Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
The purpose of the open source license is to encourage more people
to use Linux
Linux is not distributed under the open source license. It is
distributed under GPLv2. The purpose of GPLv2 is not to encourage
more
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss Andrew Halliwell spi...@ponder.sky.com wrote:
It'd stop a lot of fishing for out of court settlements if the
accused was no longer terrified of
Doug Mentohl doug_ment...@linuxmail.org writes:
The GPL is unenforceable under U.S. copyright law, Rjack
Produce any citation where a recipient of GPL code successfully fought
and won such a case.
Why would you angle for a Pyrrhic victory? Ok, you don't accept the
GPL and it can't be
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
So what is your point?
He believes that one may avail himself of the copying and
distribution permissions of the GPL while not honoring its
requirements, because he believes it's the requirements
which are unenforceable while the
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the
circumstances; 273 U.S. 236, United States Supreme Court (1927).
Neither the Artistic License nor the GPL cleanly fit these models
David Kastrup wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss Andrew Halliwell spi...@ponder.sky.com wrote:
It'd stop a lot of fishing for out of court settlements if the
accused was no
David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
So what is your point?
He believes that one may avail himself of the copying and
distribution permissions of the GPL while not honoring its
requirements, because he believes it's the requirements which
are
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for
a reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the
circumstances; 273 U.S. 236, United States Supreme Court
(1927).
Neither the Artistic License nor the GPL
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
http://www.actiontec.com/support_cms/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._ACD_User_Manual_4.0.16.1.56.0.10.11.3_v6.pdf
http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr_fw-56-0-10-7.tar.gz
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
http://www.actiontec.com/support_cms/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._ACD_User_Manual_4.0.16.1.56.0.10.11.3_v6.pdf
http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr_fw-56-0-10-7.tar.gz
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
http://www.actiontec.com/support_cms/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._ACD_User_Manual_4.0.16.1.56.0.10.11.3_v6.pdf
http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr_fw-56-0-10-7.tar.gz
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:fbxvl.138993$2h5.85...@newsfe11.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
Oh, I haven't heard of any Verizon customer re-programming his router.
Oh, that must mean it never happens. Good point.
Have you seen that done? It must be extremely rare, if it
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
http://www.actiontec.com/support_cms/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._ACD_User_Manual_4.0.16.1.56.0.10.11.3_v6.pdf
http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr_fw-56-0-10-7.tar.gz
Rjack wrote:
The purpose of the GPLv2 is to destroy proprietary software.
The reason to destroy proprietary software is because users of
proprietary software are generally not free to run, read, modify,
and share the code. The GPL can only destroy proprietary software
by providing more
Rjack wrote:
First and foremost in the litigation problem area is the SFLC. After
five consecutive frivolous lawsuits they are gaining quite the
reputation as a pain in the ass to the capitalist system.
Each and every suit filed by the SFLC was in response to a company
infringing on the
Rjack wrote:
What is so hard to grasp concerning the principle that an
illegal contract term is construed against the drafter of
the contract?
Nothing at all. You are only incorrect that any term of the
GPL is illegal.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
Rjack wrote:
FORGET THE CAFC'S ARTISTIC LICENSE DECISION IT HAS NO BINDING
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE *ANTWHERE* IN ANY U.S. COURT.
Your mistake is that you believe that we refer to the CAFC
decision because it is binding. We refer to the CAFC decision
because we believe that courts which find
amicus_curious wrote:
Have you seen that done? It must be extremely rare, if it happens at all.
Who would ever want to do such a thing?
People who are interested in how their router works, and who
may want to customize how it works, and who may want to share
such customizations with others.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
http://www.actiontec.com/support_cms/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._ACD_User_Manual_4.0.16.1.56.0.10.11.3_v6.pdf
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
http://www.actiontec.com/support_cms/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._ACD_User_Manual_4.0.16.1.56.0.10.11.3_v6.pdf
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
First and foremost in the litigation problem area is the SFLC. After
five consecutive frivolous lawsuits they are gaining quite the
reputation as a pain in the ass to the capitalist system.
Each and every suit filed by the SFLC was in response to a
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Verizon's electronic distribution of GPL'd binary code at
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
is utterly non-compliant, silly.
That download is only for owners of the router. Those owners
have already gotten GPL information from the Verizon manual
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Verizon's electronic distribution of GPL'd binary code at
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
is utterly non-compliant, silly.
That download is only for owners of the router. Those owners
have already gotten GPL information from the Verizon manual
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Verizon's electronic distribution of GPL'd binary code at
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
is utterly non-compliant, silly.
That download is only for owners of the router. Those owners
have already gotten GPL information from the Verizon manual
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Verizon's electronic distribution of GPL'd binary code at
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
is utterly non-compliant, silly.
That download is only for owners of the router.
GNU fans never lose, they just
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
That download is only for owners of the router.
GNU fans never lose, they just mooove the goalposts.
It is up to the rights holders to decide whether they are satisfied
with how they are being treated. In this case, they appear to
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:597wl.128663$xk6.53...@newsfe12.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
Well at least we can define the FSF and SFLC as stupid. That is a
beginning.
No, not the FSF and the SFLC. You.
Well, then the FSF is just misinformed about their strategy.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
First and foremost in the litigation problem area is the SFLC. After
five consecutive frivolous lawsuits they are gaining quite the
reputation as a pain in the ass to the capitalist system.
Each and every suit filed by the SFLC was in response to a company
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
What is so hard to grasp concerning the principle that an
illegal contract term is construed against the drafter of
the contract?
Nothing at all. You are only incorrect that any term of the
GPL is illegal.
Denial eases the pain.
amicus_curious wrote:
When Verizon turns around and redistributes to customers, Verizon
has obligations.
If Verizon buys routers from Actiontec, it may freely ship them to
customers without any GPL obligations. The FSF and SFLC sometimes
make overly expansive statements about what the
Rjack wrote:
Denial eases the pain.
Then I'm glad you're feeling better.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rjack wrote:
Strength of belief is never a substitute for reality. Denial
of reality leaves reality undisturbed.
Unfortunately for you, reality fails to conform to your
incorrect beliefs.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
FORGET THE CAFC'S ARTISTIC LICENSE DECISION IT HAS NO BINDING
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE *ANTWHERE* IN ANY U.S. COURT.
Your mistake is that you believe that we refer to the CAFC
decision because it is binding. We refer to the CAFC decision
because we believe that
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Rjack wrote:
First and foremost in the litigation problem area is the SFLC. After
five consecutive frivolous lawsuits they are gaining quite the
reputation as a pain in the ass to the capitalist system.
Each and every suit filed by the SFLC was in
Rjack wrote:
GNU fans never lose, they just move thre goalposts.
The goal of GPL enforcement is compliance with the GPL.
The goal of the GPL is for users to be able to run, read,
modify, and share the code they receive.
The goal of GPL-skeptics is to desperately cast around for
ways to
Rjack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
It is up to the rights holders to decide whether they are satisfied
with how they are being treated.
There went the goalposts.
Do you believe that it is not up to the rights holders to decide
whether they are satisfied?
In this case, they appear
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
That download is only for owners of the router.
GNU fans never lose, they just mooove the goalposts.
It is up to the rights holders to decide whether they are satisfied
with how they are being treated.
There
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:q18wl.51854$l71.7...@newsfe23.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
When Verizon turns around and redistributes to customers, Verizon has
obligations.
If Verizon buys routers from Actiontec, it may freely ship them to
customers without any GPL
amicus_curious wrote:
You are departing from the party line by a wide margin here!
I am under no obligation to hew to a party line.
How do you suppose that the SFLC could be so overly expansive as to
put their statements into the form of a lawsuit?
Their lawsuit was not overly expansive.
amicus_curious wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:q18wl.51854$l71.7...@newsfe23.iad...
Well Verizon is distributing GPL based products without Verizon
acknowledging the GPL. You can say that Verizon is somehow the same as
Actiontec, but you are not to be believed.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Actiontec is the manufacturer of Verizon's routers, and makes the GPLed
sources for the software properly available. Before the lawsuit, they
did not do this. Now, anyone who receives a FiOS router from Verizon may
run, read, modify, and share the code it comes with. Before
Rjack wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
Well Verizon is distributing GPL based products without Verizon
acknowledging the GPL. You can say that Verizon is somehow the same
as Actiontec, but you are not to be believed.
Well... there weeent the goalposts.
Out to the fifty yard
IBM wasn't happy when Sun released Java under the GPL instead of a
more permissive open source software license. It's possible that if
IBM acquired Sun, Big Blue would move Java towards a multi-licensed
approach and potentially put it under the Apache Software License in
addition to the GPL. This
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Well... there weeent the goalposts.
Out to the fifty yard line...
A perceptive observation.
The evolution of the GPL from revision 1 to 2 to 3 doed reflect shifting
goalposts, designed to adjust to changing conditions. No doubt there
will be a
Rjack wrote:
IBM
Rjack :)
What a fscking idiot!
IBM makes BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS OF DOLLARS from GPL and the services it
provides to maintining and expanding GPL'd code.
Free as in freedom not price.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Well... there weeent the goalposts.
Out to the fifty yard line...
A perceptive observation.
The evolution of the GPL from revision 1 to 2 to 3 doed reflect
shifting goalposts, designed to adjust to changing
Doctor Smith wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:32:42 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
Doctor Smith iaintgotnostinkinem...@ols.net wrote in message
news:3ej8d9trwfa7.syh9j3y8e4fk$@40tude.net...
Redhat hasn't been able to crack the Linux desktop and in fact
announced at one point that they gave
47 matches
Mail list logo
