Well, you could have won EURO 50.
Wanna bet whether Wallace will appeal and/or file Rule 60 Motion first?
I bet EURO 50 that he will. Who's playing?
regards,
alexander.
On 3/18/06, Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
license?
And what's the scale and gradations for GPL-compatibility in your
brainwashed (linking triggers GPL-incompatibility) mind? I just
wonder. hahaha
regards,
On 3/17/06, Pierre Machard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I read http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00595.html
the copyright holders give permission to link the code of portions of
this program with the OpenSSL
Copyright holders just can't give such permission because it doesn't
On 17 Mar 2006 11:45:35 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
resolving the license incompatibility.
That problem exists only in the GNU Republic where linking constitutes
creation of copyleft-infringing derived works (and where owners of
copies of software don't enjoy rights akin
On 3/17/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
try to have a court declaring the GPL illegal which would maybe make GPL
documents unredistribuable.
Uhmm, if you mean Wallace...
The GPL is an egregious and pernicious misuse of copyright that rises to
the level of an antitrust
On 2/25/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 24, Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know, no need to teach me. But what are you trying to say? Or are you
That your change is a deliberate DMCA violation (circumvention of
technological measures).
On 2/25/06, Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
exist. Md raised his voice and he has a point, though a DMCA-threat in
GPL context looks slightly absurd.
Slightly?!
-
The authentication sequence, it is true, may well block one form of
access—the ability to . . . make use of the
On 2/25/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Next, the presence of the binary blobs, if they're actually needed,
preclued this work from being compatible with the GPL.
Sez who?
The last I heard Moglen freed blobs. The Prof in GNU Law declared
them to be fully resistant to the
On 2/24/06, Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
According to my understanding, if the interface between the daemon
and what spawns it is tight (undocumented suggests tight), then the
GPLness of the daemon taints the library, which taints applications
that link against it.
A
HACK_MODULE_INFO(LICENSE, GPL, The licensing of this module is *NOT* \
GPL-Nazis' business. Oh and BTW, the GPL it is not... notwithstanding \
the presence of the string of data consisting of the letters 'G-P-L'. \
Inquiring Minds: see Sega v. Accolade and Lexmark v. Static Control.);
regards,
Breaking new.
Barnes Thornburg LLP on the GPL (Wallace v IBM et al):
-
Although it is not clear how it is relevant to whether the per se or
rule of reason analysis would apply, Plaintiff also argues that the
GPL purports to defeat the requirements of contractual privity and
thus evade
Barnes Thornburg LLP on price:
---
Plaintiff's argument that an agreement to license any derivative works
at no charge is somehow a minimum re-sale price is untenable given
that the provision does not set a price for licenses at all, but
rather provides that there shall be no price for
On 2/22/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... Not a Contract ...]
I do not see why you object to this theory.
Go ask Barnes Thornburg LLP. [O]ne of the Midwest's largest law
firms says that
The GPL, like the shrinkwrap license in ProCD, is a license
applicable to anyone who receives its
On 2/22/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barnes Thornburg LLP on price:
---
Plaintiff's argument that an agreement to license any derivative works
at no charge is somehow a minimum re-sale price is untenable given
that the provision does not set a price for licenses
Barnes Thornburg LLP on conspiracy.
--
Finally, the Response confirms that there is no alleged conspiracy,
as the GPL is allegedly public by its nature with hundreds and
potentially an unlimited number of programmers using the program.
(Response at 3.) The allegations support no more than a
On 2/22/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The GPL give you *more* permissions than copyright law; so a
contract is not needed because the forbidden things by the GPL
are forbidden by copyright law anyway. If you break the GPL
you just can get sued because you have distributed/modified
Moglen's underling Fontana in action.
http://www.ciocentral.com/article/Questions+Still+Abound+over+GPL+3+/171577_1.aspx
On the DRM front, there is little the GPL can do to fix this, and
this is a matter that needs to be taken up by the legislature, Fontana
said.
But, that being said,
Page 2 exhibit managed to escape. Bringing it back.
On 2/22/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moglen's underling Fontana in action.
http://www.ciocentral.com/article/Questions+Still+Abound+over+GPL+3+/171577_1.aspx
On the DRM front, there is little the GPL can do
On 2/19/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf
There is no judgement at all in this document which is resume only the
arguments of D. Wallace. This court has dismissed D. Wallace on the
basis of similar arguments in the documents I
On 2/15/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:26:10AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:47:32PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Alexander
On 2/16/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/15/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:26:10AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:47:32PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
I respectfully suggest to Debian and Software in the Public Interest,
Inc. to consider sponsoring a new glasses (let's not dilute $4 million
grant from OSDL) to crazy Eben, and let him take a brief look at ...
http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html
Because the deterrent
On 2/14/06, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html?
First of all, the GPL clearly qualifies
On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Assuming you mean the FSF and/or GNU project, with whom are they
entering onto agreement? Mmmmh?
I mean the GPL license.
Also, please have a look at 81 § 3.
I did it.
Now you please take a look at
On 2/15/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:28:22AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Assuming you mean the FSF and/or GNU project, with whom are they
entering onto agreement? Mmmmh?
I mean the GPL
On 2/14/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I suppose that fontana belongs to Moglen's underling at SFLC Richard
Fontana.
An interesting article about Eben Moglen:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1139911511108
Meet the DotCommunist
regards,
alexander.
On 2/15/06, Ville Oksanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
clip
Dr. Mikko Välimäki has a quite nice article on the topic:
Mikko Välimäki: Copyleft Licensing and EC Competition Law, forthcoming
in European Competition Law Review 3/2006
http://www.valimaki.com/org/open_source_competition.pdf
On 2/15/06, Ville Oksanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
clip
Dr. Mikko Välimäki has a quite nice article on the topic:
Mikko Välimäki: Copyleft Licensing and EC Competition Law, forthcoming
in European Competition Law Review 3/2006
http://www.valimaki.com/org/open_source_competition.pdf
Thanks.
On 2/15/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
First off, hello.
Hello Yorick.
What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
http
On 2/15/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Are you really educated in (some) law?
Check for yourself.
http://www.fundp.ac.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005395/
Sorry it's in french (the website has just been revamped), but I guess
you'll get the gist of it. A hint:
On 2/15/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
It is reproached that a German court apply German law (?!?). A Germanian
bring a lawsuit in Germany for infrigment of a license he have choosen.
It is obvious that German laws will apply.
It's far from obvious unless the license specifies that
On 1/17/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On 2/14/06, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
But we all know that the GPL is a license-not-a-contract, and so UCC
and related case law simply doesn't apply.
Do we? I thought that a license was a contract.
Everyone
On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
First off, hello.
Hello Yorick.
What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html?
TIA.
regards,
alexander.
--
On 2/14/06, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
What purpose do you feel calling a person blind or an idiot serves?
I don't think you are contributing anything to this discussion.
How about this:
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/43614.htm
(I am an Adjunct Professor at Duquesne
A
Interesting things are going on over there at gplv3.fsf.org Committee A.
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?Query=%20Creator%20=%20'lrosen'%20%20AND%20'CF.NoteUrl'%20LIKE%20'gplv3-draft-1'%20Order=DESCOrderBy=idRows=
It appears that Rosen was (?is?) on the Committee A. He
On 2/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I believe that the position is similar in `Civil law' systems,
(France, Germany and similar jurisprudential systems).
Strange things happen in the civil law district of Munich I.
On 2/12/06, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
However, what if the customer then wanted to sell the machine, or if
the company wanted to sell machines with this incompatible binary and
library preinstalled. Would this violation the GPL, or is it possible
that the companies
Hey Gymnasist, be advised that if Wallace
http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf
won't succeed in US, I'll invite him to Germany.
http://www.allenovery.com/asp/pdf/gercomplaw.pdf
--
Rules on distribution
Basics
Vertical relationships between market participants operating
On 1/14/06, 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) that the FSF is going to lose it
once again and won't get
On 1/20/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
My dossier is rapidly growing.
And growing.
Here's more evidence that notwithstanding what the FSF says to the
judge in Indiana, the FSF's own director and lead counsel in fact
(and in all good faith) doesn't really understand
On 2/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... bloby Eben's manifestations of blatant copyright misuse*** ...]
Thanks, that makes it clearer.
Bitteschoen, bittesehr.
Now be a good GNItian and go https://www.fsf.org/donate.
regards,
alexander.
***)
On 2/4/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 07:19:28PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Simon Neininger wrote:
Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann,
Technische Universitaet Berlin
Carsten is my thesis counsellor, I'll ask him
On 2/4/06, Simon Neininger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Does the term Any use give the user the right to distribute libgsm?
The right to distribute authorized copies is statutory. See 17 USC 109
(it is commonly called first sale, but the actual parameters of the
rule are specified in the
On 2/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I hope i have it right this time...
In the GNU Republic you'll end up in jail.
One of the questions with the GPL is about how tightly you may link
GPL code with non-GPL code, for example, when you compile a GPL
program and it uses
On 2/5/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is tricky. The relevant section in the GPL is
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which
is a work based on the Program, the
On 1/29/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Development of proprietary kernel modules is tolerated, see
EXPORT_SYMBOL vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. AFAICS, this special exception
to the GPL has never been formalized, but at least overe here the mere
While proprietary
One more nail in EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL coffin...
On 1/30/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/29/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Development of proprietary kernel modules is tolerated, see
EXPORT_SYMBOL vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. AFAICS
On 1/28/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Like, say, ordered set of instructions to mean computer program
Hey Prof., how about a series of instructions?
If you won't write something that means
anything, is there some reason I should continue replying?
Feed the troll?
On 1/28/06, INFONOVA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
Hi!
Educated by Prof. Pedro?
regards,
alexander.
Another dose of pain to plonked Miller and other FSF's lackeys (kudos
to Wallace for calling the bluff)...
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey plonked Miller, breaking news...
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/27/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL
that link to GPL incompatible libraries.
First of all, don't pay attention to anything that Alexander Terekhov
writes. He is the biggest troll I have seen on debian-legal for a
Landry, Landry. Bad memory you have. You've been trolled by me long
ago on boost.org.
(Gah. I have been trolled. last link
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wesley J. Landaker writes:
On Friday 27 January 2006 20:29, Michael Poole wrote:
There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative
of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of
More pain to plonked Miller and other FSF's lackeys.
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to stress...
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On 1/27/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Plonk doesn't mean let's ignore the person's argument and then
What argument? Edwards has wasted enough time on you in the past and
you still don't grok a simple fact that IP licenses are contracts
which is not akin to lottery or other state
On 1/27/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What argument?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00475.html
Edwards has already explained it to you. A question of law is
addressed by likelihood of success on that portion
Hey plonked Miller, breaking news...
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/27/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What argument?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00475.html
Edwards has
On 1/27/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
anything, is there some reason I should continue replying?
You can't read. Stop replying. Drop an email to Judge Saris telling
her that you can't read and asking her to phone you back.
regards,
alexander.
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
And licensing software is not selling it.
Yorick, Yorick. The courts disagree.
Adobe asserts that its license defines the relationship between Adobe
and any third-party such that a breach of the license constitutes
copyright
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Beware, what you are citing is an opinion, and not the actual legal
framework.
Yorick, Yorick. I suggest you go talk to Hoeren on software
licensing in Europe.
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf
The Prof.
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:07:02AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
[... blame geography ...]
For the record: I agree with Yorick regarding venue. Poole is dead
wrong as usual.
regards,
alexander.
On 1/26/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
And licensing software is not selling it.
Yorick, Yorick. The courts disagree.
And then quotes as proof a huge chunk
Just to stress...
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
And licensing software is not selling
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 05:47:37PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Michael If the laws governing default fora are flawed, please fix
those laws.
Very well. I am now off to fix the laws of every country in the
world.
Take me, take me with you, oh
On 1/27/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Agreeing to the condition--[whatever]--is a condition to receive
the license to the software.
Well, the GPLv3, for example, elaborates on GPLv2 section 5 (go read
its first statement) and says that You are not required to accept
this
On 23 Jan 2006 16:14:00 +0100, Claus Färber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
[blobs] From the point of view of the GPL work called the Linux
kernel, they're just data.
Apart from the fact that the data is meant to be executed by some
computing device,
On 1/23/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
A legitimate privacy device may function very much like DRM. Consider
classified environments, where you really don't want people to copy
things around willy-nilly. Making it hard to copy information won't
eliminate leaks, but it will
On 1/23/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breach
On 1/23/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/23/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
Plonk.
regards,
alexander.
On 1/22/06, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am 2006-01-12 18:51:42, schrieb Alexander Terekhov:
BTW, I've just checked my records. I have 15 orders of MS winxp64 beta
downloads on record. 14 copies are still available. Anyone? Just EURO 5
plus postage cost.
Too expensive. :-P
And that's in spite of them being nothing but object code which the
GPL code is intended to require, not merely optionally incorporate--is
part of the source code of the work under the GPL and must be released.
Riots arose all over the GNU Republic. The Coalition Death To Unfree
Blobs called for
On 1/20/06, Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
3. FSF's ownership of parts of the kernel means FSF is one of the
copyright holders in the collective work called the linux kernel.
You apparently don't know what the copyright in a collective work
is and most likely you were
On 1/20/06, Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov said on Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:10:54AM +0100,:
My dossier is rapidly growing. Next time you see Moglen tell him
that in the current tempo (driven by the GPLv3) my dossier on his
unprofessional conduct (hopefully
On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were
pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You
couldn't
On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
compatible with itself
The GPL is incompatible with itself.
quote***
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
On 1/19/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A troll hunter.
regards,
alexander.
On 1/19/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
compatible with itself
The GPL is incompatible with itself. [ ... Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01 ...]
Beside that,
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/09/22/gpl3.html?page=2
Hands Off Yorick!
On 1/19/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A clue-by-four, the same as used for top-post/whole-quoters.
(ObSerious: please stop feeding the troll, please follow
the code of conduct and no
On 1/19/06, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Alright, thanks. I guess we'll ship two CDs then. I am very risk adverse
and I don't want to worry about the sources.
Even if you feel under obligation to do what the GPL decrees, your
customers can of course make a promise not to come
Hey legals, enjoy Moglen speaking on one-way street, linking, etc.
http://news.com.com/Defender+of+the+GPL/2008-1082_3-6028495.html
Now,
One specific area where the linking question arises is in the Linux kernel,
where proprietary video drivers loaded are loaded as modules. Another one
On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
(Of course, laws and courts have free reign to interpret words in any
way that suits their agenda, so effectively probably really means
pretends to ...)
It meansin effect here.
regards,
alexander.
On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in
its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary
video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't
link
On 1/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
(Unfortunately, I don't speak that language ...)
Hey legals, drop this link
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=effectively
to poor Maynard.
regards,
alexander.
On 1/20/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are some (bad) parts in the linux kernel that are not GPL, and
even some parts which could be considered non-free. Look through the
individual file copyright notices.
Sorry, but under Moglen's own theory, it is enough to have a tiny
On 1/20/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
GNU GPL'd. And, BTW, how come that the FSF's compliance lab didn't
purify the kernel of *GNU*/Linux?
Because FSF doesn't own any copyrights in Linux - it doesn't contribute.
Well,
quote author=Moglen
The Foundation notes that
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
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
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
