Sad, but not recognized as distribution. That's why you have to
agree with the common proprietary licenses. They add restrictions
like you can only install on one computer, or else no license.
But according to David (and yourself?) the license does not apply in
On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 11:06 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Sad, but not recognized as distribution. That's why you have to
agree with the common proprietary licenses. They add restrictions
like you can only install on one computer, or else no license.
But
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The license _does_ apply.
It applies to the licensee, the company. Not its workers.
It is you who don't get it. You are saying that all companies that
have illegal copies of Windows, are not breaking the law,
Liar. I say no such thing.
since
The license _does_ apply.
It applies to the licensee, the company. Not its workers.
The workers are also the licensees.
It is you who don't get it. You are saying that all companies
that have illegal copies of Windows, are not breaking the law,
Liar. I say no such thing.
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The license _does_ apply.
It applies to the licensee, the company. Not its workers.
The workers are also the licensees.
It is you who don't get it. You are saying that all companies
that have illegal copies of Windows, are not
It is obviously a waste of my time to continue discussing anything
with you. You are obviously incapable of keeping a level headed
discussion without resorting to name calling, absurd accusations, and
lies.
No wonder why Alexander likes you enough to `unplonk' you.
David Kastrup writes:
internal use is defined in corporate laws.
It is not necessary to appeal to corporation law. The same rules apply
whether you are acting as an employee of IBM or am employee of me. An
employee is an agent and acts on behalf of and under the direction of his
employer. He
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:12:30 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The workers are also the licensees.
They are not. The company has signed the license. The employees did not
sign anything, and hence aren't licensees. For the purposes of the law,
a company is a separate entity (a
I wrote:
There is a possible loophole here, though it is, I think, of little
significance: As part of your job you gain possession of a CD of GPL (or
other Free) software. Without the knowledge or permission of your
employer you take the CD home and copy it onto a blank CD that you own.
if
The workers are also the licensees.
They are not. The company has signed the license. The employees did
not sign anything, and hence aren't licensees. For the purposes of
the law, a company is a separate entity (a legal person as
opposed to a natural person).
You are confusing
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:08:41 -0600
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The owner of the copyright might be able to as his copyright may have
been infringed. I'm assuming that he and the employer are
different. I don't think that the employer has any claim, though.
He still has his property
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:10:25 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The workers are also the licensees.
They are not. The company has signed the license. The employees did
not sign anything, and hence aren't licensees. For the purposes of
the law, a company is a
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the case of unmodified GPLed software the case is moot, because
it can be obtained from a large number of sources and has no
intrinsic value.
You can't obtain GPLed software commissioned from me before I have
finished it. Licensing the software
I wrote:
The owner of the copyright might be able to as his copyright may have
been infringed. I'm assuming that he and the employer are
different. I don't think that the employer has any claim, though.
He still has his property and has recourse under employment law for
his employee's
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:09:08 +0100
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the case of unmodified GPLed software the case is moot, because
it can be obtained from a large number of sources and has no
intrinsic value.
You can't obtain GPLed
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 02:10:10 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The license _does_ apply. It is you who don't get it. You are saying
that all companies that have illegal copies of Windows, are not
breaking the law, since they are `for internal use' and no rules
apply.
No one
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:03:42 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What user? I am the only one who uses this computer? I'm not
putting any restrictions on anyone. Are you suggesting that you
are free to drop by and help yourself to GPL software on my
computer?
17 matches
Mail list logo
