Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > difficult than complying with the GPL, but then I'm not a crank. You're a crank Hyman, moronic GPL aside for a moment. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped a

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/8/2010 5:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: X may well enter into agreements with B regarding W without permission of A. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/ownership.html "One of the authors can use the entire work as they please without seeking permission from the other joint author(s). Howeve

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > > Your A authorship in W (as in W=A+B authorship) doesn't entitle you to > > demand knowledge of (existence of) agreement(s) between X and B > > regarding W. > > Of course it does, since X has no right to enter into agreements > with B regarding W without permission of

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/8/2010 4:49 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Existence of another author precludes the claim absent the joint claim of infringement Says who? Your A authorship in W (as in W=A+B authorship) doesn't entitle you to demand knowledge of (existence of) agreement(s) between X and B regarding W.

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > > If he can demonstrate that he is "an" author of the > work, he may continue with his infringement claims. Existence of another author precludes the claim absent the joint claim of infringement you retard. Your A authorship in W (as in W=A+B authorship) doesn't entit

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/8/2010 4:24 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: But he is certainly not "the author of the work" As I said, I have not studied the history of BusyBox so I am in no position to gauge the accuracy of this claim. If the defendants choose to dispute this claim, then the plaintiffs will need to prove

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/8/2010 3:58 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > [...] > >> Erik Anderson registered copyright in BusyBox because > >> he is an author of some of it, and needed to register > > > > "Some of it" being what, in contrast to "the author of the work" >

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/8/2010 3:58 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] Erik Anderson registered copyright in BusyBox because he is an author of some of it, and needed to register "Some of it" being what, in contrast to "the author of the work" By having written some parts of BusyBox, he has

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Erik Anderson registered copyright in BusyBox because > he is an author of some of it, and needed to register "Some of it" being what, in contrast to "the author of the work", you retard Hyman? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursiv

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/8/2010 3:26 PM, RJack wrote: Just a post ago, according to you, Erik Andersen was the > author of a compilation or collective work. No. Failure to read, again. I did not say that. Now a post later, he is the author of "some of it". Yes. If he's claiming infringement of busybox-0.60.3

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 2:44 PM, RJack wrote: So now you are claiming that eight years later in (Dec. 2009) that 14 companies are distributing a *specific* arrangement (compilation) of source code that Erik Andersen himself personally "arranged" as an original work in 2001? No. I see th

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/8/2010 2:44 PM, RJack wrote: So now you are claiming that eight years later in (Dec. 2009) that 14 companies are distributing a *specific* arrangement (compilation) of source code that Erik Andersen himself personally "arranged" as an original work in 2001? No. I see that failure to read i

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 1:40 PM, RJack wrote: Just ask Bruce Perens and about twenty other BusyBox developers Registration of copyright is for the author's contribution to a work, or for the result of compiling the contributions of others into a single work. It does not necessarily clai

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/8/2010 1:40 PM, RJack wrote: Just ask Bruce Perens and about twenty other BusyBox developers Registration of copyright is for the author's contribution to a work, or for the result of compiling the contributions of others into a single work. It does not necessarily claim ownership of the e

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

John Hasler wrote: Hyman Rosen writes: Lawsuits are not graded on style points, they are judged by outcomes. But there have been no lawsuits, just out of court settlements in favor of the plaintiffs. As to registration, look at this: among others. Wh

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

RJack writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 2/8/2010 11:37 AM, RJack wrote: >>> Read the Complaint Hyman. Just read the Complaint. It's a matter of >>> public record. I'll kiss your ass on the public square if it >>> mentions any registered copyrights. >> >> And yet, despite all your claims as to t

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 11:37 AM, RJack wrote: Read the Complaint Hyman. Just read the Complaint. It's a matter of public record. I'll kiss your ass on the public square if it mentions any registered copyrights. And yet, despite all your claims as to the inadequacy of the complaints, i

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen writes: > Lawsuits are not graded on style points, they are judged by outcomes. But there have been no lawsuits, just out of court settlements in favor of the plaintiffs. As to registration, look at this: among others. While you clearly need eit

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/8/2010 11:37 AM, RJack wrote: Read the Complaint Hyman. Just read the Complaint. It's a matter of public record. I'll kiss your ass on the public square if it mentions any registered copyrights. And yet, despite all your claims as to the inadequacy of the complaints, in every single case f

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 11:12 AM, RJack wrote: The plaintiffs didn't "settle" their case "with" Verizion -- they VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED WITH PREDJUDICE to stop Verizon's attorney from kicking the SFLC's pathetic ass all over the courtroom floor. That is not true. While, as external obse

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/8/2010 11:12 AM, RJack wrote: The plaintiffs didn't "settle" their case "with" Verizion -- they VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED WITH PREDJUDICE to stop Verizon's attorney from kicking the SFLC's pathetic ass all over the courtroom floor. That is not true. While, as external observers, we are not pri

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/5/2010 3:51 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Did you check with the FSF/SFLC whether "manual is available on paper in the box" covers online distribution of GPL'd binaries ala http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp The online distribution of GPLed firmware

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/5/2010 3:51 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Did you check with the FSF/SFLC whether "manual is available on paper in the box" covers online distribution of GPL'd binaries ala http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is accompa

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/5/2010 2:50 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> That link, >> is irrelevant It is a Verizon-branded and Verizon-copyrighted manual which is shipped to users along with the Actiontec FiOS router. It apprises users of their rights under the GPL. It is relevant. _

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/5/2010 2:50 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: That link,

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Oh, and aside from your deliberately incorrect reading of words like "verbatim" and "mere aggregation", you are also misreading the GPL: You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it... A statically linked ex

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Oh, and aside from your deliberately incorrect reading of words like "verbatim" and "mere aggregation", you are also misreading the GPL: You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it... A statically linked ex

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/3/2010 3:39 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > The FSF gets to decide when to sue somebody over an assumed breach of > their copyright. And so far, the only cases have been over clear violations where GPLed code was distributed without the source being distributed along with it. > The GPL is a lice

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/3/2010 3:39 AM, David Kastrup wrote: The FSF gets to decide when to sue somebody over an assumed breach of their copyright. And so far, the only cases have been over clear violations where GPLed code was distributed without the source being distributed along with it. The GPL is a license

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/3/2010 3:39 AM, David Kastrup wrote: The FSF gets to decide when to sue somebody over an assumed breach of their copyright. And so far, the only cases have been over clear violations where GPLed code was distributed without the source being distributed along with it. The GPL is a license

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/3/2010 3:39 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > The FSF gets to decide when to sue somebody over an assumed breach of > their copyright. And so far, the only cases have been over clear violations where GPLed code was distributed without the source being distributed along with it. > The GPL is a lice

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/2/2010 6:39 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Your last week's post here... Yes, and that's why I don't have a devoted fan following either. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-dis

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/2/2010 10:55 AM, David Kastrup wrote: If you think that copyright law gives you a free ride for stuff that works only after linking, it is clear that you have to base your case on something other than the GPL's wording: you will have to show yourself that the GPL cannot cover the resulting c

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/1/2010 3:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > It's still A+B=C you silly. The status under copyright of a "program" > work being separate and independent work from a "library" work is > independent from technical nature of linking (early vs. late binding). You are wrong. In book terms, it is t

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/1/2010 3:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: It's still A+B=C you silly. The status under copyright of a "program" work being separate and independent work from a "library" work is independent from technical nature of linking (early vs. late binding). You are wrong. In book terms, it is the d

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/1/2010 3:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > It's still A+B=C you silly. The status under copyright of a "program" > work being separate and independent work from a "library" work is > independent from technical nature of linking (early vs. late binding). You are wrong. In book terms, it is t

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/1/2010 3:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > It's still A+B=C you silly. The status under copyright of a "program" > work being separate and independent work from a "library" work is > independent from technical nature of linking (early vs. late binding). You are wrong. In book terms, it is t

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/1/2010 3:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > It's still A+B=C you silly. The status under copyright of a "program" > work being separate and independent work from a "library" work is > independent from technical nature of linking (early vs. late binding). You are wrong. In book terms, it is t

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/1/2010 3:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: It's still A+B=C you silly. The status under copyright of a "program" work being separate and independent work from a "library" work is independent from technical nature of linking (early vs. late binding). You are wrong. In book terms, it is the d

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/1/2010 3:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: It's still A+B=C you silly. The status under copyright of a "program" work being separate and independent work from a "library" work is independent from technical nature of linking (early vs. late binding). You are wrong. In book terms, it is the d

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/1/2010 3:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > It's still A+B=C you silly. The status under copyright of a "program" > work being separate and independent work from a "library" work is > independent from technical nature of linking (early vs. late binding). You are wrong. In book terms, it is t

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/1/2010 3:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: It's still A+B=C you silly. The status under copyright of a "program" work being separate and independent work from a "library" work is independent from technical nature of linking (early vs. late binding). You are wrong. In book terms, it is the d

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/5/2010 3:42 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman, that manual is not available from > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp > > It is available on paper in the box with the router. Did you check with the FSF/SFLC whether "manual is available on

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/5/2010 3:42 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, that manual is not available from http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp It is available on paper in the box with the router. Since the web link above is for people upgrading their firmware, they have already been apprised of

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/5/2010 2:50 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >> That link, > >> > is irrelevant > > It is a Verizon-branded and Verizon-copyrighted manual which Hyman, that manual is not available from http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/ac

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/5/2010 2:50 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> That link, >> is irrelevant It is a Verizon-branded and Verizon-copyrighted manual which is shipped to users along with the Actiontec FiOS router. It apprises users of their rights under the GPL. It is relevant. _

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/5/2010 1:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> > actiontec.com isn't verizon.net. > > That link, >

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/5/2010 1:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> actiontec.com isn't verizon.net. That link, is for the printed manual sent with Actiontec routers,

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/5/2010 1:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> > actiontec.com isn't verizon.net. > > That link, >

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/5/2010 1:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: is for the printed manual sent with Actiontec routers, so

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/5/2010 12:58 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://www.hammer-storage.com/support/software_updates.asp > > appears to provide (some) GPL'd source code and clearly does mention the > > GPL. > > whereas > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp > > doe

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/5/2010 12:58 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.hammer-storage.com/support/software_updates.asp appears to provide (some) GPL'd source code and clearly does mention the GPL. whereas http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp does neither This download site is for upgrades

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/5/2010 12:31 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > The page above doesn't mention any agreement with Verizon > > ("the two sides settled") > > Not being privy to negotiations between the parties, > I can only judge by results. Those results demonstrate Uh retard Hyman.

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/5/2010 12:31 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The page above doesn't mention any agreement with Verizon > ("the two sides settled") Not being privy to negotiations between the parties, I can only judge by results. Those results demonstrate that Verizon is in compliance with the GPL. Since thi

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/5/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > The two sides settled? Sez who? > > AFAIK Verizon is unaware of any settlement with the plaintiffs. > > Given that the extent of your knowledge can be measured > in a scant few Å, "AFAIK" isn't saying much. There's a > co

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/5/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The two sides settled? Sez who? AFAIK Verizon is unaware of any settlement with the plaintiffs. Given that the extent of your knowledge can be measured in a scant few Å, "AFAIK" isn't saying much. There's a comment on the settlement here:

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/5/2010 11:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Follow the link below and witness how it is perfectly fine (the case was > > dismissed with prejudice against plaintiffs) to copy the GPL'd stuff in > > binary form even without providing access to any source code whatsoev

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/5/2010 11:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Follow the link below and witness how it is perfectly fine (the case was dismissed with prejudice against plaintiffs) to copy the GPL'd stuff in binary form even without providing access to any source code whatsoever: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/5/2010 11:27 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > The GPL doesn't allow verbatim/unmodified copying in binary form? > > Of course not. You really need to take medical help Hyman. Follow the link below and witness how it is perfectly fine (the case was dismissed with p

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Sonny! Uncle Hasler has spoken! John Hasler wrote: > > Hyman Rosen writes: > > Remember, the undoubtedly intoxicated judge would likely not see the > > wisdom of your approach. > > So when _is_ Mr. Terekhov going to put his money with his mouth is and > launch a large-scale exploitation of his i

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/5/2010 11:27 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The GPL doesn't allow verbatim/unmodified copying in binary form? Of course not. The GPL acts to insure that people who get GPLed code have the freedom to run, read, modify, and share it. If you want to convey binary copies of GPLed code, you must

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/4/2010 6:56 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > It's not a modification of a literary work (aka book) > > So what? Anyway, the GPL speaks about verbatim copies of the > source of a program. A statically linked executable is not > the verbatim copy of the source of a pro

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen writes: > Remember, the undoubtedly intoxicated judge would likely not see the > wisdom of your approach. So when _is_ Mr. Terekhov going to put his money with his mouth is and launch a large-scale exploitation of his interpretation of the legal status of the GPL? I suggest he target

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 6:56 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: It's not a modification of a literary work (aka book) So what? Anyway, the GPL speaks about verbatim copies of the source of a program. A statically linked executable is not the verbatim copy of the source of a program. It is. You will have to

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/4/2010 6:24 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Neither paperback nor hardcover is a modified version of a book > > To modify something means to change it. A changed > shape is a modification. It's not a modification of a literary work (aka book) YOU MORON. > > > The

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 6:24 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Neither paperback nor hardcover is a modified version of a book To modify something means to change it. A changed shape is a modification. The work is the same but markets are different. Hardcover-vs-paperpack is a "specific field of endeavor"/sc

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > this is exactly the distinction between hardcover and > paperback rights, and those are routinely sold separately. Neither paperback nor hardcover is a modified version of a book YOU MORON. The work is the same but markets are different. Hardcover-vs-paperpack is a "sp

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 6:00 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > text in ASCII mechanically translated to EBCDIC is not a 'modified' text as far as > copyright True. > and licensing False. is concerned Licensing is completely controlled by the rights owner. If the rights owner wants to allow publication

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > It is nevertheless the case that linkers produce modified > versions of the components they link, for the normal English > usage of the word "modified". Go to doctor Hyman. You need a medical practitioner explaining to you that, for example, text in ASCII mechanically t

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 5:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The executable contains the same work/expression (which is the only subject of copyright) as aggregation of corresponding components in the source code form such as an aggregate tar file of sources or somesuch. True, for the meaning of "same work"

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > modifying internal references within them. In no > way is the result a verbatim copy of the source code > of its components. The executable contains the same work/expression (which is the only subject of copyright) as aggregation of corresponding components in the sourc

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 4:58 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: A statically linked 'executable' is NOT a book with a page ripped out A statically linked executable is a collective work comprising its components, constructed by a program called a linker which combines the components into a single file by extrac

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/4/2010 4:35 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Resolving symbolic links (by a linker program) to something less > > expressive (but more effecient) doesn't create a modified/derivative > > work > > You say "modified/derivative" as if the two words are > synonyms, but t

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 4:35 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Resolving symbolic links (by a linker program) to something less expressive (but more effecient) doesn't create a modified/derivative work You say "modified/derivative" as if the two words are synonyms, but they are not. A copy of library altered b

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/4/2010 4:01 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >>> Hyman Rosen wrote: > >>> [...] > It is false that permission to copy and distribute source > verbatim as part of a collection applies to a statically > linked executable. > >>> > >>> Sez who? > >> > >> The

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 4:01 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] It is false that permission to copy and distribute source verbatim as part of a collection applies to a statically linked executable. Sez who? The English language. Please quote what you mean. A statically linked exe

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/4/2010 3:21 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > [...] > >> It is false that permission to copy and distribute source > >> verbatim as part of a collection applies to a statically > >> linked executable. > > > > Sez who? > > The English languag

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 3:21 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] It is false that permission to copy and distribute source verbatim as part of a collection applies to a statically linked executable. Sez who? The English language. Lewis Carroll already knew about people like you, whom

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > It is false that permission to copy and distribute source > verbatim as part of a collection applies to a statically > linked executable. Sez who? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since i

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 2:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: I'm talking about "copy and distribute" of compilations (collective works) as a whole, including components, which means unmodified copying of the components you retard. A "statically linked" aggregate is a compilation (collective work) or uncopyrigh

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/4/2010 2:09 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > [...] > >> If you are choosing to copy and distribute GPLed > >> work unmodified, other sections of the various versions of > >> the GPL tell you what to do. > > > > Yes Hyman, copying unmodified such

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 2:09 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] If you are choosing to copy and distribute GPLed work unmodified, other sections of the various versions of the GPL tell you what to do. Yes Hyman, copying unmodified such as copying for compilations (collective works) hav

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > If you are choosing to copy and distribute GPLed > work unmodified, other sections of the various versions of > the GPL tell you what to do. Yes Hyman, copying unmodified such as copying for compilations (collective works) have nothing to do with "These requirements

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 1:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Given that a compilation (collective work) is NOT a modified/derivative work, the requirements you referred to "These requirements apply to the modified work . . ." do NOT apply to a non-modified/derivative work such a compilation (collective wo

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > > A compilation (collective work) is NOT a modified/derivative work > > So what? Really. Given that a compilation (collective work) is NOT a modified/derivative work, the requirements you referred to "These requirements apply to the modified work . . ." do NOT

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 12:54 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: you moron Your continued failure to compose a coherent paragraph of English that states your point and offers evidence for it makes this sentiment reflect on you, not me. > A compilation (collective work) is NOT a modified/derivative work So wha

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/4/2010 12:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > You misread the modify clauses of the GPL > > v2: Section 2 "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or > > any portion of it . . ." > > v3: Section 5 "Conveying Modified Source Versions . . ." >

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 12:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: You misread the modify clauses of the GPL v2: Section 2 "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it . . ." v3: Section 5 "Conveying Modified Source Versions . . ." focusing on its "mere aggregation" and "c

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/4/2010 12:16 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Are you seriously suggestion that offering the GPL'd binaries for > > downloading > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp > > without even slight mentioning of the GPL and NOT providing access to > > the

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/4/2010 11:28 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > That permission is given by non-modify clauses regarding copying > > verbatim you silly. > > Of course it is not. Your deliberate misreading of You misread the modify clauses of the GPL v2: Section 2 "You may modify

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 12:16 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Are you seriously suggestion that offering the GPL'd binaries for downloading http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp without even slight mentioning of the GPL and NOT providing access to the source code from the same place is okay pro

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/4/2010 11:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp Are you seriously suggestion that offering the GPL'd binaries for downloading http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp without even slight mentioning o

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 11:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Is the following copying http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp with or without license, dak? With, of course:

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

David Kastrup wrote: > > Hyman Rosen writes: > > > On 2/3/2010 6:36 PM, RJack wrote: > >> The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER allow this to happen > > > > In every single case filed by the SFLC, the defendants > > have come into proper compliance with the GPL. > > And not because the court cases would

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 11:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 11:29 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: In every single case filed by the SFLC, the defendants have come into proper compliance with the GPL. You're lying. Then perhaps you might care to point out a case where a defendant has not come into compliance with the GPL?

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

On 2/4/2010 11:28 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: That permission is given by non-modify clauses regarding copying verbatim you silly. Of course it is not. Your deliberate misreading of the GPL carries no weight except with cranks. ___ gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen writes: > On 2/3/2010 6:36 PM, RJack wrote: >> The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER allow this to happen > > In every single case filed by the SFLC, the defendants > have come into proper compliance with the GPL. And not because the court cases would have been about the GPL, but because the ha

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/4/2010 5:44 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > How come that SFLC moved the court to dismiss the case almost > > immediately after the answer to the complaint was filed? > > Because, as always, the defendants complied with the GPL: >

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/3/2010 6:36 PM, RJack wrote: > > The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER allow this to happen > > In every single case filed by the SFLC, the defendants > have come into proper compliance with the GPL. You're lying. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is

  1   2   3   >