On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 08:43 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Let's analyse some situations:
1. You gave B to a friend
that's first sale
Right.
1.1 your friend sold B to someone else
that's first sale
Right.
1.2 your
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Wrong. First sale is about distribution of authorized copies by their
owners. The GPL entitles your friend to make copies and he owns them.
So it does fall under first sale and only a contractual covenant can
interfere with your friend's right to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:25:51 -0600
Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:16:56 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:22:38 -0600
Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure whether I agree that you have to own a copy of GPL
software
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Of course that calling someone a retard only shows your level :)
I'm calling you a retard because it's a fact: you are either being
intentionally obtuse or it is your natural and normal condition.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00174.html
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 10:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Of course that calling someone a retard only shows your level :)
I'm calling you a retard because it's a fact: you are either being
intentionally obtuse or it is your natural and normal
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00174.html
So you pollute debian-legal too...
Sort of. Oh, and I'd like to share my latest posting.
To: Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries
Cc: Glenn L.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The GPL can only give the owner of a copy rights.
What if I, as a homeless vagrant scouring the city dump for cool stuff,
some across a three-year-old CD with a bunch of GNU packages
Bernd Jendrissek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The GPL can only give the owner of a copy rights.
What if I, as a homeless vagrant scouring the city dump for cool
stuff, some across a three-year-old CD with a bunch of GNU
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Uh, you are being confused.
Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is the
author.
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/12/linux_gpl30_letters/
Regarding
-
Since when has he felt like that. Last time I remembered, the kernel
people (including Linus) were real big on being the superior software
Gods. Isn't that why we can't have binary
Stefaan writes:
I believe that in both cases, the person or entity wishing to accept the
GPL has to be in possession of a lawful copy.
I believe that he must _own_ a copy. A bailee or agent can be in lawful
possession of a lawful copy.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Uh, you are being confused.
Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is
the author.
So you disagree with him and still quite him?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to misunderstand. The resulting overall program containing
independent works for all its components is indeed still just a
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Uh, you are being confused.
Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is
the author.
So you disagree with him and still quite him?
I partly agree with him. I mean
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Uh, you are being confused.
Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is
the author.
So you disagree with him and
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Then it does not make sense that you just throw in a quote as your
sole contribution.
Yet another malfunction of dak's sense barometer. NAD. WAD.
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:24:25 -0600
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan writes:
I believe that in both cases, the person or entity wishing to
accept the GPL has to be in possession of a lawful copy.
I believe that he must _own_ a copy. A bailee or agent can be in
lawful
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to misunderstand. The resulting overall program containing
But you have to be the legal owner to be entitled, under the
current laws, make any copy. Thus, whatever the license, unless
you're the lawful owner of the copy, you may not make a copy.
You only have to be in legal _possesion_ of the copy, you do not have
to be the owner of it.
Cleaning personnel is not permitted to read unclosed material,
either. System administrators are not permitted to read mail that
they have legal access to. And so on. Physical access to content
does not imply permission to actually make use of the content in
the same manner as
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to misunderstand. The resulting
You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise
the rights given in the GPL.
If you are not the owner of the copy, the license --whatever it
might be-- doesn't enter into it at all.
The license does _not_ apply to the physical copy, it applies to the
software.
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise
the rights given in the GPL.
If you are not the owner of the copy, the license --whatever it
might be-- doesn't enter into it at all.
The license does _not_ apply to
The license does _not_ apply to the physical copy, it applies to
the software. Please read the license, it even says so
But you can't get the software without accessing the physical
media, and what you are allowed to do with the media is its owner's
decision.
I don't have
blockquote
what=official Lisp NYC announcement
From: Heow Eide-Goodman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Lisp] Lisp Meeting, February 14th 7:00 at Westside
Please join us for our next meeting on Tuesday, February 14th from 7:00
to 9:00 at Westside
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:27:23 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is netiquette. Group reply is common.
It is not, and additionally it is customary to mention that you mailed
and posted in your reply if you do so.
If you have such a hard
time figuring out who wrote what,
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:10:22 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That was not what I asked. You have placed a lot of software (under
the GPL and under more restrictive licenses) and on your disk, and
for the sake of the argument, your disk needs to be recovered. You
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:17:17 +0100
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely we're discussing how many angles can dance on a pinhead.
Darn spellcheckers. It's angels of course :-)
--
Stefaan
--
As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning,
and meaningful statements lose
28 matches
Mail list logo
