Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The pay comes from contributions to the Free Software Foundation. Just
stuck in my beard.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Jan 16, 1:17 pm, mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 14, 6:32 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it ok to
bereave the GNU project of the credit for its work?
Credit can be given in other places beside _names_.
The idea it must be given
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Jan 16, 1:50 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether or not it is the right place to give credit, it turns out
that just constantly trying to get the credit there is achieving the
primary purpose, that of educating people.
So then it seems
there is nothing to be gained from
assigning an interpretation to my words.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Jan 16, 4:12 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I noticed this old post here:
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/243e191086e80bef?...
QUOTE:
Stallman does not care about
business. But others
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Jan 16, 4:37 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again: I don't set the goals for free software, so it is nonsensical
to assign any relevance to any interpretation of my musings. They
are food for thought, nothing else.
I didn't say you did set
people decide to rename it when
it was done in the compass of a different project? Why is it ok to
bereave the GNU project of the credit for its work? And why is it
uncool if the project leaders decide that they want to have their work
known as their work?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's the rub. Why is so much proprietary, why isn't there as much
Free software as there is proprietary? Hmm...
Because proprietariness turns reinvention of the wheel into a business
model?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Because proprietariness turns reinvention of the wheel into a business
model?
Free software seems to do a hell of a lot of wheel reinvention, too.
But it is optional. And reinventing
intimidation tactics.
There is good evidence that commercial companies _are_ incorporating
software under BSD and Apache style licenses. Quite a lot. But this is
not interesting to others since they, as a rule, don't share the
results.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
the relevant interpretations are the Federal
Court judges.
Whether or not you consider them Marxist crackpots, they will be the
ones interpreting any other license, too.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu
.
Windows' security track record does not exactly convince one of closed
source's inherent superiority in this regard.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
with anything he's
said.
There is lots of wiggle room between agreeing with Alfred and Alexander.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc
group fruit.
In a nutshell, a single tomato is a fruit, but not fruit.
Or, put differently, you got eggplant on your face.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
that there is no other place where it is appropriate?
What is this nonsense about proper place as if there could be only
one?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
So what reasons do you assume for the many GPL cases that get settled
out of court for defendants with big pockets and plaintiffs with small
ones?
The notion of suing people to force them to publish original or even
?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Arnoud writes:
I've never seen a US case involving the GPL come to a verdict. Of course
there are the German cases, but given the different legal system you can
hardly compare
Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 7 Dec 2007 at 12:01, David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... crying revisionism ...]
Dear GNUtian dak, please visit
Why change the topic? We were talking about a dedicated Linux site
which called
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... crying revisionism ...]
Dear GNUtian dak, please visit
Why change the topic? We were talking about a dedicated Linux site
which called Linux a clone of the operating system Unix and said that
this operating system clone
to come up with a plan of countering this sort of revisionism.
And in the wake of that, some schools of belief were made up to clad
this revisionism with a layer of legitimacy. But in the above
quotation, it is still rather bare.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 07/12/2007, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh no. POSIX does not lay out what it means to be a type of operating
system. It lays out what _interfaces_ must be there for certain
degrees of POSIX compliancy. It does not require the embodiment
Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 07/12/2007, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh, no. The POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) specification
specifies at several levels what comprises a UNIX-like API.
Thanks, I am aware of this. I think it a reasonable enough thing
Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 7 Dec 2007 at 14:15, David Kastrup wrote:
Apart from which:
[cat --help]
Which is also not all of trivial when compared to some kernel
functionality. I mean, take the fork system call. Before all that
copy-on-write nonsense was invented, it just
that you should omit the credit elsewhere where it would
belong.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
, and perhaps most
important of all, the GNU Philosophy of Free software as in Freedom
for the user.
How you can claim time and again with a semi-straight face that you read
the pertinent papers when you act all surprised about their content
every time is beyond me.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not see the reason why GNU/Linux should be preferred over just
Linux to refer to the system.
[...]
Google for it. The first hit for why gnu/linux should suffice.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
). Where you have a GNU userland, but augmented with all of
the system utilities from Solaris (not an entirely unpopular setup),
things become quite muddier.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss
.
Whether the associated costs were optimal is a different question. But
other previous approaches had not worked out.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
the customers and misappropriating
copyrighted material.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2007-11-24, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you better hire a darn brilliant lawyer if you want to get your
punishment reduced because you consistently and from the start relied on
a business plan involving defrauding the customers
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2007-11-24, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2007-11-24, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you better hire a darn brilliant lawyer if you want to get your
punishment reduced because
of having assembled a fully functioning weapon.
Or don't fill in one pound of powdered sugar here and stir, or this
will be an illegal exploding device.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss
place...
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
on
a program.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
.
No. It is a valid meaning of the word freed.
Xpost+Fup2 gnu.misc.discuss: this is not really relevant for most of
the touched Usenet groups.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
mean, like Daniel anti-GPL lunatic Wallace?
My. My. Your feathers are easily ruffled aren't they?
I have days like that myself.
Take two aspirin and reply in the morning.
You consider reality offensive and have days where you acknowledge it?
It won't go away by taking two aspirins.
--
David
of
circumstances, but most of them don't become subject of a law or legal
precedence.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Aug 21, 4:08 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GPL is not a tit for tat license: the upstream author gets
nothing from the recipient by defaul, nor does he have any right to.
But any further downstream
to achieve with your
questions and discussions here? Do you feel you have made any
progress in the last months? If yes, what would it be? If not, what
could you do to improve your track record?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc
over time as well.
I recommend that you read the GNU manifesto. It should tell you
something.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Aug 12, 1:24 am, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What exactly then is being said in the quoted passage?
It defines internal use, the situation where no distribution
occurs. For example, if you made a lot of changes
to
whatever he likes.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
under this License.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
read those other licenses as
often as you want and they won't tell you how to apply them to works
of your own.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
it is you, the relicensor, that
have to provide the patent protection if you can. Which you likely
can't.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo
Kurt Häusler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 11:55:07 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Kurt Häusler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now I wrote most of the code, and placed the copyright under
ownership of the FSF.
How so?
By leaving their name in the text of the gpl license file
and
what you licensed to others. The main trouble starts when you are
confused about what others licensed to you under what conditions.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
permission. You don't need for software copies that are _just_
covered by the default provisions of copyright.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo
a prior publication or patent application to point to, your
idea is barred to your own use. So for patents, the cleanroom
technique is useless.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
copies accessible to other
persons.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
contentious: of course this
constitutes creation of a derived work, not an aggregation.
In GNUtian speak, it's mere aggregation.
It is neither in GNUtian speak nor in legal terms.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Your program is merely an aggregation (collective work at most
if selection is creative enough) of multiple computer program works.
copy the source code that I need to my project and compile it...
Sorry, but that's
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Your program is merely an aggregation (collective work at most
if selection is creative enough) of multiple computer program works.
copy
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup writes:
That is perfectly acceptable and has nothing to do with copyright.
Copyright comes into play once you sell or otherwise transfer
Copyright can come into play with the owner transferring a copy.
Where is the contradiction
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup writes:
Last time I looked, the owner of a Michelangelo painting does not have
the copyright on the painting. He has, however, the power to determine
who may take photographs of it.
He has the power to put it where no one can get near
Inventor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On May 30, 1:31 am, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Expect about 2 mail feedbacks per 1000 downloads, and 4 of 5 feedbacks
are coupled with feature requests or bug reports. Expect about 1 in
2 downloads to offer some monetary appreciation
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Anyway, you are aware that a software license does not govern a work,
but a transaction transferring a particular copy?
Software is literary work. A copyright licensee governs rights (modulo
limitations) regarding
.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
I
cited, so you should have a pretty good idea how to interpret his
words.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
as with the opinions of
other GNU maintainers and developers, does not constitute any of those
things you are lavishly labelling people with.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
project
and of RMS. You are simply misreading things on purpose, this is
not a new side from you.
And again, everything that you can muster is flat denial without even
an attempt at justifying your outlandish interpretations, and ad
hominem attacks.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793
sentences in the fully quoted passage where any of the
three is supposed to occur.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
demonstration of your reasoning powers. I
entertain no doubt that by now it is obvious to the reader what esteem
your arguments are worthy of.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
and skip his own exegesis.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
of the
license could be declared invalid.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
? You have been
mocked about this deriviate invention of yours for years now.
Existing words are derive, derivate and derivative. While you
would still not make more sense, it would look less foolish if the
terms you used actually existed.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
conspiracy in the open
source world. Sadly, it amazing how many people like Bruce Perens
spew GPL3 nonsense concerning patents.
You should wipe the foam off your mouth. You don't even manage to
form complete sentences right now.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
. His posting contains nothing of the sort.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On May 26, 1:45 am, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to get a somewhat coherent presentation of the
motivations behind the GPL, I recommend that you rather concentrate
on the links he provides and skip his own exegesis.
I looked through
loyalty to Stallman, but you are not doing him a
favor by making a spectacle of yourself and the GNU project by
misrepresenting his views, even if it may be done in good faith.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
judges and similar excuses.
Nevertheless, quite a few of the quotations he digs up _are_
interesting.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc
.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
By the way: I agree with your assessment of Alexander being an avid
observer of what you call Intellectual Property law (there is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Intellectual_property_law
actually no such thing
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
put forward by typical case law, is shere lunacy. It is to the best
interest of the FSF to claim the full extent of this lunacy for their
interpretation of copyright law and the GPL.
I have yet to see *any* references
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 12:07 +0200, David Kastrup escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your credibility was ruined long ago, and is only gone even deeper by
faking your email in order to get spam-bots onto my mail server
faith.
I have no loyalty to Richard.
You are certainly not doing much that would help his cause, yes.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
for understanding them.
More strawmen, you know perfectly well that I was refering to all the
GNU maintainers and developers. They make up the GNU project.
I am a GNU maintainer and developer. Your views don't correspond with
mine.
It appears you are mistaken.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15
software works.
My MTA rejects [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The verified address would be the mailing list address. That one is
valid.
Really, at the moment there seems to be some sort of competition who
can get the most egg on one's face.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
from the SMTP greeting.
I would not go as far as to claim that your setup is broken (putting a
default mail domain into some headers is not uncommon in order to make
them replyable), but it would seem that you don't understand what your
system is doing here.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15
see someone suspecting it to be
pornography or similar. Anyway, since it is a license, not a
contract, it is to be used only between consenting adults.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sonny! Uncle Hasler has spoken!
John Hasler wrote:
David Kastrup writes:
An illegal document? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the
GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be
pornography or similar
contractual
restrictions.
In spite of its detractors, it does a pretty good job with that.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
David Kastrup writes:
An illegal document? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the
GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be
pornography or similar.
Well, the doofuses at SCO claimed GPLv2
the
GPL. Again, thank you for proving my point.
You really love that sentence, even though it is hilariously wrong
time and again.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On May 26, 1:32 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In short: the GPL tries to do as much as it can to promote [free]
software under the constraints that mass redistribution of
unmodified GPLed software should remain permitted without requiring
GNUtian retards.
Because it does not stay public domain when it is assembled with
other material.
You can't, for example, disassemble Microsoft's network stack and use
it elsewhere under your discretion just because it is based on
BSDlite.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
absolutely feel compelled to
speak for others, don't use the all-inclusive we but specify the
group that you feel qualified speaking for explicitly.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
So then why must it too be free, why must the license require that
to be free?
To keep things free, again, this was answered as well
.
gnu.misc.discussSerious discussion about GNU and freed software.
This does not demand that list participants are members of the GNU
project and speak for it. So please don't pretend otherwise.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup writes:
Because it does not stay public domain when it is assembled with other
material.
This is not true in the US. Elements of a work that are in the public
domain are not protected by copyright even if the work does contain
other
affiliation.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
other relevant postings of yours in
this thread: only my replies to them are recorded.
The FSF list archives seems to be more complete yet.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
is not.
Please speak for yourself when declaring opinions and persuasions. It
is simply distasteful to pretend being able to speak for others.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
for challenging such
positions in court.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On May 21, 4:46 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
mike3 writes:
A GPL program, which is NOT mine, and an original program (my own
get it?, code) which IS mine.
The combination of your code and someone else's
[EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So then if I do NOT own the GPL program, but make it a vital unique
the above scenario would still
keep it free, after all.
The GPL is intended to guarantee the freedom of the code itself _and_
descendants.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
much of a test in court, but still legal
departments don't seem eager to take the test) stops working as soon
as there is a drop-in alternative to a GPLed library, whether from the
same source or somewhere else.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
501 - 600 of 1030 matches
Mail list logo
