David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wei Mingzhi wrote:
If you don't allow me using your code, then I don't allow you using
our code too. That's just fair.
I don't know. To me it seems like a way to slowly strip owners of
their rights to their original works.
There
John Hasler wrote:
Merijn de Weerd writes:
The big question is: with the paragraph above, is the sole cause of
action breach of license or is a separate action for copyright
infringement also possible?
Action for copyright infringement is the only action.
If someone accepts a
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You are welcome. Note that I am not a lawyer, but that should pretty
much also be what you can get from the GPL FAQ at
URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html.
Yeah, the GPL FAQ was written with the help by GNU lawyers (like
GNUtian Moglen and his underlings)
John Hasler wrote:
mike4ty4 writes:
Well, I can make both free and non-free software, at least I should be
able to.
Yes, of course you can.
OK.
Which raises another question: What happens if I learn something from the
GNU software, like a trick or a more efficient way of programming
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
That is no force. It is the condition for its use. You are free
to take it or leave it, just like when you are in a supermarket,
nobody forces you to buy anything. If you do, you have to pay the
price.
But I don't know _WHY_ the license is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wei Mingzhi wrote:
If you don't allow me using your code, then I don't allow you
using our code too. That's just fair.
I don't know. To me it seems like a way to slowly strip owners of
their rights to their
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which raises another question: What happens if I learn something
from the GNU software, like a trick or a more efficient way of
programming some algorithm? If I use that METHOD/KNOWLEDGE even
if not the ORIGINAL
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Oh, so the license then spreads to cover all of your ORIGINAL work
as well.
No, it doesn't. You are bound by the GPL only for such software which
integrates GPLed software as a part of it. Namely software which is
_not_ all your ORIGINAL work.
Yeah, here we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
We need the freedom.
Freedom's OK, but I think there's also such a thing as getting
carried away with it. True freedom means that one shouldn't be told
what to do with their own original stuff.
That's like somebody saying true freedom means
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
of their own code base without being able to make use of the
improvements others did on that code.
The only problem is that under your moronic notion of improvements the
GPL is meant to swallow computer works under copyright solely owned by
others and merely
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But you don't have all the rights to the combined work.
Yeah, and here comes the GNU magic of combined work. It's aggregation,
idiot.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Oh, so the license then spreads to cover all of your ORIGINAL work
as well.
No, it doesn't. You are bound by the GPL only for such software which
integrates GPLed software as a part of it. Namely software which is
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But you don't have all the rights to the combined work.
Yeah, and here comes the GNU magic of combined work. It's
aggregation, idiot.
Whether it is mere aggregation depends on the case
On 3 Sep 2006 19:00:48 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wei Mingzhi wrote:
If you don't allow me using your code, then I don't allow you
using our code too. That's just fair.
I don't know. To me it seems like a way to slowly strip
On 3 Sep 2006 18:50:35 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps you have misunderstood my statement. I'm saying that does
GNU demand all your original work to be taken over if you use
GNU code? I guess it does. That's what I mean by automatic -- you
use the GNU code and then either you GNU your
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
That is incorrect. The GPL only requires derivative works to be
distributed under the GPL. It cannot, and does not, determine the
In legal sense, exclusive distribution right is about copies (material
objects), not works. Works are licensed, not distributed.
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
* do not distribute the resulting combined work
The term combined work is not present in the GPL, Eeckels. In fact,
it's mere aggregation that results in combined work under common
sense. And the corresponding GPL clause explicitly excludes original
works
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
royalties, or a license fee). If you come to such an agreement, you can
distribute the combined work under another license (or no license at
all, in which case standard copyright provisions would apply).
Eeckels,
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
royalties, or a license fee). If you come to such an agreement, you can
distribute the combined work under another license (or no license at
all, in which case standard copyright
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That's like somebody saying true freedom means that one shouldn't be
prohibited from selling one's children into slavery.
See Mike? RMS' school of thought, so to speak. This lunatic with AI-Lab
background happens to believe that his GPL restrictions (conditions
in
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:03:18 +0200
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As such, the author of the GPLed work has the right to require all
works that contain the GPLed work, or are derivative works of the
GPLed work, to be either not distributed, or distributed under the
GPL.
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:34:40 +0200
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
royalties, or a license fee). If you come to such an agreement, you
can distribute the combined work under another license (or no
license at all, in which case standard
But I don't know _WHY_ the license is made this way, WHAT is the
motivation for requiring people to make all their original work
free if they use the free code. Could you explain? More
detailed than it's needed or it works.
I suggest that you read the following documents:
If I copy a GPL-licensed work and utterly ignore whatever the GPL
says, how is a statement *in the GPL* going to change my legal
position?
By copying the program, you accepted the license.
distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you
indicate your acceptance of this
Breach of a copyright license is copyright infringement.
Doing an act *which is not licensed* is copyright infringement. If
I authorize you to copy my work verbatim, and you change it, you
infringe my copyright.
Doing a licensed act but failing to comply with conditions is
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
But a program that presents itself as a unit, and is made up of
components that work together and only together, I would consider to be
something more than a mere aggregation. And as I have a sneaking
suspicion I might prevail in court, I would sue.
You have
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That practice is currently under implied license (given the current
GPL). (Otherwise we got a whole bunch of criminals given the
horrendous scale of copyright infringement in GNU stuff under the
current GPL.)
There is no such thing as an implied
Go to doctor, retard dak.
Hey Mike, consolidated know-how on escaping the GPL under 17 USC 109
and 117 can be found in Distributing GPL software thread on debian-
legal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00163.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00166.html
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[... http://www.gnu.org/philosophy ...]
Read also
http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/gpl/gpl.pdf
(Why Not Use the GPL?)
http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Stallman/index.shtml
(Prince Kropotkin of Software (Richard Stallman and the War of Software Clones))
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Breach of a copyright license is copyright infringement.
Doing an act *which is not licensed* is copyright infringement. If
I authorize you to copy my work verbatim, and you change it, you
infringe my copyright.
Doing a licensed act but failing
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:03:18 +0200
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As such, the author of the GPLed work has the right to require all
works that contain the GPLed work, or are derivative works of the
GPLed work, to be either not distributed, or
John Hasler wrote:
David Kastrup writes:
I found it on some server does not make you the owner of a copy in
any manner that I found it on the street makes you the owner of a
copy of a book.
Finding it on some server involves creating a copy on your computer. If
you own the computer
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup writes:
I found it on some server does not make you the owner of a copy in
any manner that I found it on the street makes you the owner of a
copy of a book.
Finding it on some server involves creating a copy on your
computer. If you own
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:52:55 +0200
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sez who? Copying (and distribution) under 17 USC 117 (together with
109), for example, doesn't require a license, stupid.
Has your teacher failed to tell you that calling people names lends no
credence to your
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:52:55 +0200
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sez who? Copying (and distribution) under 17 USC 117 (together with
109), for example, doesn't require a license, stupid.
Has your teacher failed to tell you that calling people
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:52:55 +0200
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sez who? Copying (and distribution) under 17 USC 117 (together with
109), for example, doesn't require a license, stupid.
Has your teacher failed to tell you that
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
So what? It makes it easier for occasional visitors to determine who
is not to be taken seriously.
Hey GNU-Rechtswissenschaftler dak, if you think that anyone with a non-
damaged brain (and minimum abilities for net legal research) could
possibly take YOU
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:22:18 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:52:55 +0200
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sez who? Copying (and distribution) under 17 USC 117 (together
with 109), for example,
I wrote:
Finding it on some server involves creating a copy on your
computer. If you own the computer you own the copy.
David Kastrup writes:
Not at all. Putting a found book into my bag does not imply that owning
the bag makes me own the book.
False analogy. Copying a file from a Web
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I don't know _WHY_ the license is made this way, WHAT is the
motivation for requiring people to make all their original work free
if they use the free code. Could you explain? More detailed than
it's needed or it works.
You'd have to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I don't know _WHY_ the license is made this way, WHAT is the
motivation for requiring people to make all their original work free
if they use the free code. Could you explain? More detailed than
it's needed or it works.
You'd have to
Richard Tobin wrote:
[...]
If you distribute the library and the library is licensed under the
GPL, then yes.
Sez who, Tobin?
[...]
If the library is under the LGPL,
Then it's effectively under the GPL as well (LGPL section 3). This is
what makes LGPL GPL compatible in the GNU
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Sorry, not interested in wasting my time on you.
-- Richard
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Sorry,
Pardon is given.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wrote:
Finding it on some server involves creating a copy on your
computer. If you own the computer you own the copy.
Implicit in my statement is that the server in question is
publically accessible, and that the URL of the file in question is
David Kastrup wrote:
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wrote:
Finding it on some server involves creating a copy on your
computer. If you own the computer you own the copy.
Implicit in my statement is that the server in question is
publically accessible, and that the URL
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
cease-and-desist order I downloaded this from somewhere and did not
bother reading the conditions before redistributing it.
Go cease-and-desist all those binary only distributors (contributors
including) of GPLv2 stuff on bittorrents and alike. Let me know.
And for
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
On 3 Sep 2006 18:50:35 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps you have misunderstood my statement. I'm saying that does
GNU demand all your original work to be taken over if you use
GNU code? I guess it does. That's what I mean by automatic -- you
use the GNU
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
_None_ of your original work is _ever_ taken over by a GPLed
work. But neither can you take over a GPLed work and use it for
your own purposes without heeding the wishes of its author.
Thanks for your input, but _WHY_ was the GPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Thanks for your input, but _WHY_ was the GPL originally made this way?
*What is the rationale* for having the person GPL the combined work as
part of the terms, which includes all the original content?
Once again, the term combined work is not part of the GPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Yep. I _need_ the money, for example.
Then I suggest that you sell your own work then instead of mine. Why
should I be paying your bills?
So what if I don't have enough for the one-time payment (would it
be like $1000 or more (!)), and
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Yep. I _need_ the money, for example.
Then I suggest that you sell your own work then instead of mine. Why
should I be paying your bills?
The question doesn't follow. The GPL doesn't allow selling your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
WOOHOO! I'm RIGHT! It *is* a price, just not a monetary one.
It can be a monetary one without problem. GPLed software may sold for
arbitrary amounts of money. The only condition is that whatever
amount of money gets asked, you get the GPLed licensed source code in
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But to me, it seems only fair that if I let other people use my code for
free, then they should do the same with theirs. If they want to make
money out of it, they should pay me some of it.
Then you'd better stop releasing
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Yep. I _need_ the money, for example.
Then I suggest that you sell your own work then instead of mine.
Why should I be paying your bills?
The question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why? If a program that was previously non-GPL was made GPL,
doesn't that mean the amount of non-GPL code shrinks?!
No, the old version of it is still non-GPL.
-- Richard
___
gnu-misc-discuss
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Of course it does. I make a living from it.
Care to elaborate? Who pays you and for what exactly?
Publishing houses and institutes with typesetting needs. I do
consulting and creation of individual software for TeX-based
typesetting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
If you want to charge for something perhaps dollars or euros
or similar items could be required.
You don't understand the GNU philosophy, mike4ty4.
Read the GNU Manifesto.
-
Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?
Actually, many people
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
The GPL vision of software is more like how science is practiced
Rather funny practice in the context of the GPL you're talking about.
Most researches with the focus on industrial application (i.e.
something
that can be used to make products right now or pretty
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Care to elaborate? Who pays you and for what exactly?
Publishing houses and institutes with typesetting needs. I do
consulting and creation of individual software for TeX-based
typesetting tasks.
Very interesting. Are you Ich-AG or some such? My next question
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
We need the freedom.
Freedom's OK, but I think there's also such a thing as getting
carried away with it. True freedom means that one shouldn't be told
what to do with their own original stuff.
That's like
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
[...]
You still have all the rights to _your_ original work. You can take
it and create a work from it that does not use any GNU code. But you
don't have all the rights to the combined work.
I know. And it's that last sentence -- that you don't have all the
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:54:10 -0500
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or perhaps you will have to write your own code.
Ouch! that sucks :)
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
When the need is strong, there are those who will believe anything.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels schrieb:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:54:10 -0500
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or perhaps you will have to write your own code.
Ouch! that sucks :)
Sure it sucks. Why pay coding monkeys for doing clean room reimpl
according to a spec with all interesting stuff stolen
On 4 Sep 2006 15:28:33 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
The GPL vision of software is more like how science is practiced
Rather funny practice in the context of the GPL you're talking about.
Most researches with the focus on industrial application (i.e.
On 4 Sep 2006 17:19:44 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your compilation copyright is totally independent from copyrights on
constituent works.
But you cannot create the compilation without the approval of the
copyright holders of each of the constituent works. The compilation
then is protected
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
[...]
You still have all the rights to _your_ original work. You can take
it and create a work from it that does not use any GNU code. But you
don't have all the rights to the combined work.
I know. And it's that last
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 13:19:19 +0200 (CEST), Alfred M. Szmidt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Doing a licensed act but failing to comply with conditions is
*breach of contract* If I authorize you to copy in return for
payment of $1 per copy, and you don't pay, you are in breach of the
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 13:13:53 +0200 (CEST), Alfred M. Szmidt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If I copy a GPL-licensed work and utterly ignore whatever the GPL
says, how is a statement *in the GPL* going to change my legal
position?
By copying the program, you accepted the license.
I did no
69 matches
Mail list logo
