSF's derivative works theory, I suspect
that the FSF objective is to establish basis for insanity defense -- the
only
thing that might help when someone finally decides to go after
GPL-incompatible
Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01).
A recent press conference of the Free Software Foundation confirmed
the rumors that the GNU General Public License was found to be
incompatible with itself. This newly discovered fact may actually
cause a
On 9/16/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GPL-incompatible
http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensingfaq.html
(We paid the FSF to have them provide us these answers. So these
answers are verified correct by people like FSF lawyer and law
professor Eben Moglen.)
Question
On 9/16/05, Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Are you asking to put FSF's officers in jail?
I'm not an Attorney General. But to fulfill your curiosity, I'd rather
extradite the entire gang to North Korea with no right to return.
regards,
alexander.
On 9/16/05, Harri Järvi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 14:12:34 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
GPL-incompatible
Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01).
That's April Fool's Day.
It runs all year long in the GNU Republic.
regards,
alexander.
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
1. the GPL can only restrict the distributions of an original work or
its derivatives;
Modulo first sale (which is nonexistent in the GNU Republic).
and
2. the only way to determine if a work is a derivative work of
On 9/16/05, Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 9/14/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
As an anarchist I
You're brainwashed GNUtian.
Wow.
Anarchists are anti-copyright and against fake free software.
http
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be GPL compatible not having
section 3 of the LGPL.
Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also
distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT (2 and
3 clauses) is
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be GPL compatible not having
section 3 of the LGPL.
Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also
On 9/20/05, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Harald Welte have successfully pursued
infringment claims against people who violate the GPL.
Einstweilige Verfuegung (ex parte action) != Hauptverfahren (lawsuit).
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43996.html
quote
It's a Small
On 9/20/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/20/05, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Harald Welte have successfully pursued
infringment claims against people who violate the GPL.
Einstweilige Verfuegung (ex parte action) != Hauptverfahren (lawsuit).
http
On 30 Sep 2005 08:43:23 GMT, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
You can package them together, but if the pictures are compiled into
the application
Apart from mere aggregation, the GPL TERMS AND CONDITIONS say
nothing about applications.
How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs (that
On 9/30/05, Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The latter /is/ a problem: if the images are not merely aggregated with
your application (for instance as a sample images in an image viewer),
but used in program's user interface it is likely that the image is
considered part of the
On 30 Sep 2005 19:06:35 GMT, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Combined work is not a derivative work of its components. Combined
work is protected as a compilation (at best, if at all) and falls
under mere aggregation.
If they are compiled
Aussonderung
Kinder und Jugendliche mit Verhaltensproblemen
On 01 Oct 2005 15:23:32 GMT, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 30 Sep 2005 19:06:35 GMT, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they are compiled in in some way that means that the GPL'd
On 10/1/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray writes:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 30 Sep 2005 19:06:35 GMT, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they are compiled in in some way that means that the GPL'd work
contains detailed knowledge of the expression
On 10/1/05, Christian Jodar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...
That's how (GNU General Public) virus is spreading. Yet another (brainwashed)
victim.
regards,
alexander.
On 10/1/05, Patrick Herzig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/10/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/1/05, Christian Jodar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...
That's how (GNU General Public) virus is spreading. Yet another
(brainwashed)
victim.
You should consider calling
On 10/1/05, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 01 October 2005 21:34, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 10/1/05, Patrick Herzig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/10/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/1/05, Christian Jodar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On 10/11/05, Martin Koegler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
At http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/en/licensing-notice.html
Under the laws of the GNU Republic (MySQL district), all works are derived
(in metaphysical sense) from some other preexisting GPL'd work(s) and hence
fall under the GPL
On 11/25/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
PHP scripts are derivative works of PHP sounds like someone misinterpreted
the FSF's claims, and ended up believing that the source of a program is a
derivative work of its libraries. (That, unlike the FSF's claims, seems
On 11/26/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 09:22:24PM +, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Statements like this one would seem to have something to do with it:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
Odd statements, indeed.
The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put
the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway
(antitrust violation - copyright misuse - quasi public domain/copyright
On 1/5/06, Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put
the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon
On 1/7/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The obvious conclusion one would draw from this is that there are no
competitors to Linux or, at least, that all the existing ones are
quickly being killed off. However, a quick examination of reality shows
this not to be the case.
On 1/7/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:59:01PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put
And one more..
On 1/7/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/7/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:59:01PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin
My suggestion to the FSF is to retire the [L]GPL ASAP and close the shop.
I suggest to relicense the entire GPL'd code base under OSL/EPL/CPL/
real-stuff-like-that.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. http://www.stromian.com/Corner/Feb2005.html
quote
Rosen is too polite to call for replacing the FSF
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sarcasmThat would be *really* easy to do./sarcasm To relicense the
entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL project
would have to agree, possibly in writing. There are thousands, maybe
millions of them.
If they don't
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sarcasmThat would be *really* easy to do./sarcasm To relicense the
entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL
gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as
I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109
On 1/7/06, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alexander Terekhov:
Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL
gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as
I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109, not the GPL. Being not a contract
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL has been upheld by courts in other countries, e.g. the
Netfilter case.
Oh yeah, It's a Small Welte. Einstweilige Verfuegung (ex parte
action) doesn't really upheld anything, to begin with.
On 1/8/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
If Rosen wrote a license then it's a good bet that it's not a free license.
Who cares about your bet... but free as in what, BTW?
regards,
alexander.
On 1/8/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Free as in DFSG-free, FSF-free, OSI-open source, etc.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php
regards,
alexander.
On 1/9/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Although FSF thinks AFL and OSL are free, but very inconvienient (e.g.
the OSL's assent provision).
Yeah, right. Assent is not needed in the GNU Republic where first sale is
nonexistent, IP is not property, and where distributing
On 1/11/06, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... obligation to provide access to source code ...]
Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all.
It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
him without any I agree manifestations of
On 1/11/06, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
him without any I agree manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive contractual
On 1/11/06, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Right. But it's not required. You can gift or sell it without TC.
The rest is here:
http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm
That looks doggy to me...
Why? BTW, can you really read and comprehend legalese so
On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
[And for reference, the doctrine of first sale is typically held to
apply only when (amongst other things) (a) the work is sold,
The doctrine is codified in 17 USC 109. It is commonly called
first sale, but the actual parameters of the
On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:44:32PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I
just download the tar.gz file and put it on a CD.
Does this clause mean that everyone who is giving out
On 1/12/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:44:32PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I
just download the tar.gz file and put
On 1/12/06, Benjamin A'Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
If they refuse to provide you the source (or access to the source, or
whatever), then they are in violation of the GPL. Is this not against
the law
Downloads aside for a moment and assuming that the GPL is a
bilateral contract
On 11 Jan 2006 20:27:49 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Benjamin A'Lee writes:
If they refuse to provide you the source (or access to the source, or
whatever), then they are in violation of the GPL. Is this not against
the law (in the US, UK, wherever)?
Please stop feeding
On 1/12/06, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Carrera wrote:
My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of laptops
with the sources, and a sign next to the CDs that says If you want the
sources for this CD, ask us, and we'll burn you a CD for $2.
I would
On 1/12/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Use of the ECW SDK with Unlimited Decompressing and Unlimited Compression
for
applications licensed under a GNU General Public style license (GPL) is
governed by the ECW SDK PUBLIC USE LICENSE AGREEMENT.
Not sure what they're
On 1/12/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 02:34:39AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander
Alexander Well, I'm in the DE. But in both UK and DE *the Rome Convention on
Alexander on the law applicable to contractual obligations* governs its
interpretation
On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Download the binary and the *corresponding* source code. While
distributing only the binary. put on the CD, a file saying that the
source code to every binary on the CD is available from you to the
person you gave the
On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Download the binary and the *corresponding* source code. While
distributing only the binary. put on the CD, a file saying
On 12 Jan 2006 12:32:41 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Download the binary
On 1/12/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12 Jan 2006 12:32:41 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai
On 1/12/06, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
That's because your suggested process is not what I suggest to Carrera.
Yeah, I know that it's close to impossible for a GNUtian to grok first
sale.
By your logic... I stole something once, I didn't get
On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
1) Buy a copy of relatively pricey commercial software.
Download some FSF's perl like emacs.
2) Buy a computer without that piece of software on it.
Check.
3) Install the software on that computer, since you are
On 1/12/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Universe won't collapse as a result, believe me.
Isaac got it:
-
Further, my understanding is that Alexander was proposing lawfully acquiring
and distributing copies and not making new copies. If the law requires that
a backup
On 1/13/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/11/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, that's close (hint: googly-googly covenant). But according
to the FSF, the GPL is not a contract.
I think you've misunderstood the GPL is not a contract as meaning
On 1/13/06, Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov said on Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:27:27PM +0100,:
And I'm still not in prison. How come?
1. You have some kind of understanding with the copyright holder of
the program in question.
Not really. I went to MS online
On 1/13/06, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I think his point is this: Person A can legally make and distribute a lot of
copies to B without putting B under any obligation, as long as B doesn't
make more copies himself. B, who now has a lot of copies, can dispose of them
as he
On 1/13/06, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The argument what if it was Windows XP instead of GPL software doesn't seem
to work here. The first step would become Person A can legally make and
distribute a lot of copies of Windows XP to B... This statement would be
true for GPL
On 1/13/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Terekhov's more delusional conspiracy theories.
Hey, if you mean Wallace v GPL...
The FSF has already admitted price-fixing (albeit vertical) and also
conceded distribution of software to consumers at no cost other than
the cost of the
On 1/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
*plonk*
A day without a plonk is not exciting. I'm thankful to Maynard.
regards,
alexander.
On 1/14/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We should start a betting pool[0] on when Wallace v. FSF will be
dismissed (again).
I bet EURO 50 (through PayPal) that the FSF is going to lose it
once again and won't get dismissal with prejudice through that
motion.
Who's playing?
On 1/14/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/15/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/14/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We should start a betting pool[0] on when Wallace v. FSF will be
dismissed (again).
I bet EURO 50 (through PayPal
On 1/16/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
This is probably right. B will not break the law. However; the GPL give
you permission to distribute the software only if you agree to it.
17 USC 109 (aka copyright exhaustion in Europe) gives you
permission, not the GPL.
If you don't agree to
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/643d20ed959418ec
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/decb10a8816c96b6
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/eb61dbc76806b071
regards,
alexander.
On 1/16/06, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...
Pls don't mess up my game, Ken.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Note also that modification and copying under 17 USC 117
(plus any other lawful activity under any other exceptions and
limitations to exclusive rights) doesn't trigger acceptance.
On 1/17/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Eben had a really humorous explanation, which I will attempt to
paraphrase from my (impressively imperfect) memory:
No lawyer knows exactly why we have been shouting at eachother for
the past 50(?) years; but since everyone is
On 1/17/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
In particular read section 4 of the GPL.
It says You are not required to accept this License, since you
have not signed it. And I agree that you are not require to accept
this License (noting that signing a license agreement is not the
only way to
On 1/17/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... not accepting the GPL ...]
So in this case you cannot make copies
You can download copies without accepting the GPL.
(nor modifying) of the software anymore.
And adapt/modify computer programs and make additional copies
under 17 USC 117 from
On 17 Jan 2006 10:25:44 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
Yeah. So legal mandates like, for example,
http://www.courts.state.va.us/text/scv/amendments/rule_71_75_SC.html
When the communication is in writing, the disclaimer shall be in bold
On 17 Jan 2006 11:28:14 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I understand that you are willing to and have posted totally
irrelevant regulations as support for claims that you provide no
direct or plausible indirect support for.
Well, I was just hinting at disbarring Moglen.
On 1/17/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 11:44:42 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Seriously, I'm just asking you to back that up instead of hand-waving.
I refrain. Drop an email to http://www.mama-tech.com/. She claimed it.
Drop a note
On 17 Jan 2006 13:22:19 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... *plonk* and handwaving ...]
Thanks for playing. Next time you see Moglen tell him that in the
current tempo (driven by the GPLv3) my dossier on disbarring him
is going to rich the critical mass pretty soon. So he might
On 1/17/06, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Bernhard R. Link:
But it lists no conditions that that stuff is in any way free.
When I do not misread it, it would even Microsoft to take any
GPLv3 program, extend it, build an API around the extensions
and distribute it together
On 1/17/06, Samuel E RIFFLE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I am not authorized to offer a legal opinion, but the above is a common
sense, practitioner oriented reading of the terms of the GPL.
Except that you were mostly reading the manifesto part of the GPL
which doesn't belong to TC operative
for
the past 50(?) years; but since everyone is shouting, everyone
thought there must be some reason. I've decided to take take the
initiative and return to mixed case, ending the endless shouting
match.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Yeah. So legal mandates like, for example,
http
On 1/18/06, Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Buck wrote:
As for your claims that Eben Moglen is a repeated violator of the legal
rules of Virginia (you practically call him a habitual liar), presumably
you have some evidence, or are you just engaging in casual libel?
Hmm, you
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Care to post a link to rules of New York?
It's not up to me. You charged Moglen with offenses, you back it up.
In this type of offence it sorta goes the other way around: let
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Care to post a link to rules of New York?
It's not up to me. You charged Moglen with offenses, you back it up
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan
Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.
The Copyright Act defines a computer program asa set of
statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
a computer in order to bring about a certain result. 17 U.S.C.
§ 101. Computer programs can be expressed in
On 1/18/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf, an english translation at
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
I know. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00088.html
Pls read that message in its entirety (and also
Plonk.
regards,
alexander.
On 1/18/06, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Well, the draft for GPL v3 says:
Object code means any non-source version of a work.
Everyone seems to like this.
So in GPL v3 it will be very clear that a printed copy is object code.
How fascinating. The courts will enjoy this
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:35:55AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Moglen is a liar. And Stallman too.
*plonk*
And how long is your plonk? Longer than Pool's one?
regards,
alexander.
On 1/18/06, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...}
What do other people think of this?
I think the GPLv3 is great. It's perfect impotence pill for (ordinary
contractual) stuff like OSL, IPL, CPL and whatnot the FSF is going to
deem now compatible.
The OSI approval (I just pray that
On 1/18/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...
Hey, I'm the troll here. Go away.
Seriously (sort of), I just wonder how you define a SEQUENCE, Prof.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. author's right has really little to do with distribution. First Sale,
y'know.
On 1/19/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/18/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...
Hey, I'm the troll here. Go away.
Seriously (sort of), I just wonder how you define a SEQUENCE, Prof.
I guess our Prof has a lecture.
Just to save Prof's time: once you add
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
