Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will soon
reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends.
Bullshit. Linux and GPL is only growing. The BSDs are dying.
Its a shame because BSD is a GREAT system.
Or Shut up and Hack. Come to this list when PCC is good
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO writes:
BSD and PCC needs friendly people and hackers,
I don't think these trolls qualify on either count.
In the good old days we were trolled by the likes of John Dyson and Jay
Maynard: jerks, but competent hackers. Now we just get dorks.
--
John Hasler
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO vt...@c3sl.ufpr.br writes:
Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will
soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends.
Bullshit. Linux and GPL is only growing. The BSDs are dying.
Its a shame because BSD is a GREAT system.
Or
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will
soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends.
Bullshit. Linux and GPL is only growing. The BSDs are dying.
Its a shame because BSD is a GREAT system.
Or Shut up and Hack. Come
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO writes:
BSD and PCC needs friendly people and hackers, not useless whiners
pieces of shit like you.
David Kastrup writes:
That probably counts as friendly.
When I was deciding between FreeBSD and Linux John Dyson's trolling
pushed me toward Linux. However, as I was
OK I'm so fucking tired of this.
I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.
BSD is free. GPL is free.
Alexander, please stop drinking de Raadt's Kool Aid.
Or Shut up and Hack. Come to this list when PCC is good enough
to be on OpenBSD by default.
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
OK I'm so fucking tired of this.
I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.
BSD is free. GPL is free.
Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will soon
reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends.
Alexander, please stop
RJack u...@example.net writes:
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
OK I'm so fucking tired of this.
I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.
BSD is free. GPL is free.
Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will
soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
OK I'm so fucking tired of this.
I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.
BSD is free. GPL is free.
Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will
soon
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
OK I'm so fucking tired of this.
I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.
BSD is free. GPL is free.
Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will
soon reside in history's trashbin that
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
OK I'm so fucking tired of this.
I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.
BSD is free. GPL is free.
Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
OK I'm so fucking tired of this.
I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.
BSD is free. GPL is free.
Don't worry. The
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You won't find any. And that's the point.
Since it is YOU GNUtians who are crying copyright violation,
copyright violation... which is a tort and on a large scale it is even
a crime, IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE THE CLAIM YOU IDIOT.
On 5/5/2010 8:11 AM, RJack wrote:
Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* believe
the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I await with 'bated breath for
your documentation.
Sure, here you are:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510
PROGRESS
On 5/5/2010 10:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
the case was about alleged contract breach
It doesn't matter what the case was about. Your fellow crank
asked for links to US federal judges who *do not* believe
the terms of the GPL can be ignored, and I provided a link
to a US judge who shows
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 5/5/2010 8:11 AM, RJack wrote:
Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* believe
the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I await with 'bated breath for
your documentation.
Sure, here you are:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 5/5/2010 8:11 AM, RJack wrote:
Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* believe
the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I await with 'bated breath for
your documentation.
Sure, here you are:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You won't find any. And that's the point.
Since it is YOU GNUtians who are crying copyright violation,
copyright violation... which is a tort and on a large scale it is even
a crime, IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE THE CLAIM
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 5/5/2010 10:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
the case was about alleged contract breach
It doesn't matter what the case was about. Your fellow crank
The fact that Judge Saris *rejected the plea for injunction* regarding
alleged breach of the GPL while she was not
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
A(iv): Progress/NuSphere violated the GPL License and thus, their rights
under the GPL were automatically terminated.
B Primarily and permanently enjoin
(iii) Progress/Nusphere from copying, modifying, sublicensing or
distributing the MySQL program.
DENIED
David Kastrup writes:
Award compensatory and _punitive_ damages [...] (punitive damages
for contract violation of a contract without punitive terms?)
Presumably based on the noncontract claims.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored
That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank
universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge
who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be
On 5/5/2010 10:56 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
DENIED
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510
That's because the standards required for a preliminary
injunction are high. In the judge's words:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510
In any
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
If she considers a breach ...
She did NOT rule that there was a breach, you retard. She ruled quite
the opposite:
With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has
not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits or irreparable harm.
HAS
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
If she considers a breach ...
She did NOT rule that there was a breach, you retard. She ruled quite
the opposite:
With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has
not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of
Sonny! Uncle Hasler has spoken!
John Hasler wrote:
David Kastrup writes:
Award compensatory and _punitive_ damages [...] (punitive damages
for contract violation of a contract without punitive terms?)
Presumably based on the noncontract claims.
MySQL's case/claim *regarding the GPL*
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 5/5/2010 10:56 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
DENIED
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510
That's because the standards required for a preliminary
injunction are high. In the judge's words:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored
That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank
universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge
who does not believe the
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored
That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank
universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
If she considers a breach ...
She did NOT rule that there was a breach, you retard. She ruled quite
the opposite:
With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has
not
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 5/5/2010 10:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
the case was about alleged contract breach
It doesn't matter what the case was about. Your fellow crank asked
for links to US federal judges who *do not* believe the terms of the
GPL can be ignored, and I provided a link to a
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored
That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank
universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge who
does not believe the
On 5/5/2010 4:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz
Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
On 5/5/2010 2:26 PM, RJack wrote:
This is an identical situation to those who claim nonexistent GPL
settlement victories.
Yes, it is. In both situations anti-GPL cranks cannot
bring themselves to believe what has long been obvious
to anyone else, so they twist and spin to avoid facing
the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 5/5/2010 2:26 PM, RJack wrote:
This is an identical situation to those who claim nonexistent GPL
settlement victories.
Yes, it is. In both situations anti-GPL cranks cannot
http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz
On 5/5/2010 5:31 PM, RJack wrote:
Sayeth Hyman Rosen:
Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link.
Sayeth Hyman Rosen:
Commonly in an argument from ignorance or argument from personal
incredulity, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false,
implausible, or not obvious to them
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 5/5/2010 4:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz
Sayeth Hyman Rosen:
Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link.
Sayeth Hyman Rosen:
Commonly in an argument from ignorance or
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow some
proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a real operating
system. Microsoft hates the thought that folks will understand the GPL
is unenforceable. That's the reason
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow some
proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a real
operating system. Microsoft hates the thought that folks will
understand the GPL is
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow some
proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a real
operating system. Microsoft hates the
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow
some proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a
real operating system.
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point? You
are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually have to
make sense. What's your rhetorical focus?
Quite simply, that it is the
David Kastrup wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point?
You are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually
have to make sense. What's your rhetorical focus?
Quite
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point?
You are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually
have to make sense. What's
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
We are not talking about the age of the BSD license(s), but the time
when a complete BSD type operating system became available freely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7tvI6JCXD0
Hth, silly dak.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a
In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for
the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it.
Well, that's half of the story. Linux has been written to support a
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Well there's little prospect of that experiment taking place,
thankfully.
The GPL is gasping for breath Alan. It'll soon be DEAD. Get over it
Alan. Copyleft style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law. You
may, perhaps, continue to extol the virtues of the GPL under
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for
the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it.
Well, that's half of the story. Linux
On 3/9/2010 11:48 AM, RJack wrote:
Copyleft style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law.
No, that's not correct. A court has enforced an open license:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have
the right to control
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Well there's little prospect of that experiment taking place,
thankfully.
The GPL is gasping for breath Alan. It'll soon be DEAD. Get over it
Alan. Copyleft style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law.
Quite right, since they are no
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 11:48 AM, RJack wrote:
Copyleft style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law.
No, that's not correct. A court has enforced an open license:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright holders
who engage in open source licensing have the
On 3/9/2010 12:14 PM, RJack wrote:
The federal courts of the United States ignore CAFC
authority in areas outside their unique patent appeals areas.
Since the CAFC reasoned out the case correctly, we can
expect that other courts will do the same.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 12:14 PM, RJack wrote:
The federal courts of the United States ignore CAFC authority in
areas outside their unique patent appeals areas.
Since the CAFC reasoned out the case correctly, we can expect that
other courts will do the same.
Ratchet up your hopes
53 matches
Mail list logo
