From: Ron Guerin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: NYLUG-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:45:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [nylug-talk] NY Linux Users Group Meeting 3/29: Jack Aboutboul on
Fedora Core 5
March 29th, 2006
Wednesday
6:30PM-8:00PM
IBM Headquarters Building
590 Madison Av
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
>
> On 2006-03-25, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >> http://www.danwal.com/
> >
> > Domain name: DANWAL.COM
> >
> > Administrative Contact:
> > wallace, daniel ...
>
> Do you enjoy posting other people's address informat
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:59:39 +0100:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> So you feel unable to face the facts.
> The fact is that the GPL price-fixes IP at zero. The fact is that zero is
> below cost of IP creation and hence is predatory. As for the res
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Merijn de Weerd wrote:
> [...]
>> Wallace got dismissed because he could not show injury.
>
> Judge Tinder silently ignored Wallace's argument regarding predatory
> pricing which is central to antitrust injury in Wallace's case. The
> Judge didn't
Merijn writes:
> You have yet to show that setting a price at zero is predatory
> pricing. Just selling below cost is not by definition predatory.
A copyright license has no marginal cost.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:20:38 -0600, Linønutlinønut wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> I think Karl should let RMS post his own responses to Usenet trolls,
>>> should he wish to do so.
>>
>> He's crippled by RSI, I believe, so maybe he prefers to leave
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wallace_(plaintiff)
>
> Uh, the case has been closed. Get over it.
Not so fast, dear. IIUC Wallace has 30 days to appeal (possible Rule
60 Motion aside for a moment).
>
> > Poor Dan Tinger.
>
> How many competing ...
Yeah,
Linønut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> In article
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > > (I am posting this on behalf of Richard Stallman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], at
>>> > > his
>>> > > reques
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Merijn writes:
> > You have yet to show that setting a price at zero is predatory
> > pricing. Just selling below cost is not by definition predatory.
>
> A copyright license has no marginal cost.
Oh dear, no objection.
"The ratio of price to marginal cost is meaningles
And Wallace said that "the defendants attempt to conflate...".
Wallace lost.
But given that you just can't grok the concept of "intellectual
property"
Now you are conflating, Intellectual Property has no legal meaning, it
can mean anything and everything.
_
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Completely irrelevant to your previous line of reasoning which you
> snipped out again. Really, your smokescreen and quote birdshot
> weazeling is most tiresome. You can't cure a wrong argument by
What "wrong argument" are you talking about? Your fellow GNUtian
ams
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> You really should be more careful with dishing out insults. It makes
> yourself look even more ridiculous.
One doesn't need a license to create and use private derivative
works (adaptations) of GPL'd software. 17 USC 117. So what is
your (and your fellow comrade GN
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:42:13 +0100:
> Merijn de Weerd wrote:
> [...]
>> You have yet to show that setting a price at zero is predatory
>> pricing.
> Wallace on predatory pricing:
> ---
> Predatory pricing
> The GPL establishes a predatory pricin
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > in "more innovation."
>
> He said nothing of that sort AFAICT,
Fire a search for "more innovation" in
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceFSFGrantingDismiss.pdf
It's right before "See Jason B. Wacha, Taking the Case: Is the GPL
Enforceable, 21 Santa Clara Compute
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> You did not answer the question.
Really? Oh dear. How about this:
http://www.fsf.org/news/wallace-vs-fsf
-
The GPL tested in US courts - Wallace Vs FSF.
* Send this page to somebody
* Print this page
The GNU General Public License stands firm.
On Monda
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
>> [T]he GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition
>
> Yeah, right.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wallace_(plaintiff)
Uh, the case has been closed. Get over it.
> Poor Dan T
Linønut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> (I am posting this on behalf of Richard Stallman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], at his
>> request. The "I" below is rms.)
>
> Sure it is.
>
> And I'm Tony Blair.
Actually, the thought "p
(I am posting this on behalf of Richard Stallman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], at his
request. The "I" below is rms.)
From: "Karen Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine
Date: 7 Mar 2006 16:05:39 -0800
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 12:54 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=355346
> http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=355344
> http://finance.messa
First off, I'm surprised. I hope Wallace will appeal. As for "costs"...
--
The award of costs is not a penalty but is a method used to reimburse
an innocent party for the expenses of litigation. Costs include the
payment of court fees for the commencement of the litigation; the
submission o
20 matches
Mail list logo
