On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:50:43 -0500, Rjack wrote:
RonB wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:01:08 +, Rahul Dhesi wrote:
And Microsoft doesn't seem
to be laughing at Google, which runs the world's largest cluster of
Linux machines.
Yeah. On imaginary GPL'd code no one has ever laid eyes on.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Relatively few companies are interested in becoming martyrs to try to
destroy the GPL. The JMRI case is about the closest that I can think of
in that respect.
There is also the case against D-Link in Germany. D-Link agreed to come
into compliance with the GPL, but refused
Pete Chown wrote:
It doesn't really matter whether the GPL is a licence or a unilateral
contract -- or whether they are actually the same thing. You are still
caught: you can't claim the right to distribute copies under the GPL
without also accepting the obligations.
In America, do you
amicus_curious wrote:
Where would anyone be? Makers of motion pictures, music, book,
paintings, and any other creative work would be without means to derive
some income from their creativity. The vanity fair condition of OSS is
just a distraction.
A few months ago, XenSource was bought by
Pete Chown wrote:
In America, do you have the account of profits remedy for infringement?
We've also got the concept of statutory infringement, imposing
standard penalties without the need to demonstrate actual harm.
This is sensible, because it is just as illegal to copy unpopular
works as it
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some are thieves, like GPL licensors, who for the political goal of
destroying capitalism, try to steal other peoples' rights with an
illegal licensing scheme.
Aren't you the guy that quoted the Seventh Circuit as if it's a
fact-finding court?
It's not surprising
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some are thieves, like GPL licensors, who for the political goal of
destroying capitalism, try to steal other peoples' rights with an
illegal licensing scheme.
Aren't you the guy that quoted the Seventh Circuit as if it's a
fact-finding
Rjack wrote:
[...]
Perhaps they would also enjoy Eben Moglen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgCKRN_Bzzs
sounds like a perfect cure for capitalism.
Yeah, this one is also really good one
http://www.archive.org/details/EbenMoglenLectureEdinburghJune2007StreamingVideo384kbits
LOL.
Never
Rahul Dhesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think you are completely confused about what you want to say.
Sometimes you advocate the MIT license. Other times you seem to advocate
no license at all, i.e., public domain works. And yet, the web sites
you mention do
amicus_curious wrote:
There is nothing really worth stealing.
A great deal of code is licensed under the GPL. I'm sure
that somewhere in there is something that would be useful
to someone who is writing a non-free program.
But be that as it may, and regardless of the quality of
the code
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
amicus_curious wrote:
It is hard to understand just what you are getting at here.
There are people who claim that distributing GPLed code without
following the GPL's requirements is not copyright infringement.
(Some allow
amicus_curious wrote:
Second, I am saying that the GPL has no utility because it is
trying to protect against something that is not important.
The freedom for users to be able to run, read, change, and share
programs is important to the FSF, and the GPL was created to
further those goals.
amicus_curious wrote:
I see what you are saying now and I do agree that industry generally
seems to avoid GPL issues due to their perceived viral nature.
Right. That very avoidance is evidence that industry believes
that the GPL is a valid license, with enforceable restrictions.
I think that
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
amicus_curious wrote:
There is nothing really worth stealing.
A great deal of code is licensed under the GPL. I'm sure
that somewhere in there is something that would be useful
to someone who is writing a non-free
Rjack wrote:
believe me, if it was worth the effort it would be done.
Since such work is by nature secret, you cannot know that
it is not being done. But you are quite wrong that using
automated procedures to modify code immunizes use of that
code from copyright infringement.
The sole value
amicus_curious wrote:
Can you conceive of any instance of that?
I dunno. Maybe some code generation stuff from the
inside of GCC to implement some JIT compilation?
Maybe some of the GIMP's image manipulation code?
Maybe some video codecs?
Perhaps, but there is never likely to be any need for
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
The concept of statutory infringement exists so that authors will
not have to prove actual harm.
This is from a practicing IP lawyer (not to mention the Fourth Circuit
and... the Supreme Court):
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15580
--
From:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Yet, as the various GPL enforcement actions demonstrate,
On one hand you seem to believe that industry generally acts as if the
GPL works as intended and on the other hand you keep bringing up the
GPL enforcement cases that just show that a lot of companies utterly
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Now what say you, Hyman?
I say that you're once again conflating patents and copyrights.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On one hand you seem to believe that industry generally acts as if the
GPL works as intended and on the other hand you keep bringing up the
GPL enforcement cases that just show that a lot of companies utterly
ignore the GPL.
The recording industry generally acts as if
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On one hand you seem to believe that industry generally acts as if the
GPL works as intended and on the other hand you keep bringing up the
GPL enforcement cases that just show that a lot of companies utterly
ignore the GPL.
The recording industry generally acts as if
chrisv wrote:
Do you realize that this amicus curious rat
It is not generally useful to post ad hominem attacks.
Regardless of the personal attributes of posters, it is
far more useful to readers of these discussions if issues
are discussed, not personalities.
I must confess that an
Hyman Rosen wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
That's fine, because the FSF is opposed to (or at least orthogonal
to) the fundamental principles of OSS. In fact, those principles
didn't even exist when the GPL was created.
Didn't exist my ass.
Hymen you need to explain to the group why you are
chrisv wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
There is nothing really worth stealing.
A great deal of code is licensed under the GPL. I'm sure
that somewhere in there is something that would be useful
to someone who is writing a non-free program.
But be that as it may, and
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Now what say you, Hyman?
I say that you're once again conflating patents and copyrights.
Hyman, Hyman. In eBay, the Supreme Court was not persuaded by the
Federal Circuit's reasoning that statutory right to exclude alone
justifies its general
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On one hand you seem to believe that industry generally acts as if the
GPL works as intended and on the other hand you keep bringing up the
GPL enforcement cases that just show that a lot of companies utterly
ignore the GPL.
The
Rjack wrote:
Didn't exist my ass.
Open source existed. The principles of open source as I
understand them were articulated in The Cathedral and the
Bazaar, and that came much later. I'm prepared to believe
that I'm wrong, though, if you show me earlier statements
of what you consider to be
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Are those works available to the general public to copy
Of what relevance is that? I simply pointed out that the
presence of even widespread violation is no indication
that the rules being violated are invalid.
___
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rjack wrote:
believe me, if it was worth the effort it would be done.
Since such work is by nature secret, you cannot know that
it is not being done. But you are quite wrong that using
automated procedures to modify code
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I believe Microsoft is quite nonplussed that their penetration
into server markets has been blunted by free OS alternatives.
That seems to be a frail reed indeed. Microsoft has gone from zero server
market share (at the
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
amicus_curious wrote:
Can you conceive of any instance of that?
I dunno. Maybe some code generation stuff from the
inside of GCC to implement some JIT compilation?
Maybe some of the GIMP's image manipulation code?
Maybe
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Are those works available to the general public to copy
Of what relevance is that? I simply pointed out that the
presence of even widespread violation is no indication
that the rules being violated are invalid.
Would you agree that violation
Hyman Rosen wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
That seems to be a frail reed indeed.
Whatever. Let's say that GPLed code is a completely useless
pile of drivel. Now can we get those silly companies to stop
distributing it in violation of its license?
You can't.
Didn't exist my ass.
Open source existed. The principles of open source as I understand
them were articulated in The Cathedral and the Bazaar, and that
came much later. I'm prepared to believe that I'm wrong, though, if
you show me earlier statements of what you consider to be
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Didn't exist my ass.
Open source existed. The principles of open source as I
understand them were articulated in The Cathedral and the
Bazaar, and that came much later. I'm prepared to believe
that I'm wrong, though, if you show me earlier statements
of what
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
By all means, people who do not wish to honor the license should
be encouraged to avoid using the software.
LOL.
I thought that THAT is called slavery in the brave GNU world. No,
Hyman?
If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs,
by the
Rjack wrote:
The license speaks for itself. Try reading it sometime.
Which license?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
amicus_curious wrote:
That seems to be a frail reed indeed.
Whatever. Let's say that GPLed code is a completely useless
pile of drivel. Now can we get those silly companies to stop
distributing it in violation of its
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
amicus_curious wrote:
Has anyone ever tried to do that? I cannot find any such case.
Well, they're either obeying the license and then the whole
project is under the GPL, or they're stealing and therefore
keeping it
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs,
by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use
of these programs.
-- Richard M. Stallman
What say you now, Hyman?
I'm not Richard Stallman? I don't believe it's (too)
amicus_curious wrote:
Having agreed that the GPLed code is a completely useless pile of
drivel, there should be no need to bother with such enforcement.
You would be making much ado over nothing and that is senseless.
No more senseless than the company that decided to ship it.
Since they
amicus_curious wrote:
Of late, the only resistance offered was by Verizon who were freely
given a dismissal with predjudice which, in effect, is a license to
distribute the busy box code without bothering with the source
distribution although I am sure they don't care to do so anyway.
The
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
the same thing that the GPL preamble says, that they're using
the law against itself ...
Yeah. The next step is to pretend to use a law meant to, say, prevent
child pornography against itself and procalim that the law is now being
used to force child pornography via a
BTW, the copyright law doesn't prevent sharing. It gives authors a
right to charge more than zero for sharing. The GPL seeks to
evaporate that right and impose licensing at no charge.
Clearly it does, since without a license you are not allowed to share.
It is up to the authors, not
That's fine, because the FSF is opposed to (or at least
orthogonal to) the fundamental principles of OSS. In fact, those
principles didn't even exist when the GPL was created.
Didn't exist my ass.
Hymen you need to explain to the group why you are entitled to make
up your
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some are thieves, like GPL licensors, who for the political goal of
destroying capitalism, try to steal other peoples' rights with an
illegal licensing scheme.
Aren't you the guy that quoted the Seventh
amicus_curious [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I believe Microsoft is quite nonplussed that their penetration
into server markets has been blunted by free OS alternatives.
That seems to be a frail reed indeed. Microsoft has
amicus_curious [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think that you have a correct understanding of ad hominem
here. If I said that your arguments were nonsense because you are an
uneducated fool and in the pay of the FSF, that would be ad hominem.
If I say that Richard Stallman is a fat, unkempt
amicus_curious [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I see what you are saying now and I do agree that industry generally seems
to avoid GPL issues due to their perceived viral nature. I work for a very
large software company and their specific policy is that no OSS code is
allowed in our products unless
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why steal a Linux kernel when a superior BSD licensed kernel
exists? The sole value of GPL'd code is the benefit it bestows
upon IBM and a few major Linux distributors in deterring competition
from small companies -- while Microsoft laughs its ass off
Almost
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
BTW, the copyright law doesn't prevent sharing. It gives authors a right
to charge more than zero for sharing. The GPL seeks to evaporate that
right and impose licensing at no charge.
What say you now, Hyman?
I'd say that's substantially correct, except that the GPL
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
BTW, the copyright law doesn't prevent sharing. It gives authors a
right to charge more than zero for sharing. The GPL seeks to
evaporate that right and impose licensing at no charge.
What say you now, Hyman?
I'd say that's
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
When somebody fails to state a case, that hardly can be considered a
Dak, dak, dak.
--
[... reduction in IP output under GPL price-dumping conspiracy ...]
This may be considered anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can be
inferred from what Mr. Wallace
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
amicus_curious [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I believe Microsoft is quite nonplussed that their penetration
into server markets has been blunted by free
...Microsoft has gone from zero
server market share (at the advent of NT) to about 40% in terms of the
dollar value of new servers sold annually using Windows server OS and
about 50% in numerical units shipped
These fake statistics ignore OS installations occurring after the
hardware has
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
[...]
source is free. RedHat charges for its RedHat Network, through which it
Yeah. Red Hat.
http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/partners/subscription_center/RedHat_Subscription_Center_Guide_na.pdf
-
Red Hat Subscription Agreement
Subscription agreements are the cornerstone
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Yeah. Red Hat.
Another company which makes its living from free software
is AdaCore, who have been in business for fourteen years
developing and selling Ada compilers. All of their software
is under the GPL. (The compilers are GCC-based.)
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don't let Rjack sidetrack you. He revealed his ignorance of the legal
system when he quoted the seventh circuit as if it were a fact-finding
court. It's not. Only the lower courts do any fact-finding.
Sorry Rahul but you're showing your ignorance on your shirt
RonB wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:01:08 +, Rahul Dhesi wrote:
And Microsoft doesn't seem
to be laughing at Google, which runs the world's largest cluster of
Linux machines.
Yeah. On imaginary GPL'd code no one has ever laid eyes on.
Perhaps you can point us to the source code that
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah. On imaginary GPL'd code no one has ever laid eyes on.
Perhaps you can point us to the source code that Google is
running the world's largest cluster of Linux machines on.
Might be a Mach derivative for all you know.
So might you, Rjack, since we have no
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
And even then, their factual determinations bind only the poeple
involved in the lawsuit, and nobody else.
Rjack seems to think that everything that a court of appeal says must be
objectively true.
Does that apply to Jacobsen v. Katzer and the CAFC ruling?
Sincerely,
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah. On imaginary GPL'd code no one has ever laid eyes on.
Perhaps you can point us to the source code that Google is
running the world's largest cluster of Linux machines on.
Might be a Mach derivative for all you know.
So might you,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
There is nothing really worth stealing.
A great deal of code is licensed under the GPL. I'm sure
that somewhere in there is something that would be useful
to someone who is writing a non-free program.
But be that as it may, and regardless of the
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:01:08 +, Rahul Dhesi wrote:
And Microsoft doesn't seem
to be laughing at Google, which runs the world's largest cluster of
Linux machines.
Good point.
--
RonB
There's a story there...somewhere
___
gnu-misc-discuss
rat (amicus_curious) wrote:
Second, I am saying that the GPL has no utility because it is
trying to protect against something that is not important.
LOL
You POS.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I *do* know of five plaintiff suits filed by the SFLC for copyright
infringement under the GPL that have been defeated. I know that you
want to count running scared voluntary dismissals as victories but
reasonable people know better.
A so-called defeat would
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I *do* know of five plaintiff suits filed by the SFLC for copyright
infringement under the GPL that have been defeated. I know that you
want to count running scared voluntary dismissals as victories but
reasonable people
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
amicus_curious wrote:
Well, it seems to me that someone is being sued and the way out is to
publish the source for the GPL project that they used internally.
They are not being sued for code being used internally.
They
amicus_curious [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find the many web sites that publish descriptive how-to projects as
sample code to be much more useful than GPL stuff. These authors seem only
interested in educating those who read their articles and rarely demand any
sort of quid pro quo.
amicus_curious wrote:
The test would be where an infringing vendor is ordered by the
court to disclose the changes made to the GPL source and not
offered voluntarily.
I don't believe this can happen. Someone infringing on the
license can be ordered to stop infringing, and to pay statutory
Rahul Dhesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
amicus_curious [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find the many web sites that publish descriptive how-to projects as
sample code to be much more useful than GPL stuff. These authors seem
only
interested in educating those who
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
amicus_curious wrote:
The test would be where an infringing vendor is ordered by the
court to disclose the changes made to the GPL source and not
offered voluntarily.
I don't believe this can happen. Someone infringing
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Different people have different goals. People who do not share
the goals enforced by the GPL ought not to distribute their work
using it. But they should expect that people who do share the
goals of the GPL will ignore their work.
I think we should not
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Since the law is not set up this way, the GPL was invented in the
hope that so large a body of free software would be built up
that it would put creators of non-free programs at a
disadvantage.
Hymen this is probably the truest thing you have ever written.
Kudos!! Filthy,
amicus_curious wrote:
The test would be where an infringing vendor is ordered by the court to
either disclose the changes made to the GPL source or cease distributing
the program entirely. I would also be interested in any case where the
infringer was ordered to pay statutory damages.
Rjack wrote:
Filthy, filthy capitalism banished!
GPLed source code is the product of both voluntary and
paid contributors. If vendors of non-free software find
it difficult to compete with free software, too bad for
them. Capitalism and the free market do not guarantee
success or rewards.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The JMRI appeal's publicity of an enforceable artistic
license doesn't seem to have dampened your enthusiasm or
changed any of your rhetoric.
Why would it dampen *anything* ??? The CAFC has no binding
authority to overrule the district court judge:
Accordingly, we deem
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Argue all you like. But I don't see anyone continuing
to distribute GPLed software without the sources having
been made available.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision
might help.
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a
amicus_curious [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
Since you were defending the MIT license and criticizing the GPL
license, let me ask you this:
These how-to web sites, including Microsoft's alleged gigabytes of
tutorials -- do they use the MIT license, thus allowing you to freely
republish
Rjack wrote:
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
*plonk*
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
So amicus_curious, do you wish to benefit from the work of others and
give nothing back in return?
Of course he does. He's an immoral rat. Ideally, he'd not only do
the above, but he'd then twist things around so as to screw-over the
people who actually did the work.
This
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
amicus_curious wrote:
I would agree that providing source code itself is enough to enable a
user to do all of that regardless of the fact that changes are so
unlikely to ever occur. The GPL only adds a provision to
Rjack wrote:
So why do folks *start off* with the assumption that legal gibberish
like the GPL is enforceable?
Because the U.S. constitution grants authors exclusive rights
to their work. As the JMRI appeals court agreed, it's reasonable
for that to include limiting the right to copy in ways
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rjack wrote:
So why do folks *start off* with the assumption that legal gibberish like
the GPL is enforceable?
Because the U.S. constitution grants authors exclusive rights
to their work. As the JMRI appeals court agreed,
amicus_curious wrote:
What is still way
up in the air is the matter of compensation due to the infringed party.
If that becomes a trivial outcome, there may as well be no protection at
all. In order to show value, the author will have to show that a market
exists for the infringed material.
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
amicus_curious wrote:
What is still way up in the air is the matter of compensation due to the
infringed party. If that becomes a trivial outcome, there may as well be
no protection at all. In order to show value, the
amicus_curious wrote:
So Jacobsen could get $750 and maybe court
costs for his trouble and that would be it.
That's not it; Jacobsen would be enjoined from further
copying and distribution unless he obeyed the license.
That's the point, not collecting money.
Nothing here says that Kratzer
Rjack wrote:
However, implicit in a nonexclusive license
Yawn. Go ahead and bang that drum as loudly as you want.
So far the only time a court tried to use that to prevent
enforcement of an open source license, it got overturned.
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The burden is on you ...
The burden is on you to demonstrate that the burden is not on you.
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The burden is on you ...
The burden is on you to demonstrate that the burden is not on you.
The burden is on you to demonstrate the burden is on me to
demonstrate that the burden is not on me.
After takin' a swig o' grog, 7 belched out this bit o' wisdom:
asstroturfing fraudster Rjack
The Court in Wallace v. IBM, demonstrated it's superior grasp of the
software market. It called Linux an imperfect substitute for a
proprietary operating system.
Your world is a series of
amicus_curious wrote
you only copyright the expression of the idea and not the idea itself. If
the idea cannot be protected by patent, anyone is free to clone the idea.
Patents do not protect the idea either---nothing does. Patents protect HOW
you achieve the idea, nothing more--your way and
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
amicus_curious wrote:
My belief is that the GPL is totally unnecessary because what it
seeks to prevent isn't a viable outcome to beging with.
It seeks to prevent a software user from being unable to run,
read, change,
Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Rjack
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if you must repeatedly spout your case law fragments, at least have
the courtesy to include a public link,
Rjack wrote:
7 wrote:
Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Rjack
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if you must repeatedly spout your case law fragments, at least have
the courtesy to
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
7 wrote:
Fool! Just what substances are you abusing?
Apparently about 200,000,000 of your synapses.
He. He.
Well, better he just gives them back to 7 since he's gibbering.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
--
The XP could sink Microsoft thread his an absolute gem.
Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Rjack
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
7 wrote:
Go study Linux. Great lectures available in google video and
www.youtube.com While there search for terms like Ubuntu, Compiz
and Beryl to see how superior
amicus_curious wrote:
I would agree that providing source code itself is enough to enable a
user to do all of that regardless of the fact that changes are so
unlikely to ever occur. The GPL only adds a provision to enforce this
on someone who might be unwilling to do so with some improvement
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Assume I have the source code for the Linux 2.6 kernel. Suppose I
want to use just a piece of it. How small a piece does it have to be
before I'm no longer violating the GPL?
What my question is really; At what point does the
amicus_curious wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Assume I have the source code for the Linux 2.6 kernel.
Suppose I want to use just a piece of it. How small a piece
does it have to be before I'm no longer violating the GPL?
So do you want to steal this
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
