.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
modification as being any change from the original.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
of wits. Somewhat annoying, but what do you expect?
He's quoting a post of mine on Slashdot. Could you be so kind as to
tell me where you think I'm wrong in that post?
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
was made available on Actiontec's web
site prior to the lawsuit? It wasn't there on the latest archived
version of the site from before the lawsuit at archive.org. The date
listed for it on the site is well after the lawsuit, too.
--
--Tim Smith
a good bet
the unilateral 41(a)1 is being used by the plaintiffs.
So? Why do you think it significant that no stipulation was filed? If
the prerequisites of 41(a)(1)(A)(i) were met, why would they not use
that section, and make the simpler, smaller, filing?
--
--Tim Smith
, and the money has
been paid and the source is now available, what is there to potentially
be breached? The plaintiffs got all they wanted, so there's nothing
left for them to ask the court to order.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
, then SFLC sued, then
source became available, and SFLC dropped the suit.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
pleadings are defective on their face due to lack
of Copyright Office registration of the allegedly infringed works.
The lack of a public settlement stipulation by both parties
reinforces this scenario.
Yet the source then appeared, which is what SFLC wanted.
--
--Tim Smith
in a copyright infringement case, the lawsuit
is dismissed with prejudice.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
infringement.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
the document! :-)
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
was not under
41(a)(1)(A)(i)?
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
is valid and you are
the owner, which is a nice thing to have).
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
interface,
linking the GPLed library in stops being a necessary step for the
recipient for getting working software.
It was never a necessary step. The software was fully functional
without using any GPLed libraries.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc
, there never seem
to be either cases or statutes that back his position?
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
* arguments. The FSF and RMS make a lot
of legal-sounding arguments that appear to actually be them stating what
they wish the law to be, using terms somewhat similar to, not not always
the same as, real legal terms.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there any particular reason for all that FUD here, rather than in a
group where it would be on topic?
Why is it FUD?
The patent risk claims require reading the OSP in a way
.
Why doesn't Sun actually free ODF: promise not to assert their relevant
patents against any document format, and turn *real* control of ODF over
to OASIS? Do you have any upcoming protests or marches or whatever to
urge Sun to do this?
--
--Tim Smith
Is there any particular reason for all that FUD here, rather than in a
group where it would be on topic?
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
[...]
If, on the other hand, you mean that you might take the display code
from the PDF reader, and put that code IN your program, so it is just a
subroutine you call, then you are going to have
to get picky if you make any slight
licensing mistakes!
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
rarely do).
The readers of these four groups aren't worthy of 10 seconds of your
time to check it before posting?
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I bet if you look around, you'll find that you are happily using plenty
of things that use non-free software every day.
This argument is: You can't attain perfection, so don't try
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.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc
?
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
On 2007-12-11, Andy Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you replace 'companies' with 'large companies' (who have the resources
to lobby government, and the money to pay lawyers to enforce their
patents), it makes more sense. Individually some of them might want to get
out of it, but over the
On 2007-12-05, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, the proper name for the operating system is GNU and Linux
provides one of it's kernels. The combination of these two words is
GNU/Linux. If you used Sun's kernel you would call the system
GNU/Solarix and if you used the BSD
On 2007-11-24, rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
On 2007-11-21, rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The designated donee beneficiaries of the GPL are obviously all third
parties. Clearly the plaintiffs are parties to the GPL contract and
cannot be a member of the class all third
On 2007-11-21, rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The designated donee beneficiaries of the GPL are obviously all third
parties. Clearly the plaintiffs are parties to the GPL contract and
cannot be a member of the class all third parties. Therefore the
plaintiffs can suffer no injury by the
rjack wrote:
Google just announced the end of the GPL and the Free Software
Foundation's viral FUD.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=428
A ridiculous subject line.
--
__
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remove lock to reply.
: first sale. As more and more embedded systems use Linux, and more
and more OEMs sell pre-built Linux systems, first sale is going to
become very relevant.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
) with a non-free GUI on top of it, presumably Darwin
would be able to pass certification on its own.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
has permission
to copy and make derivative works?
Care to elaborate?
has != had.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The original licensors of GPL¹d BusyBox software have no standing to sue
for material breach of the GPL license.
Irrelevant, since they aren't suing for breach of GPL. They are suing
for copyright infringement.
--
--Tim Smith
and make derivative works to distribute those
copyrighted works. Those actions are solely a contractual matter.
Irrelevant, since plaintiff's claim is that Monsoon is not a party who
has permission to copy and make derivative works.
--
--Tim Smith
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
[...]
You have no right to redistribute the software - with
or without the source code - under copyright law, unless
such freedom is granted by a license.
Stop being such an idiot, Tyler. From Understanding Open Source and
Free Software Licensing
Re: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/open_source_railroad/
These guys have stripped out the header notices - can't they get
them under the DMCA copyright law?
``Provision 4: Removing copyright management information
--
The fourth
The saga:
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/
The ruling:
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/158.pdf
One bit not mentioned in the news stories:
Although Defendants represent that they have voluntarily ceased
all potentially infringing activities utilizing any of the
disputed
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
An intellectual property license is a contract. In re: Aimster Copyright
Litigation,
334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th Cir. 2003) (If a breach of contract (and a
copyright license
is just a type of contract) . . . ); see also McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery,
Inc.,
67 F.3d 917,
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
On 2007-08-28, Tim Tyler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Users do not agree to *anything* by the act of
copying something. The worst that can happen
is that they can subsequently be sued for copyright
violation - since the user can simply claim that they
never bothered
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
*If* the user agreed to a contract by simply copying,
the world would be full of court cases where
SlimeSoft had included in the small print of its
license agreement:
And by the act of copying this software, you hereby
agree to sell all your
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
If they were contracts, you would have to sign them ...
You're misinformed, that is just one of many forms to manifest assent.
Assent may be manifested by written or spoken words, or by conduct. See
also
http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
If they were contracts, you would have to sign them ...
You're misinformed, that is just one of many forms to manifest assent.
Assent may be manifested by written or spoken words, or by conduct. See
also
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Which license are you talking about? The [L]GPL (both 2 and 3)
purports to impose a whole bunch of covenants (conditions but
not conditions precedent) upon licensees. See, for example
http://www.actonline.org/library/GPLv3-Contract-or-Copyright.html
Accordingly,
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
[...]
The [L]GPL (both 2 and 3) purports to impose a whole bunch
of covenants (conditions but not conditions precedent)
upon licensees.
No it doesn't.
[...]
Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain
obligated
outside work accepted into OO.o. Thus, it's not really
accurate to say that OO.o is independent of StarOffice and Sun.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
On 2007-07-26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And besides, open office might've been initially released by sun but
it is independent of them. Open.Office.org develop open office.
It's still managed by people from Sun, and they contribute most of the
code.
software Microsoft started with is still free.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
a lot of
support.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
code,
and there will be no one obligated to provide you with source.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
. When party X promises something, and party Y
detrimentally relies on that, then the doctrine of promissory estoppel can
make it so there is effectively an enforcable contract.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
develop an active community
that might advance it to rival or surpass your commercial version.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Actually, what Therekov forgets is that First Sale would apply to the
plastic, and not to the content inside it. Alas. He's so... Therekov!
Huh? What do you mean by the content inside of it?
--
--Tim Smith
relevant.
You've overlooked the first sale doctrine.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
vendor to actually modify or copy the code happened to use the GPL
option that requires providing the source to anyone who asks will you have
someone who is obligated to give you source.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(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.
Do you have any particular reason to doubt him? RMS is known to have
. The content of the post matches RMS' known positions.c
--
--Tim Smith
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
also donates a lot to Democrats, why do you
choose to say big Republican donor?
--
--Tim Smith
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
.
--
--Tim Smith
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
101 - 160 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
