And here comes the GPL girl:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061026013857159
(Oracle's Offering and Red Hat's Response)
--
The CEOs of Dell and HP, among others, say this is a great leap forward,
in video clips at the end. Things are beginning to smell funny, folks.
There does
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Well, you can also get whitebox Linux or something like that...
[Red Hat's free-riders]
White Box Linux and Centos.
WBL is not well supported. Centos has more friends (Sun Microsystems
and OpenSolaris Project). At some point Red
http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/gpl/gpl.pdf
---
The open-source movement has provided the impetus for another form of
patronage. Companies such as RedHat or Linuxcare need free software to
succeed to be successful themselves. As a result, these companies hire
the producers of free software to
http://news.com.com/5208-7344-0.html?forumID=1threadID=22307messageID=196945start=-1
---
interesting business plan
Reader post by: hedred
Posted on: October 25, 2006, 4:17 PM PDT
Story: Oracle to offer Red Hat Linux support
Copy RedHat's product and steal their customers.
So, what happens
http://news.com.com/5208-7344-0.html?forumID=1threadID=22307messageID=196945start=-1
---
interesting business plan
Reader post by: hedred
Posted on: October 25, 2006, 4:17 PM PDT
Story: Oracle to offer Red Hat Linux support
Copy RedHat's product and steal their customers.
So, what happens
It only appears to be irrelevant to you, GNUtian retards. And only
because it doesn't fit in your moronic GNU Law theology.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
The first option is the get-out-of-jail card for the
defendant. Just like in Monopoly, you can't be forced to play
that card.
Paying damges vs. do something else that won't hurt your wallet
is being forced in my book, you have no choice of not doing it.
You're
[... [EMAIL PROTECTED] v. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...]
idiot + idiot = 2 x ueberidiot.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
On 2006-09-21, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can completely ignore the license, and not be any worse off than
if it didn't apply.
If you completely ignore the license, then you completely ignore the
law.
Who knows, I might be copying under a fair use exception.
Anyway,
The point is: you will not get ordered to start complying with the
GPL.
The option to start complying with the GNU GPL exists, so does paying
for damages, or going to jail.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
On 2006-09-21, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is: you will not get ordered to start complying with the
GPL.
The option to start complying with the GNU GPL exists, so does paying
for damages, or going to jail.
The first option is the get-out-of-jail card for the
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: (failing to attribute and quote properly)
and snipped You get convicted and have to pay compensation, maybe go
to jail.
The point is: you will not get ordered to start complying with the
GPL.
The option to start complying with the GNU GPL exists,
Even in
The first option is the get-out-of-jail card for the defendant.
Just like in Monopoly, you can't be forced to play that card.
Paying damges vs. do something else that won't hurt your wallet is
being forced in my book, you have no choice of not doing it.
The option to start complying with the GNU GPL exists,
Even in a criminal action brought by the state? Must be fun to live
on the GNU Republic: GPL or else go to jail. Paradise of freedom.
My beloved Alexander, you seem to not be able to read my prose.
Either you comply with the GNU
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
The option to start complying with the GNU GPL exists,
Even in a criminal action brought by the state? Must be fun to live
on the GNU Republic: GPL or else go to jail. Paradise of freedom.
My beloved Alexander, you seem to not be able to read my prose.
You really ought to stop wasting your time, nobody is reading your
gibberish, we all know that all you can do is quote irrelevant
material.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:15:35 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(AMS citing Merijn de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED])
If I distribute illegally, I am not bound by the license. See you
in federal court for copyright infringement. I won't have to see
you in state court where you
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:15:35 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
(AMS citing Merijn de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED])
If I distribute illegally, I am not bound by the license. See you
in federal court for copyright infringement. I won't have to see
you in
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
[...]
will not be allowed to distribute the work without breaking copyright law
(which you are bound by, whether you accept it or not).
17 USC 109, stupid. Read it. And try to spell come conditions to
make a copy under the GPL. And once a copy is lawfully
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
3. I then have to distribute the combined work C = O+G under GPL
because that's the terms.
That's not the terms. That's merely GNUtian crackpot theory of
derivative works to mislead you. Don't expect to hear this
crackpot theory in court of law. The FSF already
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Google is one company. Are you claiming that the return of investment
time plan and turn out for all IPOs are the same?
I'll let you keep guessing that. You might also want learn what
various financial metrics actually mean.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seems to be a substantial profit for the buyer here: they get
a program for nothing.
I was talking about a profit for seller
You were
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
versed expression of Homer's Ilias and Odyssey,
Homer is in public domain.
[...]
(instead of removing economic incentive to create derivative works
by making profit in a free market by trading derivative works) and
I'd have no problem with that. That is what
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
So you say that civilization should be considered ended with the
advent of copyright?
No. I simply see no problems with unilateral decisions to release
something straight into the public domain in our modern
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
No. I simply see no problems with unilateral decisions to release
something straight into the public domain in our modern civilization
with IP market economy.
So behavior benefiting society and progress should become optional.
Even utterly proprietary and
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
No. I simply see no problems with unilateral decisions to release
something straight into the public domain in our modern civilization
with IP market economy.
So behavior benefiting society and progress should
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
Sighs, it has been said by four people by now, me included: you retain
all the rights to your code! Period, end of story, nothing more to
discuss. Be it original, or deriviate, it is your code, you are the
copyright holder. End of story.
End of ams'
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Even utterly proprietary and closed software can benefiting
society.
Sure, and so does war. That does not mean that it is a good idea to
create circumstances where this is the case.
Yeah right, and so, to braindamaged GNUtians like you, all-rights-
John Hasler wrote:
mike4ty4 writes:
I take original code O and combine it with MORE original code P. Then do
I have to distribute O+P under GPL as well even though it contains _no_
code of 3rd party origin? You seem to say yes but everyone else seems to
have said no.
He is also saying
John Hasler wrote:
mike4ty4 writes:
You can't distribute the original program w/o the GPLed code vs the
combined program w/the GPLed code together _in any way_ singificantly
different from GPL...
The fact that you have distributed copies of your code under the GPL
does not prevent you
John Hasler wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
Man oh man. Profit = buyer's cost to obtain - seller's cost to create.
The marginal cost of creating a copy of a piece of software is close enough
to zero as makes no difference. And it is a _copy_ that the seller buys.
Seller buys nothing.
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Not at all. He can still _fully_ assert his copyright on those parts.
That means he can demand that recipients _obey_ his license terms
Hey stupid dak, _obey_ his license terms is a
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
So you claim that they were not profitable? How then did they survive
and expand?
IPO scam.
Red Hat abandoned retail market in mid fiscal 2004, IIRC.
Now, here's the data (in thousands, fiscal, restated):
1997: net LOSS1318 (-)
1998: net LOSS3738 (-)
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
And it would be stupid not to have net losses following an IPO: where
is the purpose in asking for money if you are not going to spend it?
It appears that your expertise in financials is as good as in IP
licensing basics. Ignorant retard. Try
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
And it would be stupid not to have net losses following an IPO: where
is the purpose in asking for money if you are not going to spend it?
It appears that your expertise in financials is as good as in IP
licensing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
Then you'd better stop releasing your code under the GPL (or any other Free
license) because they certainly can make money out of it and not pay you
any.
Very likely, but it's not so important that I'm going to go to great
lengths about it. It seems to
Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
Then you'd better stop releasing your code under the GPL (or any other Free
license) because they certainly can make money out of it and not pay you
any.
Very likely, but it's not so important that I'm going to go
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
And another irrelevant link, congratulations. What the concrete
Google financials have to do with what to expect in the wake of an IPO
will probably remain your secret.
Google also had an IPO, stupid.
If it has not escaped you,
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
buyer's cost to obtain = 0 (per GPL no charge provision)
seller's cost to create = programmer's salary, energy, etc.
So where is a profit, dak?
Profit = buyer's cost to obtain -
Richard writes:
There seems to be a substantial profit for the buyer here: they get a
program for nothing.
They get a copy of the program (what they want) for whatever price they and
one of the supliers thereof agree on. There is no GPL no charge
provision where copies are concerned.
--
John
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
And another irrelevant link, congratulations. What the concrete
Google financials have to do with what to expect in the wake of an IPO
will probably remain your secret.
Google also had an IPO, stupid.
Alexander, you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
But GPL software due to the nature of the license requires the code
be released and that's what I mean by open-source.
Again, please stop confusing the Free Software movement with the Open
Source movement. They are two different
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[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
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because we cannot force people to make all their source code
available, it is done by having a license that says you can use the
free program components in your program provided that you also make
that entire program free GPL not just
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Yes, it makes it harder to turn programming into money, but one can
also make use of a lot of existing software.
But one can still make a decent amount of money? (notice to me,
decent does *not* mean Bill Gates super-wealth)
Linus Torvalds is
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
So then you are saying I _can't_ then use the stuff in the
_original parts_ of said combined work in other projects without
making those GPL as well, after releasing the combined work? Why
must that be done if the original parts are still original?
They are
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Yes, it makes it harder to turn programming into money, but one can
also make use of a lot of existing software.
But one can still make a decent amount of money? (notice to me,
decent does *not* mean Bill Gates
I suggest you completely and utterly ignore anything Alexander says.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Are you saying then that I CANNOT use the original code that was in
the combined work in other original works that contain NOBODY
else's code without also making those GPL as well?!
Sighs, it has been said by four people by now, me included: you retain
all the rights to your code!
mike4ty4 writes:
I take original code O and combine it with MORE original code P. Then do
I have to distribute O+P under GPL as well even though it contains _no_
code of 3rd party origin? You seem to say yes but everyone else seems to
have said no.
He is also saying no.
Really, just read the
mike4ty4 writes:
But one can still make a decent amount of money? (notice to me, decent
does *not* mean Bill Gates super-wealth)
Most programmers spend their time writing custom code that never leaves
their organization so the whole issue is irrelevant to them.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seems to be a substantial profit for the buyer here: they get
a program for nothing.
I was talking about a profit for seller
You were pretending to answer David Kastrup's very reasonable comment:
Well, that
But GPL software due to the nature of the license requires the code
be released and that's what I mean by open-source.
Again, please stop confusing the Free Software movement with the Open
Source movement. They are two different movements, with two different
goals; and we do not wish to be
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Nonsense. He can be _held_ to the terms of the license if he does
so. You would not need to sue for compliance if acceptance
happened automatically.
Section 5:
| Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any
|
Boy oh boy we love to pick on semantics! I should have said the
evil motive _behind_ the GPL.
There is no evil motive behind the GNU GPL. It keeps users like you,
me and John free to run, use, modify and distribute programs. It
keeps users free to do what they have a right to do. That is
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Boy oh boy we love to pick on semantics! I should have said the
evil motive _behind_ the GPL.
There is no evil motive behind the GNU GPL. It keeps users like you,
me and John free to run, use, modify and distribute programs. It
keeps users
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
You do not give up any rights by distributing under the GPL.
You need to contact IBM's legal counsel and set them straight before
they further embarrass themselves, uncle Hasler.
Wallace (to the Appellate Judges):
IBM et al. state [IBM Brief at 15, ¶1] The
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
Sure, why not. RedHat makes a couple millions a year.
RedHat doesn't sell software, idiot. RedHat's CEO is on record
explaining that. See also their SEC fillings, retard.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
You do not give up any rights by distributing under the GPL.
You need to contact IBM's legal counsel and set them straight before
they further embarrass themselves, uncle Hasler.
Wallace (to the Appellate Judges):
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
Sure, why not. RedHat makes a couple millions a year.
RedHat doesn't sell software, idiot. RedHat's CEO is on record
explaining that. See also their SEC fillings, retard.
Well, the last filing is at
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Well, the last filing is at
URL:http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060710/rhat10-q.html, and lo-and-behold,
See Full Filing, not summary, retard. Quotes from latest 10-Q:
The quotes don't change that the software subscriptions are
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Well, the last filing is at
URL:http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060710/rhat10-q.html, and lo-and-behold,
See Full Filing, not summary, retard. Quotes from latest 10-Q:
The quotes don't change
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Well, the last filing is at
URL:http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060710/rhat10-q.html, and lo-and-behold,
See Full Filing, not summary, retard. Quotes
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Not at all, since they don't prohibit copying software, but rather
refuse servicing such copies.
Uh, lazy retard dak. Quoting Red Hat's Subscription Agreement:
quote
The term Installed Systems means the number of Systems on which
Customer installs or executes the
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
have no vendor lockin on their customers, and indeed, this is the one
thing one hasn't when dealing with GPLed software.
You're being incredibly stupid. The lockin is done using certification
schemes with partners.
Oracle (Red Hat's large investor), for example,
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Microsoft would not sell software, they only sell the delivery in form
of CDs you are allowed to install.
You can buy copies online. The point is that you don't have to enter
into any services contracts with
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Well, you can also get whitebox Linux or something like that (don't
remember the name right now) which is basically the RedHat enterprise
software without the service.
http://www.centos.org freeware. Major pain in Red Hat's ass.
Sponsored by SUN. :-)
Well, you can also get whitebox Linux or something like that...
White Box Linux and Centos.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
But GPL software due to the nature of the license requires the code
be released and that's what I mean by open-source.
Again, please stop confusing the Free Software movement with the Open
Source movement. They are two different movements, with two different
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
Well, you can also get whitebox Linux or something like that...
[Red Hat's free-riders]
White Box Linux and Centos.
WBL is not well supported. Centos has more friends (Sun Microsystems
and OpenSolaris Project). At some
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Boy oh boy we love to pick on semantics! I should have said the
evil motive _behind_ the GPL.
There is no evil motive behind the GNU GPL. It keeps users like you,
me and John free to run, use, modify and distribute programs. It
keeps users free to do what they
Boy oh boy we love to pick on semantics! I should have said
the evil motive _behind_ the GPL.
There is no evil motive behind the GNU GPL. It keeps users like
you, me and John free to run, use, modify and distribute
programs. It keeps users free to do what they have
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
So then I guess I _can_ do the following? Yay!:
1. Make non-GPL program.
2. Combine a little bit of someone else's GPL program.
3. Release the _combined work_ under GPL.
4. Take a bit of my _original work_
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Not at all. He can still _fully_ assert his copyright on those parts.
That means he can demand that recipients _obey_ his license terms
Hey stupid dak, _obey_ his license terms is a contract claim, not
copyright infringement. And assert his copyright means suing
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The GPL creates its own software pool
of intellectual property price fixed below the cost of its creation.
Well, that is what is called civilization and culture. Not having to
reinvent
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Not at all. He can still _fully_ assert his copyright on those parts.
That means he can demand that recipients _obey_ his license terms
Hey stupid dak, _obey_ his license terms is a contract claim, not
copyright
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
Man oh man. Profit = buyer's cost to obtain - seller's cost to create.
The marginal cost of creating a copy of a piece of software is close
enough to zero as makes no difference. And it is a _copy_ that the
seller buys.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I know. And it's that last sentence -- that you don't have all the
rights to the combined work, that ticks me off. It means I have to
GNU the original part as well as the GNU part as long as the two
form one big program. And that I fail to understand! Why does it
David Kastrup wrote:
[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
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[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.
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:52:31 +0200 (CEST), Alfred M. Szmidt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes. Hence my conclusion that the statement in the GPL has no
value. Either I accept the GPL, in which case it's a truism (which
has no value), or I do not accept the GPL, in which case my
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 license. Yet I can only sue you for non-performance
and demand the
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
The GPL is very clear.
Only to GNUtian retards like uncle Hasler.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
That does NOT make sense, he seems to be implying that linking together
GNU libraries is forbidden! Even if everything used in the project is
all GNU and the end product is released as GNU! Is this right?! This is
awful.
The fellow is currently so busy
Basically our discussion comes down to:
You can't do that!
I just did!
You forgot: See you in court..
This is about *legally can* versus *factually can*. I am physically
able to distribute works without accepting their license. It is an
infringement of the applicable copyright,
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:54:46 +0200 (CEST), Alfred M. Szmidt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The not paying $1 per copy is not part of the authorized act. The
contract establishes two acts: 1) One party authorizes the other
party to copy 2) The other party accepts the obligation to pay for
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:00:32 +0200 (CEST), Alfred M. Szmidt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Factually, one can commit murder. Legally one cannot.
My point exactly. Glad we finally agree.
If I distribute illegally, I am not bound by the license. See you in
federal court for copyright infringement. I
Factually, one can commit murder. Legally one cannot.
My point exactly. Glad we finally agree.
We don't.
If I distribute illegally, I am not bound by the license. See you
in federal court for copyright infringement. I won't have to see
you in state court where you try to compel
The not paying $1 per copy is not part of the authorized
act. The contract establishes two acts: 1) One party
authorizes the other party to copy 2) The other party accepts
the obligation to pay for each copy
Of course the not paying $1 per copy is part of the
On 5 Sep 2006 00:24:19 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If your code was working before including GPLed code, the old code
will still continue to work. So the amount of non-GPLed code will
not decrease. If your code was not working
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
This is about *legally can* versus *factually can*. I am physically able
to distribute works without accepting their license. It is an
infringement of the applicable copyright, sure.
Not necessarily. There is a whole bunch of exception to exclusive
rights such
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
The situation under copyright law is that you _can not_ use someone
else's work.
Not true.
The various open source licenses give you the right to do
so while maintaining a number of conditions. Imagine that instead of
the GPL, the author had
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
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
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
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.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
Factually, one can commit murder. Legally one cannot.
Sure one can. Murder is both a legal and a moral term, that are not always
coincident. It may be legal to kill, but still murder in the moral sense.
In the legal sense, Murder is the crime of causing the
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
What you are basically saying is: If I commit murder, then I am not
bound by the law.
Man oh man, you're krank. What he says is that it's not the copyright
law that binds to the conditions of the GPL, it's a contract.
And, BTW, unless you're James Bond, the
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Sure me any GPL'd work of Knuth. Did he finally copylefted TAOCP?
Show, I mean. It's time to call you a retard, Eeckels. That's a fact.
He walks along Fitzgibbon street with an independent air
And then it's down by
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a) Nobody is capable of committing anything which would by the legal
profession be classified as murder.
b) One cannot commit murder while staying within the bounds of acts
that are explicitly permitted by law.
The same thing applies to
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I recommend you use Google Groups on Alfred Szmidt and GNU or GPL,
pick out a few discussions, and then consider whether you think
yourself smarter than all the people that finally went into is
too/is not or stopped bothering completely.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
from a fellow GNU hacker.
Nowadays, hacking is no different than unlawful cracking in the sense
that it is a criminal offense and a really bad thing. That's what it
means to most people outside the GNU Republic.
regards,
alexander.
1 - 100 of 225 matches
Mail list logo
