Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
writes:
Using them would place their employer or the commercial organization
to which they belong under the obligation of publishing all of the
source code for any released product that included your library. As a
result,
Nicolas Neuss lastn...@kit.edu writes:
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
writes:
Using them would place their employer or the commercial organization
to which they belong under the obligation of publishing all of the
source code for any released product
p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:
In-house use would be outside of the scope of the GPL, since no
distribution would occur.
This means that in-house distribution to employees would not count as
distribution in the GPL sense. OK, this might indeed be the most
reasonable
Nicolas Neuss lastn...@kit.edu writes:
p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:
In-house use would be outside of the scope of the GPL, since no
distribution would occur.
This means that in-house distribution to employees would not count as
distribution in the GPL sense. OK,
On 2010-03-21 11:22:57 -0400, John Hasler said:
They are not required to publish it. They are merely required to
distribute it along with the binaries. If you offer source to everyone
to whom you sell binaries you are done.
In practice this amounts to publication. Every customer would
On 2010-03-21 15:29:44 -0400, John Hasler said:
They might, but there are cases where they did not.
One can't rely on this unlikely possibility, which becomes increasingly
unlikely the more sales are made.
The point is that
_you_ are not required to publish anything.
It hardly matters
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
writes:
On 2010-03-21 15:29:44 -0400, John Hasler said:
Of course, if the possibility that someone might pass the software on
worries you, the solution is simple: don't link to GPL works.
Which is why many developers
In article 878w9k1k8l@thumper.dhh.gt.org,
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote:
Ralph writes:
I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic
means of ensuring maximal adoption.
You assume that everyone has maximum adoption as their primary goal.
Indeed, if
In article ho7v0o$rf...@news.eternal-september.org,
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
wrote:
On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:
Sure.
And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me?
Not only am I not
On 2010-03-22 10:52:58 -0400, John Hasler said:
You assume that everyone has maximum adoption as their primary goal.
I assume that the author's goal is maximizing the amount of open source
- and in fact, it is Pascal's stated goal - that others who use his
library will open their source
RG rnospa...@flownet.com writes:
In article ho7v0o$rf...@news.eternal-september.org,
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
wrote:
On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:
Sure.
And the question remains why you should imposes your
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
It does not get you anything additional, but it gets you something
_less_: a proprietary product that uses your own code to draw your
user base away from you.
This is quite understandable - I would not really like seeing Microsoft
use my code.
However, when
On 2010-03-22 16:51:46 -0400, John Hasler said:
I guess this is why Linux has been totally eclipsed by BSD.
1. Linux isn't a *library*, it's an operating system. A GPL operating
system doesn't force GPL licensing for any application that runs on it.
A GPL library *does* force GPL licensing
On 2010-03-22 20:28:25 -0400, John Hasler said:
No it isn't.
The Open Group which does the official UNIX certification would beg to differ:
http://www.opengroup.org/public/prods/brand3581.htm
http://www.opengroup.org/homepage-items/c399.html
It's a heavily modified Mach single-server
In article 871vfbzrb8@thumper.dhh.gt.org, jhas...@newsguy.com says...
The Berkeley license as well as _some_ other Open Source licenses permit
them to keep some of their changes secret. This is the very reason some
programmers use the GPL.
While I respect Pascal's decision to use
On 2010-03-22 22:48:27 -0400, John Hasler said:
Purchasing a certificate granting the right to label one's product UNIX
does not make it a BSD.
Being a derivative of 4.4 BSD makes it a BSD; Being certified by the
Open Group makes it a UNIX. Mac OS X is a BSD UNIX.
The market reality...
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
writes:
In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in
terms of getting code open sourced. Users who need to keep their
source closed either won't use it, or will use in in a way that allows
them not
On 2010-03-23 04:53:04 -0400, Lieven Marchand said:
As far as I can tell, GPL CLISP would allow you to distribute your
commercial applications compiled and dumped with it.
My understanding is that if your published application (commercial or
otherwise) uses facilities of CLISP not generally
On 2010-03-23 09:11:03 -0400, Hyman Rosen said:
It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for normal
definitions of is.
Mac OS X *is* descended from 4.4 BSD for normal definitions of is.
Mac OS X *is* a UNIX by the only legal definition of UNIX and for
normal definitions of is.
On Mar 23, 9:11 am, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
On 3/22/2010 8:01 PM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
2. Mac OS X is BSD Unix. It has existed for half the time that linux
has, and has more than 5 times the web client share of linux, so yes,
BSD is on its way to eclipsing linux as a
On Mar 21, 10:14 pm, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
writes:
[...]
Which is why many developers choose to avoid this possibility and use
LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/Apache licensed libraries instead. And now
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
writes:
Mac OS X *is* descended from 4.4 BSD for normal definitions of is.
Not really. Darwin may be, but all the graphical folderol running on it
is rather descended (or written
On 2010-03-23 09:41:02 -0400, Hyman Rosen said:
Since much of the discussion in this newsgroup
focuses on license features and requirements, saying that Mac OS X
is BSD needlessly confuses that issue.
Saying that Mac OS X is BSD is:
1. true
2. a counterexample to the claim that linux is
On 2010-03-24 15:23:28 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:
Actually, MacOSX is just NeXTSTEP, and is older than Linux, so it's not
surprizing it has more web clients than Linux. After all, NeXTSTEP was
the system where the web was INVENTED, and where the first web browser
was ever IMPLEMENTED!
In gnu.misc.discuss Raffael Cavallaro
raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote:
On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:
My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements
regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many
On 2010-03-25 06:06:09 -0400, Andrew Haley said:
There's nothing ironic about it. The FSF seeks to maximize freedom,
so licenses code whichever way works best. Libraries sometimes have
different needs from applications.
Which is why I suggest that Pascal's lisp libraries would be more
On 2010-03-25 09:51:04 -0400, Hyman Rosen said:
The FSF does not believe that the GPL is a poor fit for
libraries.
The release of the Library GPL is an implicit recognition of the fact
that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries. Renaming it to the Lesser GPL
isn't likely to convince anyone
In comp.lang.lisp Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
On 3/25/2010 10:05 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
Licenses covering a work as a whole are hard to press
when the material they cover is functionally a drop-in
replacement of existing non-free libraries. That makes
mere aggregation a really
On 2010-03-25 09:59:52 -0400, Tamas K Papp said:
I disagree -- I don't think that the FSF considers the GPL a poor
fit for libraries. Quite the opposite (see [1]). They just
recognized that in certain situations, some people would prefer
something like the LGPL, and I guess that they wanted
In comp.lang.lisp Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/29/2010 3:07 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
fix(f) != f
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
On 3/22/2010 8:01 PM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
2. Mac OS X is BSD Unix. It has existed for half the time that linux
has, and has more than 5 times the web client share of linux, so yes,
BSD is on its way to eclipsing linux as a client OS.
It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for
On 3/23/2010 9:33 AM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
The license under which Apple releases its open source doesn't change
Mac OS X's BSD heritage, and it doesn't invalidate Mac OS X's UNIX
certification.
However, the license under which Apple releases its OS components
does affect how those
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
writes:
On 2010-03-23 09:11:03 -0400, Hyman Rosen said:
It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for normal
definitions of is.
Mac OS X *is* descended from 4.4 BSD for normal definitions of is.
Not really.
David Kastrup wrote:
Raffael Cavallaro
raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes:
On 2010-03-23 09:11:03 -0400, Hyman Rosen said:
It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for normal
definitions of is.
That depends on what the definition of 'is' is. --- William
On 3/23/2010 11:40 AM, RJack wrote:
On 2010-03-23 09:11:03 -0400, Hyman Rosen said:
It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for normal
definitions of is.
That depends on what the definition of 'is' is. --- William Jefferson
Clinton, 42nd President of the United States.
Well, duh.
In gnu.misc.discuss Thomas A. Russ t...@sevak.isi.edu wrote:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
writes:
Mac OS X *is* descended from 4.4 BSD for normal definitions of is.
Not really. Darwin may be, but all the graphical
Raffael Cavallaro writes:
They are not required to publish it. They are merely required to
distribute it along with the binaries. If you offer source to everyone
to whom you sell binaries you are done.
In practice this amounts to publication. Every customer would receive
the source; every
Ralph writes:
The Open Group which does the official UNIX certification would beg to
differ:
Purchasing a certificate granting the right to label one's product UNIX
does not make it a BSD.
The market reality...
...is irrelevant to many of us.
...is that many programmers work on projects
On 3/25/2010 9:44 AM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
It's ironic because the FSF is the creator of the GPL,
and even they recognized that the GPL was a poor fit
for libraries which is why they created the Library
(now Lesser) GPL.
The FSF does not believe that the GPL is a poor fit for
libraries.
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 3/25/2010 9:44 AM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
It's ironic because the FSF is the creator of the GPL,
and even they recognized that the GPL was a poor fit
for libraries which is why they created the Library
(now Lesser) GPL.
The FSF does not believe
On 3/25/2010 10:05 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
Licenses covering a work as a whole are hard to press
when the material they cover is functionally a drop-in
replacement of existing non-free libraries. That makes
mere aggregation a really good defense.
This is completely wrong. The GPL applies
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 3/25/2010 10:05 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
Licenses covering a work as a whole are hard to press
when the material they cover is functionally a drop-in
replacement of existing non-free libraries. That makes
mere aggregation a really good defense.
This
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Similarly, mere aggregation is irrelevant to libraries which
are statically linked into programs. Such a combined work is
not a mere aggregation of the library and the other components.
Static linking is mere aggregation of (sub)programs with relocation
and symbol
On 3/25/2010 11:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Static linking is mere aggregation of (sub)programs with relocation
and symbol resolution done earlier than in the case of dynamic linking.
No, static linking results in a combined work since the
elements are chosen with intention and by design,
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 3/25/2010 11:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Static linking is mere aggregation of (sub)programs with relocation
and symbol resolution done earlier than in the case of dynamic linking.
No, static linking results in a combined work since the
elements
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
writes:
On 2010-03-25 09:51:04 -0400, Hyman Rosen said:
The FSF does not believe that the GPL is a poor fit for
libraries.
The release of the Library GPL is an implicit recognition of the fact
that the GPL is a poor fit
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/25/2010 11:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Static linking is mere aggregation of (sub)programs with relocation
and symbol resolution done earlier than in the case of dynamic linking.
No, static linking results in a combined work since the
elements are chosen
Peter Keller wrote:
[...]
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html
What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal
question, which ultimately judges will decide.
To wit:
http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/MootFacts.pdf
(Moot Court Statements
On 3/25/2010 11:30 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
It would appear that you are not familiar with the realities of dynamic
linking on UNIX-like operating systems. Dynamically linked libraries
(we are not talking about Windows DLLs here) are carefully versioned and
tend to become incompatible with
On 3/25/2010 11:50 AM, Peter Keller wrote:
It is that permit linking proprietary applications phrase which is the rub.
It doesn't mention static or dynamic, so one must assume both.
No. It does not matter what the GPL or the LGPL says unless
there is a reason that the license should apply.
Ralph writes:
Mac OS X is BSD Unix.
No it isn't. It's a heavily modified Mach single-server kernel with a
partial BSD userland. And Apple contributes little or nothing back.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
On 3/25/2010 12:00 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
An anthology is mere aggregation of literary works.
...
Think of shipping a pile of e-books in own file. That's what static
linking is as far as copyright is concerned because relocation and
symbol resolution are irrelevant details regarding
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/25/2010 12:33 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Wow. Hyman, I agree with you 100% with the caveat that static
linking doesn't change anything. It's mere aggregation
Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant, since even when
your conclusions are correct you
On 3/25/2010 12:50 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Why do you think that assembled doesn't fall under mere aggregation?
Why do you think that collection and assembling doesn't fall under
mere aggregation?
Do you think that leaving out the portion of the law
which shows you are wrong is
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 3/25/2010 11:30 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
It would appear that you are not familiar with the realities of dynamic
linking on UNIX-like operating systems. Dynamically linked libraries
(we are not talking about Windows DLLs here) are carefully versioned
Raffael Cavallaro writes:
Using them would place their employer or the commercial organization
to which they belong under the obligation of publishing all of the
source code for any released product that included your library.
They are not required to publish it. They are merely required to
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/25/2010 12:51 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Sez who?
17 USC 101
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101
A collective work is a work, such as a periodical issue,
anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions,
On 3/25/2010 12:51 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
If the program can't be compiled (and successfully prelinked) without
inclusion of the corresponding library headers, it is somewhat strange
to argue that the creation of the binaries is an act independent from
the library, just because the _binaries_
On 3/25/2010 12:59 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman, please stop ignoring the facts.
And in fact, mere aggregation means exactly what the FSF wants
it to mean, not more and not less, because mere aggregation is
not a term defined by copyright law but a term defined by a license,
and as such
Ralph writes:
I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic
means of ensuring maximal adoption.
You assume that everyone has maximum adoption as their primary goal.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the
rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate
work after the original work has been created!
Well, actually, let me take this part back.
Raffael Cavallaro writes:
Possibly counterintuitively, the goal of maximizing open source is
actually better accomplished by *not* choosing the GPL.
I guess this is why Linux has been totally eclipsed by BSD.
Instead, these potential users will become users of some other library
which is
On 3/25/2010 2:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Clear to whom?
Clear to those who are not eager to deliberately misinterpret
the GPL for their own purposes.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the
rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate
work after the original work has been created!
Well, actually, let me take this part back.
What
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/25/2010 2:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Clear to whom?
Clear to those who are not eager to deliberately misinterpret
the GPL for their own purposes.
Hyman, the FSF is on record:
http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf
In fact, the GPL itself rejects any
On 3/25/2010 2:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosenhyro...@mail.com writes:
On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the
rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate
work after the original work has been created!
Well,
On 3/25/2010 2:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
derivative work != collective work (aka compilation aka mere
aggregation in GNU-speak)
Got it now?
No, of course not. Daniel Wallace and you are both people who
deliberately choose to misinterpret the GPL for your own purposes.
Naturally, courts
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/25/2010 2:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
derivative work != collective work (aka compilation aka mere
aggregation in GNU-speak)
Got it now?
No, of course not. Daniel Wallace and you are both people who
deliberately choose to misinterpret the GPL for your
On 3/25/2010 3:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
The author of this seems not to realize that there is no
right to copy and distribute works as part of a collective
work without the authorization of the rights holders of
the components. Given that
Nicolas Neuss lastn...@kit.edu writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
It does not get you anything additional, but it gets you something
_less_: a proprietary product that uses your own code to draw your
user base away from you.
This is quite understandable - I would not really like
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/25/2010 3:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
The author of this seems not to realize that there is no
right to copy and distribute works as part of a collective
work without the authorization of the rights holders of
the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
There is no difficulty within copyright law for a rights
holder to say that you may make and distribute standalone
copies provided you meet condition one, and you may make
and distribute copies of a collective work incorporating
the covered work provided you meet
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/25/2010 3:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
The author of this seems not to realize that there is no
right to copy and distribute works as part of a collective
work without the authorization of the rights holders of
the
On 3/25/2010 3:47 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Let the author
http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm
know about his error piles upon error.
I'm insufficiently motivated to bug someone about some mistake
he made years ago. If he shows up here, I'll change my mind.
By the way,
On 3/25/2010 4:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
There is no difficulty within copyright law for a
rightshttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZS
holder to say that you may make and distribute standalone
copies provided you meet condition one, and you may make
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com
writes:
On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:
Sure.
And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me?
My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements
regarding
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Certainly the owner of a collective or derivative work gets
to exercise the right to control those works, and the owner
of each contribution gets to exercise the right to control
his or her contribution. (17 U.S.C. § 103[b].)
so he's
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZS
You're a bit confused as usual, Hyman.
http://www.ivanhoffman.com/tasini.html
The United States Supreme Court ruled that print publishers such as
newspapers and magazines may not use material in online databases to
which
On 3/25/2010 5:15 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It also means that as far as copyright law is concerned,
compilation copyright can be licensed as its owner sees fit.
Got it now?
There is nothing to get. The creator of the compilation owns
the copyright to the arrangement of the works, but
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 3/25/2010 2:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosenhyro...@mail.com writes:
On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the
rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate
work after the
Pascal Bourguignon writes:
And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me?
Explain.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/25/2010 5:15 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It also means that as far as copyright law is concerned,
compilation copyright can be licensed as its owner sees fit.
Got it now?
There is nothing to get. The creator of the compilation owns
the copyright to the
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is
Dak, please stop ignoring the facts:
It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB
contract.
http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
The GPL grants
David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 3/25/2010 2:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosenhyro...@mail.com writes:
On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the
rights to a work to change by the creation of a
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is
Dak, please stop ignoring the facts:
It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB
contract.
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is
Dak, please stop ignoring the facts:
It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB
contract.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is
Dak, please stop ignoring the facts:
It's established by several courts in
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is
Dak, please stop ignoring the facts:
It's
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is
Dak,
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You did not understand a word of what you were replying to, again. The
whole point was that in the case of a _license_, as opposed to a
contract, any such stipulation of a _penalty_ is _invalid_, and _only_
sustained damages can actually be claimed.
Uh silly dak.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You did not understand a word of what you were replying to, again. The
whole point was that in the case of a _license_, as opposed to a
contract, any such stipulation of a _penalty_ is _invalid_, and _only_
sustained
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But until such a reasoning appears in the _ruling_ but just in one of a
count of charges . . .
Uh silly dak.
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf
Nature of Suit: 190
On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html
The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law.
http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html
The Software is a collective work of Novell
Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html The Software is a
collective work under U.S. Copyright Law.
http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html The Software is
a collective work of Novell
Note that Red Hat's
Forgot one bit.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html
The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law.
http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html
The
On 3/29/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective
works aka compilations. How come that now it's called a unified
program? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL
and/or copyright law?
The unified program is
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/29/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective
works aka compilations. How come that now it's called a unified
program? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL
and/or copyright law?
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/29/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective
works aka compilations. How come that now it's called a unified
program? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL
and/or copyright
On 3/29/2010 11:04 AM, RJack wrote:
The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301
The GPL is a copyright license which authorizes certain actions
based on the exclusive rights given to copyright holders by
federal copyright law. The federal preemption of state copyright
equivalence provisions is
On 3/29/2010 10:11 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
IOW, it's mere aggegation just like in the GPLv2
Yes, the mere aggregation part is mere aggregation, just as the
combined program part is the combined program part. The GPL grants
permission for covered works to be copied and distributed as part
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
