Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions.
Your choice. In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the
first place.
Ah, but note that in my
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
If you are distributing your copies
What gave you the right to make copies?
GPL. For example, suppose I run a small business. I have 20 computers.
I want to install some GPL software on them Monday.
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
If you are distributing your copies
What gave you the right to make copies?
GPL. For example, suppose I run a small business. I have 20 computers.
I want to
Tim Smith wrote:
The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the
owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and
sell them, without the need of copyright permission?
Because you agreed not to sell them without source when you accepted the
GPL
John Hasler wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the
owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and
sell them, without the need of copyright permission?
Because you agreed not to sell them without source
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the
owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and
sell them, without the need of copyright permission?
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the
owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and
sell them, without the need of
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am
clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage
of
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Agreement is precedent to making copies.
No. The act of making copies (other than by downloading from online
distributor without I agree manifestation of assent prior to getting
copies, fair use, etc.) makes me
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Agreement is precedent to making copies.
^
No. The act of making copies (other than by downloading from online
distributor without I agree manifestation of assent prior to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the
owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and
sell them, without the need of copyright permission?
Because you
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly
the
owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and
sell them, without the need of
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions.
Your choice. In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the
first place.
Ah, but note that in my hypothetical, when I made the copies, I
Tim Smith wrote:
When I'm done watching, can I sell the recording?
The copy was lawfully made. I own the copy.
Seems like first sale says I can.
You won't be able to. The Supreme Court decision which
affirmed the legality of time-shifting refers to earlier
similar laws about audio
Hyman writes:
Authors can give up some exclusive rights.
Yes, copyright owners can give up some rights: the one in your example has
done so.
In the scenario I propose, the author has completely honored the GPL -
with every copy he sells, he includes the source, and has no further
obligation.
John Hasler wrote:
Yes, copyright owners can give up some rights:
the one in your example has done so.
He has not.
He has also sold his right to distribute source
to the buyer of the copies.
He has not.
He no longer can distribute source: he sold that right.
He did not.
The person
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
1. Acquire a lawful copy of a GPL binary. Doesn't matter how--download
it from somewhere, compile it from source, whatever.
2. Make copies of the binary. GPL says this is OK.
3. Sell or give away those
Hyman writes:
The manufacturer sells copies of software to a reseller, in full
compliance with the GPL, shipping binaries and source. He has not sold
any rights. The reseller has not bought any rights.
You wrote that the manufacturer had been paid by the reseller for agreeing
not to make
Tim Smith wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
1. Acquire a lawful copy of a GPL binary. Doesn't matter how--download
it from somewhere, compile it from source, whatever.
2. Make copies of the binary. GPL says this is OK.
Tim Smith wrote:
If you are distributing your copies
What gave you the right to make copies?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
John Hasler wrote:
That is the sale of a right by the manufacturer to the reseller.
...
He owns part of the copyright (the right to distribute source).
I do not believe that either of these statements is correct.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
and apparently his comments were simply dismissed
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments system:
With respect to propagate, it is likely a tautology because of the
defintion of propagate covering only things that require permission
under applicable copyright law. But for
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
You don't need to become the owner.
It is enough if you become _responsible_.
Enough for what? I just don't understand what you're
saying. Remember, the GPL is just a copyright license.
It has no notion of responsibility.
But the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The courts should simply not enforce invalid contracts. LAW 101. To
date, the courts did NOT enforce the GPL. And violations flourish.
What a strange notion! The courts vigorously enforce copyright
on songs and movies. And violations
David Kastrup wrote:
But the courts have.
What the courts have done is to uphold first sale,
despite the vehement objections of the software
developers who argued that EULAs disallowed it.
This was recently decided in Softman v. Adobe.
See http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5628.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
What does that have to do with the GPL Hyman?
You seemed to claim that violations of the GPL
flourish because courts have not enforced it.
I pointed out that violations of copyright in
songs and movies flourish even though courts do
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I see you have [...]
What I've done is I've applied Richard Feynman's simple rule about theories:
if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.
You proposed a controversial, completely unproven idea of copyright law that
would have
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And I pointed out that at least in Germany of late violations of
copyright in songs and movies by sharers are on decline without any
court enforcement.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Or go to court and lose even more.
Umm, right.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is controversial or unproven about 17 USC sec. 301 of the Copyright
Act?
Exactly. It exists, and no one in a position to act is claiming that it
makes the GPL invalid or not work like FSF claims it works.
The SFLC is in a
rjack wrote:
all they have to to do is refrain from voluntarily dismissing
one of their silly lawsuits and let a judge review their claims
on the merits.
Judges are not in the business of reviewing claims.
If the parties to a dispute have agreed on a settlement
then there is no case to
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
After each of these voluntary dismissals, the source code
for the GPLed product is available from the distributor.
That's verifiably not true.
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
That's verifiably not true.
It's certainly verifiable. Go to each SFLC filing, find
the website of the company they sued, and see if there
is a place from which to obtain sources (substituting
ActionTec for Verizon, before you say anything).
I don't have a burning
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... substituting ...]
a = pi*r^2
let's substitute pi with c
a = c*r^2
now
e = m*c^2
let's subsitute c for m and r for c
e = c*r^2
it follows
a = e
it follows
pi = c
it follows
3.14159 = 299792458
Hyman science.
regards,
alexander.
--
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... substituting ...]
3.14159 = 299792458
Hyman science.
For most of 2007, Actiontec FIOS routers were being shipped
with GPLed software and without complying with the GPL.
After the lawsuit ended, Actiontec FIOS routers are being
shipped with
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... substituting ...]
3.14159 = 299792458
Hyman science.
For most of 2007, Actiontec FIOS routers were being shipped
Verizon's FiOS router firmware download page says (in BOLD red text):
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It occurs to me that in the U.S. there is a relatively easy
way to circumvent the requirement of giving away source code
for GPLed software.
Not just the US. Pretty much every place with copyright law has an
equivalent
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the
point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you
unable to do copies yourself?
That way Company A gets to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In order to be a first sale under the intent of the law. First sale
clearly contemplates a transaction such as walking into a bookstore,
grabbing a book, plunking down $20, and walking out. You propose a
A sale is not
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Company A prepares a work derived from GPL-licensed code.
Company B purchases copies of this work from Company A.
For each copy purchased, Company A sends Company B two disks,
one with the binaries and one with the sources.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Now imagine that Actiontec ships Verizon's FiOS router
boxes to Verizon and only Verizon (fully fulfilling the GPL obligations
by providing the source code to its customer Verizon)... not end users.
Who is supposed to provide the source code to you?
No one. This is
Tim Smith wrote:
[... first sale ...]
I'm glad to see people are finally taking some interest in this area.
I've been expecting it to show up since at least as far back as 2005:
2005?
http://groups.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Here's the ruling)
2004!
:-)
regards,
alexander.
--
http://warmcat.com/_wp/2008/05/23/exhaustion-and-the-gpl/
-
Exhaustion and the GPL
Some years ago I came across a guy Alexander Terekhov who worked then
for IBM and had outspoken views about the viability of the GPL.
If I understood it, his opinion was that the license terms of the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://warmcat.com/_wp/2008/05/23/exhaustion-and-the-gpl/
-
Exhaustion and the GPL
That reminds me of a question my professor asked us in copyright law
class when I was in law school, when we were discussing the
Tim Smith wrote:
(I believe I read somewhere...Larry Rosen's book, perhaps...that many
jurisdictions do not recognize bare licenses, and GPL *would* be seen as a
contract on those jurisdictions. Maybe that provides a saving throw--if
someone tries to blatantly circumvent by making copies
Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source
CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that company B
contract with company A to do this? If so company A is company B's agent
and the GPL is violated, not circumvented.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hyman Rosen wrote:
It occurs to me that in the U.S. there is a relatively easy
way to circumvent the requirement of giving away source code
for GPLed software.
You assume the GPL is enforceable and then scheme to circumvent it, but the
license is preempted by 17 USC sec 301. You can't
John Hasler wrote:
Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source
CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that company B
contract with company A to do this? If so company A is company B's agent
and the GPL is violated, not circumvented.
I don't see
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It occurs to me that in the U.S. there is a relatively easy
way to circumvent the requirement of giving away source code
for GPLed software.
Company A prepares a work derived from GPL-licensed code.
Company B purchases copies of this work from Company
John Hasler wrote:
Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source
CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that company B
contract with company A to do this? If so company A is company B's agent
and the GPL is violated, not circumvented.
An agent
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the
source CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that
company B contract with company A to do this? If so company A is
company B's agent and the GPL is
David Kastrup wrote:
Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the
point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you
unable to do copies yourself?
That way Company A gets to have its cake and eat it to.
It leverages available GPLed software so that
David Kastrup wrote:
You mean if I pay somebody to drop a brick from a window
when I signal him, I am not accountable for murder?
If I hire a company to develop a program for me, that
company is not me. I pay money, I provide a specification,
they deliver the software to me, and that's that.
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
You mean if I pay somebody to drop a brick from a window
when I signal him, I am not accountable for murder?
If I hire a company to develop a program for me, that
company is not me. I pay money, I provide a specification,
they
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the
point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you
unable to do copies yourself?
That way Company A gets to have its cake and eat it to.
I was
David Kastrup wrote:
I was asking where the point was for B.
B gets handsomely paid by A.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
David Kastrup wrote:
That's the same if I pay somebody to drop a brick when I signal him.
It's not illegal to hire a company to develop software
to your specifications, allow them to retain all rights
to that software, and just buy copies from them.
Any software vendor who accepts suggestions
David Kastrup wrote:
B gets _paid_ by A and yet receives the disks by first _sale_ rather
than acting as an agent of A? You'll have a _really_ hard time selling
that to a judge.
A gives specifications to B. B develops the software.
A buys a bunch of copies of the software from B and
resells
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
I recommend that you reread the thread and decide on who you call A and
who B. It will make it easier for the judge to figure out things.
Oops, I did mix them up. But in any case, there is
no law of copyright that says that if I
David Kastrup wrote:
I recommend that you reread the thread and decide on who you call A and
who B. It will make it easier for the judge to figure out things.
Oops, I did mix them up. But in any case, there is
no law of copyright that says that if I ask someone
to develop software, even if I
David Kastrup wrote:
You don't need to become the owner.
It is enough if you become _responsible_.
Enough for what? I just don't understand what you're
saying. Remember, the GPL is just a copyright license.
It has no notion of responsibility. It states only
whether and how covered software
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The courts should simply not enforce invalid contracts. LAW 101. To
date, the courts did NOT enforce the GPL. And violations flourish.
What a strange notion! The courts vigorously enforce copyright
on songs and movies. And violations flourish.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]the license is preempted by 17 USC sec 301.[...]
And since invalidating the GPL would be worth billions to some companies, how
do you explain that your discovery (and that of Alexander Terekhov) are
ignored by everyone in a
John Hasler wrote:
It also means that B is free to sell or give the software, source
and all, to anyone, including A's customers.
But A and B can enter into an arrangement where B will
agree not to do this, perhaps with A paying B for this.
___
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I see you have [...]
What I've done is I've applied Richard Feynman's simple rule about theories:
if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.
You proposed a controversial, completely unproven idea of copyright law that
would have certain consequences. I
John Hasler wrote:
The sale is then no longer an arms-length transaction.
A US Federal judge will see right through the subterfuge
and tell A that it is a distributor.
Why does it have to be arms-length? Where is the subterfuge?
A software developer is perfectly free to enter an arrangement
I wrote:
The sale is then no longer an arms-length transaction. A US Federal
judge will see right through the subterfuge and tell A that it is a
distributor.
Hyman writes:
Why does it have to be arms-length?
In order to be a first sale under the intent of the law. First sale
clearly
The copyright holder(s) can always relicense a work under whatever
license they want. One doesn't circumventing anything by doing so.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Nick Kew writes:
The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari. Which is
in turn based on khtml/konqueror.
First I've heard that. Are you sure you don't mean that it uses QT?
Which is KDE, which is GPL.
khtml is LGPL.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nick Kew wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/30/nokia_goes_open_source/
Nokia is to open its browser engine under a BSD license.
The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari.
Which is in turn based on
You too, dak, please kindly piss off. With your idiotic communication
through non-standardized interface derivative theory, to begin with.
And read up something on software compilations (see 17 USC 101;
software is protected as literary works) vs software derivatives
(modified protected
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You too, dak, please kindly piss off.
Why should a GNU maintainer not discuss miscellaneous things on
gnu.misc.discuss? Just because you are a spoilt brat craving
undivided attention for your wild theories (isn't he adorable when he
mimics a
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nick Kew wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/30/nokia_goes_open_source/
Nokia is to open its browser engine under a BSD license.
The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari.
Which is in turn based on
Unruh wrote:
[...]
And exactly how does the AFC (I assume you mean Abstraction, Filtration,
Comparison test)
Yes.
apply here?
It used to determine if there is copyright infringement in alleged
derivative computer program work.
GNUish/SCOish based on derivative
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unruh wrote:
[...]
And exactly how does the AFC (I assume you mean Abstraction, Filtration,
Comparison test)
Yes.
apply here?
It used to determine if there is copyright infringement in alleged
derivative computer program work.
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unruh wrote:
[...]
Yes, and you have made the comparison?
Am I claiming that that's a derivative of GPL software appearing
under a BSD license? You're suffering typical GNUish/SCOish syndrome.
??? The AFC test is a test to see whether or not there
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unruh wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unruh wrote:
[...]
Yes, and you have made the comparison?
Am I claiming that that's a derivative of GPL software appearing
under a BSD license? You're suffering typical
76 matches
Mail list logo
