Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rjack wrote: [...]
they are offering you a unilateral contract. They say they are
offering you a money-back guarantee.
Software universally comes with license agreements, so the GPL
is a license.
Your babbling Hyman. Come on Hyman -- rejoin reality.
Perhaps Hyman
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And what is the GPL licensee supposed to do voluntarily
BEFORE the grant of rights comes into effect
Nothing. That's why it's unilateral.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
If the GPL would state something along the lines of
Terms and conditions. All rights under 17 USC 106 are granted to you
for 1 (one) year provided that you purchase more than $100 of
http://shop.fsf.org/category/gnu-gear/ goodies in the previous year. End
of Terms and
Rjack wrote:
17 USC 301(a) preempts copyright contracts whose terms attempt to
regulate copyrights outside of contractual privity -- that is to
say contracts that attempt to regulate all third parties.
Fortunately, the GPL does not attempt to regulate all
third parties. 17 USC 301 is
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
If the GPL would state something along the lines of
...
OK, so now you're saying the GPL is not a contract?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
If the GPL would state something along the lines of
...
OK, so now you're saying the GPL is not a contract?
How did you come to that idea, silly?
The GPL is a contract (partly invalid/unenforceable).
regards,
alexander.
--
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And what is the GPL licensee supposed to do voluntarily
BEFORE the grant of rights comes into effect
Nothing. That's why it's unilateral.
Go to doctor Hyman.
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Terms and conditions. All rights under 17 USC 106 are granted to you
for 1 (one) year. End of Terms and Conditions.
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL RULES OF LAW
Of course the GPL does not say the former, so the latter is
irrelevant. The GPL says
Rjack wrote:
[...]
http://www.fsf.org/news/microsoft_response
[...]
It seems that IBM is claiming ...
It seems that FSF is claiming ...
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Just because you write something into a contract's terms doesn't
make it enforceable
It's not a contract, it's a license.
Stop being utter idiot, Hyman.
http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1980s/89/890725_b.htm
(APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Plaintiff, v.
Rjack wrote:
Nothing to do with copyright licenses eh?
You've gone off the deep end in denial Hyman. Try googling
[copyright license court of appeals preempted decided]
and read a few of the 1170 hits.
OK, let's do that
For people who don't want to slog through to the end,
my conclusion
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
A copyright license is a contract like any other contract
We say that open licenses are not contracts because their
distinguishing feature is that they are a one-way grant from the
copyright holder to anyone who wishes to meet the conditions of
the license, and unlike
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Jacobson v. Katzer understood this and made the distinction in its
findings: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License are
enforceable copyright conditions...
CAFC totally screwed up California
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
CAFC totally screwed up
As usual, I am offered the choice of accepting the opinions
of actual appeals court judges or the opinions of a crank on
Usenet who has had his pet theories discomfited by that court.
Gee, let me see. OK, got it. The court, not the crank.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Gee, let me see. OK, got it. The court, not the crank.
Stop being utter idiot Hyman.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/05/msg00462.html
---
On 5/20/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG t...@becket.net wrote:
Michael K. Edwards m.k.edwa...@gmail.com writes:
Sorry
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/05/msg00462.html
What about it? Bushnell discusses Jacob Maxwell v. Veeck, where
a court found that an implied nonexclusive license had been granted
by the rights holder due to his various failures to object to
infringing
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
A copyright license is a contract like any other contract
We say that open licenses are not contracts because their
distinguishing feature is that they are a one-way grant from the
copyright holder to anyone who wishes to meet the conditions of
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/05/msg00462.html
What about it? Bushnell discusses Jacob Maxwell v. Veeck, where a
court found that an implied nonexclusive license had been granted
by the rights holder due to his various failures to
Rjack wrote:
Professor Micheal Davis of Clevland State University Law School:
A unilateral grant of permission is a contract; we even have a
legal term for such a situation and it is, unsurprisingly, called
a unilateral contract.
Wikipedia says
Rjack wrote:
Where in it's utterly *non-precendental* and erroneous decision did
Oops, it's court vs. crank again!
the CAFC state that *all* open license requirements are enforceable
copyright conditions?
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Copyright holders who engage in
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Professor Micheal Davis of Clevland State University Law School:
A unilateral grant of permission is a contract; we even have a
legal term for such a situation and it is, unsurprisingly, called
a unilateral contract.
Wikipedia says
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/05/msg00462.html
What about it? Bushnell discusses Jacob Maxwell v. Veeck, where
a court found that an implied nonexclusive license had been granted
by the rights holder due to his various failures
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Where in it's utterly *non-precendental* and erroneous decision
did
Oops, it's court vs. crank again!
the CAFC state that *all* open license requirements are
enforceable copyright conditions?
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright
Rjack wrote:
Which all sounds just like the GPL is indeed a contract
Sure. It seems to fit the definition of a unilateral contract. So?
When a store offers to send you some money after you buy a certain
item, they do not say they are offering you a unilateral contract.
They say they are
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/non-negotiable.html
As a general rule, the common law treats standard form contracts as any
other contract.
It is also known as contract of adhesion
And what meaning do you glean from all this?
___
Rjack wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that the clear language of the
Artistic License represents *all* open source licenses?
It represents all open source licenses with clear language.
Fortunately, the GPL is such a license. In fact, it is much
clearer than the Artistic License.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Buying an item is a bilateral agreement irrespective of a rebate credit
note or some such
Which has nothing to do with the rebate.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The promise on the licensee side is compliance with contractual
requirements (aka contractual covenants) stated in the license
contract.
There is no promise on the licensee side. There is only a
unilateral grant of permission to do certain actions in a
certain way.
Hyman Rosen writes:
And what meaning do you glean from all this?
He wants to pretend that the special scrutiny applied to contracts of
adhesion should apply to the GPL. This is nonsense, of course, as a
licensee can be no worse off for having accepted the GPL since it only
grants rights
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Buying an item is a bilateral agreement irrespective of a rebate credit
note or some such
Which has nothing to do with the rebate.
Providing rebate is an obligation on the seller's side in that contract,
silly.
Ha!
Hyman Rosen wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Hyman Rosen writes:
And what meaning do you glean from all this?
He wants to pretend that the special scrutiny applied to contracts of
adhesion should apply to the GPL. This is nonsense, of course, as a
licensee can be no worse off for having
'Evening, Rjack!
Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Where in it's utterly *non-precendental* and erroneous decision did
the CAFC state that *all* open license requirements are enforceable
copyright conditions? The CAFC ruled on the terms of the *Artistic
License* as to whether certain terms were
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Providing rebate is an obligation on the seller's side in that contract
If you're so hung up on the simultaneity, imagine a case
where a business advertises that any customer who purchased
more than $100 of merchandise in the previous year may come
in to the store and
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
that unilateral contracts are known by different names in
different circumstances.
If the GPL would state something along the lines of
Terms and conditions. All rights under 17 USC 106 are granted to you
for 1 (one) year provided that you purchase more than $100 of
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Which all sounds just like the GPL is indeed a contract
Sure. It seems to fit the definition of a unilateral contract. So?
I believe you raised the issue of license not a contract in the
context of your denial concerning 17 USC 301(a). Remember when I cited
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
that unilateral contracts are known by different names in
different circumstances.
If the GPL would state something along the lines of
Terms and conditions. All rights under 17 USC 106 are granted to you
for 1 (one) year provided
Rjack wrote:
[...]
they are offering you a unilateral contract. They say they are
offering you a money-back guarantee.
Software universally comes with license agreements, so the GPL is a
license.
Your babbling Hyman. Come on Hyman -- rejoin reality.
Perhaps Hyman could explain the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Providing rebate is an obligation on the seller's side in that contract
If you're so hung up on the simultaneity, imagine a case
where a business advertises that any customer who purchased
more than $100 of merchandise in the previous year
Rjack wrote:
Activist federal judges who ignore Congress's clear statutory language
in favor of common sense have a habit of being quickly overturned on
appeal.
Before the Betamax case, one would have thought that making
videotape copies of TV shows was prima facie copyright violation.
Don't
Rjack wrote:
You're missing the point. The GPL's goal is to purportedly replicate
licenses downstream to all third parties. It is not possible for the
holder of a non-exclusive license (a non-owner) to grant a *new*
license downstream.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html
Each
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
You're missing the point. The GPL's goal is to purportedly
replicate licenses downstream to all third parties. It is not
possible for the holder of a non-exclusive license (a non-owner)
to grant a *new* license downstream.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Activist federal judges who ignore Congress's clear statutory
language in favor of common sense have a habit of being quickly
overturned on appeal.
Before the Betamax case, one would have thought that making
videotape copies of TV shows was prima facie
Rjack wrote:
Just because you write something into a contract's terms doesn't
make it enforceable
It's not a contract, it's a license. If I want to write a license
for my work that says that I give a non-exclusive grant to persons
to whom I distribute, and to persons to whom they further
Hyman Rosen writes:
That's why we're discussing the transfer issue. It's possible that a
transfer of copyright to a GPL-hostile entity could cause downstream
distribution to be disallowed.
Well, there is promissory estoppel, of course. I would also argue that the
downstream licenses are not
In article %be9m.42750$ta5.28...@newsfe15.iad,
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Rjack wrote:
You're missing the point. The GPL's goal is to purportedly replicate
licenses downstream to all third parties. It is not possible for the
holder of a non-exclusive license (a non-owner) to
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Just because you write something into a contract's terms doesn't
make it enforceable
It's not a contract, it's a license. If I want to write a license
for my work that says that I give a non-exclusive grant to persons
to whom I distribute, and to persons to
In article 87prbsafj6@thumper.dhh.gt.org,
John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org wrote:
Hyman Rosen writes:
That's why we're discussing the transfer issue. It's possible that a
transfer of copyright to a GPL-hostile entity could cause downstream
distribution to be disallowed.
Well, there is
Rjack wrote:
17 USC 301(a) frightens you doesn't it?
Huh? Why would it frighten me? Quite the contrary, it makes
it easier to talk about copyright because it usually limits
the laws involved to only 17 USC, instead of having to look
for various separate state laws. It doesn't require
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
17 USC 301(a) frightens you doesn't it?
Huh? Why would it frighten me? Quite the contrary, it makes it
easier to talk about copyright because it usually limits the laws
involved to only 17 USC, instead of having to look for various
separate state laws. It
Rjack wrote:
U... what's murky?
A rights holder can both have offered non-exclusive grants,
and subsequently transferred copyright ownership. How all of
this would interact with the world of open licenses, where
signed agreements are generally non-existent and works are
handed off from one
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
U... what's murky?
A rights holder can both have offered non-exclusive grants, and
subsequently transferred copyright ownership. How all of this would
interact with the world of open licenses, where signed agreements
are generally non-existent and works are
Rjack wrote:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this
title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the
following: ...
Of course. And that is the case when copyright owners use the GPL
to distribute their works. They grant non-exclusive,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under
this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any
of the following: ...
Of course. And that is the case when copyright owners use the GPL
to distribute their works. They grant
Rjack wrote:
Now which of those six enumerated rights gives the copyright owner
the exclusive right to authorize third parties to authorize?
Who is trying to authorize to authorize, that your question
would be relevant?
Who gives a rat's ass about source code that is immutable and can't
be
Hyman Rosen writes:
There is no need for a signed license in the absence of a conflicting
transfer.
It is not at all clear that the GPL is not a signed license in the broad
sense in which judges often interpret signed. Signed written document
does not necessarily mean a quill pen scratching on
John Hasler wrote:
Hyman Rosen writes:
There is no need for a signed license in the absence of a
conflicting transfer.
It is not at all clear that the GPL is not a signed license in the
broad sense in which judges often interpret signed. Signed
written document does not necessarily mean a
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Now which of those six enumerated rights gives the copyright
owner the exclusive right to authorize third parties to
authorize?
Who is trying to authorize to authorize, that your question would
be relevant?
Who gives a rat's ass about source code that is
Tim Smith writes:
Suppose I create a copyrighted work. I release it under a license
such as GPLv2. You use it, in a way that requires permission of the
copyright holder, but is in accord with GPLv2, so you are OK.
Suppose now that I transfer the copyright to someone else.
Do you now have
Tim Smith wrote:
[...]
205(e) is the problematical section, not 204(a).
http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pu/public_domain.htm
Simply because a friendly entity released a program under a license
does not mean that the friendly entity will continue to hold the
copyright in the future. In the
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
of rights, not licensing. In any case, in writing and signed does not
mean pen and ink under US law.
Do you mean
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/usc_sec_15_7001000-.html
(The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act)?
But the GPL
Tim Smith wrote:
Section 203 really doesn't have anything to do with section 205.
You expressed concern that the transfer of copyright to GPLed code
from one party to another could cause problems because of 205. Now
you say...
The use case for section 205 is something like this. Copyright
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pu/public_domain.htm
(As a general rule, licenses are revocable, and the GPL does not
purport to be perpetual.)
In fact, GPLv3 http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html
does purport to be perpetual and irrevocable:
All rights
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_0205000-.html
(e) Priority Between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership
and Nonexclusive License.
refers to a case where the transfer and the license happen at roughly
the same time, and priority
In article oo_8m.53306$9p.8...@newsfe08.iad,
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_0205000-.html
(e) Priority Between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership
and Nonexclusive License.
refers to a case where the transfer and the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
I wonder how many open source projects provide a written
instrument signed by the copyright owner?
The GPL http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html says All
rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and
Tim Smith writes:
Where does it say it only is for cases where the license and the transfer
happen at roughly the same time?
If they don't there is no conflict to resolve.
--
John Hasler
j...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
why did Eben Moglen want to (ab)use 205(e) in Cyber Patrol incident
He's also worried about the receive a license from the
original licensors clause creating a new license each
time the work is copied and transmitted, and those new
licenses being affected by the
Tim Smith wrote:
Where does it say it only is for cases where the license and the
transfer happen at roughly the same time?
That's what you used in your example. If you didn't think
so, why didn't you just use a simpler example?
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
That is not the law, silly.
It's the term of the license.
The GPL can certainly be revoked under 203
35 years after the grant is made, and by the original
author and his heirs.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
John Hasler wrote:
Tim Smith writes:
Where does it say it only is for cases where the license and the transfer
happen at roughly the same time?
If they don't there is no conflict to resolve.
The conflict to resolve arises when the alleged new copyright owner says
No you can't do it
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
why did Eben Moglen want to (ab)use 205(e) in Cyber Patrol
incident
He's also worried about the receive a license from the original
licensors clause creating a new license each time the work is
copied and transmitted, and those new licenses being
In article reply_in_group-a4c678.16223718072...@news.supernews.com,
Tim Smith reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com wrote:
Suppose I create a copyrighted work. I release it under a license such
as GPLv2. You use it, in a way that requires permission of the copyright
holder, but is in accord with
Tim Smith wrote:
I wonder how many open source projects provide a written instrument
signed by the copyright owner?
The GPL http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html says
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are
In article _sl8m.52996$9p.25...@newsfe08.iad,
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
I wonder how many open source projects provide a written instrument
signed by the copyright owner?
The GPL http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html says
All rights granted
Tim Smith wrote:
Suppose I create a copyrighted work. I release it under a license such
as GPLv2. You use it, in a way that requires permission of the copyright
holder, but is in accord with GPLv2, so you are OK.
Suppose now that I transfer the copyright to someone else.
Do you now have
Tim Smith writes:
Industry practice overrides a statutory requirement for a signature?
The USA has no such statutory requirement (I assume that by signature you
mean an autograph signature. One can make a legally-binding commitment
without putting pen to paper.)
--
John Hasler
j...@dhh.gt.org
Tim Smith wrote:
Industry practice overrides a statutory requirement for a signature?
I think so. In any case, there is also 17 USC 203:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203
(3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during
a period of five years beginning at
In article xdm8m.53010$9p.38...@newsfe08.iad,
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
Industry practice overrides a statutory requirement for a signature?
I think so. In any case, there is also 17 USC 203:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203
(3)
In article 87zlb0cqeg@thumper.dhh.gt.org,
John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org wrote:
Tim Smith writes:
Industry practice overrides a statutory requirement for a signature?
The USA has no such statutory requirement (I assume that by signature you
mean an autograph signature. One can make a
I wrote:
The USA has no such statutory requirement (I assume that by signature
you mean an autograph signature. One can make a legally-binding
commitment without putting pen to paper.)
Tim Smith writes:
Well, what do you think a written instrument signed by the owner of the
rights licensed,
In article 87my70cekt@thumper.dhh.gt.org,
John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org wrote:
I wrote:
The USA has no such statutory requirement (I assume that by signature
you mean an autograph signature. One can make a legally-binding
commitment without putting pen to paper.)
Tim Smith writes:
In article slm8m.53004$9p.17...@newsfe08.iad,
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=fedclaimvol=1999/9747
6c
Thus, nonexclusive licenses are explicitly removed from the 204(a)
writing requirement.
...
Under federal
Tim Smith wrote:
Suppose I create a copyrighted work. I release it under a license
such as GPLv2. You use it, in a way that requires permission of the
copyright holder, but is in accord with GPLv2, so you are OK.
Suppose now that I transfer the copyright to someone else.
Do you now have
83 matches
Mail list logo
