Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You cannot own intangible objects.
If they're objects they're not intangible. Unless you're into
perversions like OO.
I prefer Lisp.
It's a speech impediment that can be cured. Scheme's more fun.
:-)
Ter, 2006-12-05 às 18:49 -0600, John Hasler escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva wrote:
When you buy a piece of land, does it say your contract that it
becomes public property after 20 years (as in patents)?
I can buy a lease on a piece of land that expires after 20 years.
Nonetheless, the law
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:59:12 +
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ter, 2006-12-05 às 18:49 -0600, John Hasler escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva wrote:
When you buy a piece of land, does it say your contract that it
becomes public property after 20 years (as in patents)?
I
I wrote:
I can buy a lease on a piece of land that expires after 20 years.
Nonetheless, the law recognizes that lease as property.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra writes:
The lease, not the land.
Yes, the lease is property, just as a copyright is property.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing
I mostly agree with troll Steven.
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:59:12 +
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ter, 2006-12-05 às 18:49 -0600, John Hasler escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva wrote:
When you buy a piece of land, does it say your contract that
rjack wrote:
[...]
I suppose you call Richard Stallman and the Free Sofware Foundation a
democracy? The free in free software is euphemistic and semantic
gobbledegook. RMS is an absolute dictator -- a mini Stalin -- concerning
supposedly free software.
Of hypocrisy and the FSF
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 16:45, Alexander Terekhov stood up and
addressed the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
Of hypocrisy and the FSF
Submitted by dylanknightrogers on Sun, 2006-12-03 19:38. debian free
software fsf gnu linux rms
[...]
Now, for the interesting
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 02:29:50 +0100 (CET)
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So bohoo. You're a troll.
Steven quite the opposite of a troll. He is probobly one of the
saner people on these lists. Resorting to petty name calling
just because you disagree with
Aragorn (registered Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux user #223157) wrote:
[...]
The word commercial is thrown in by this person solely for the purpose of
bloating his argument. There is nothing in the GPL that states that
software cannot be sold commercially,
So now they're going to try the hard work of
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 18:19, Alexander Terekhov stood up and
addressed the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
Aragorn (registered Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux user #223157) wrote:
[...]
The word commercial is thrown in by this person solely for the purpose
of bloating his argument.
Aragorn (registered Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux user #223157) wrote:
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 18:19, Alexander Terekhov stood up and
addressed the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
Aragorn (registered Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux user #223157) wrote:
[...]
The word commercial is thrown in
Aragorn writes:
But [Debian] does allow you to unwillingly or unknowingly install
non-free software...
Explain exactly how this might happen.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
But [Debian] does allow you to unwillingly or unknowingly install
non-free software...
Explain exactly how this might happen.
`apt-get install NON-FREE-SOFTWARE'. Since Debian includes,
distributes and recommends non-free software (and not to mention,
mixes non-free software with
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 19:04, Alexander Terekhov stood up and
addressed the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
Aragorn (registered Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux user #223157) wrote:
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 18:19, Alexander Terekhov stood up and
addressed the masses in
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 19:34, Alfred M. Szmidt stood up and addressed
the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
Even Further
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2006-12-06 15:01.
Stallman insists that all Linux distributions be called GNU/Linux.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Well, this is about theft of *Trade*Secrets* not of intellectual
property. My my, what a perfect example of a misnomer ip really is.
Trade secrets are a form of intellectual property, stupid.
regards,
alexander.
Ter, 2006-12-05 às 11:18 +0100, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Well, this is about theft of *Trade*Secrets* not of intellectual
property. My my, what a perfect example of a misnomer ip really is.
Trade secrets are a form of intellectual property, stupid.
Rui Miguel writes:
Well, but they work completely different from copyright,
name-calling-Alexander...
And from patents... which work in almost exactly the opposite form of
trade secrets.
Patents, copyrights, and to a lesser extent trademarks are all
transferrable rights against the world and
Ter, 2006-12-05 às 07:47 -0600, John Hasler escreveu:
Rui Miguel writes:
Well, but they work completely different from copyright,
name-calling-Alexander...
And from patents... which work in almost exactly the opposite form of
trade secrets.
Patents, copyrights, and to a lesser extent
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patents, copyrights, and to a lesser extent trademarks are all
transferrable rights against the world and thus have enough of the
characteristics of property to be treated as a form of property by the law.
The law his given
And from patents... which work in almost exactly the opposite
form of trade secrets.
Patents, copyrights, and to a lesser extent trademarks are all
transferrable rights against the world and thus have enough of
the characteristics of property to be treated as a form of property
Patents, copyrights, and to a lesser extent trademarks are all
transferrable rights against the world and thus have enough of
the characteristics of property to be treated as a form of
property by the law.
The law his given certain property-like attributes to things which
would
On 5 Dec 2006 15:01:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patents, copyrights, and to a lesser extent trademarks are all
transferrable rights against the world and thus have enough of the
characteristics of
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 16:43:24 +0100 (CET)
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You cannot own intangible objects.
If they're objects they're not intangible. Unless you're into
perversions like OO.
In any case, what you say is bollocks. A company is intangible, but it
can be owned (I happen
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:48:46 +
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A government GRANTED and TEMPORARY MONOPOLY right is not property.
So land cannot be property by your definition.
You can say there's enough similar characteristics, but there are
also many totally dissimilar
You cannot own intangible objects.
If they're objects they're not intangible. Unless you're into
perversions like OO.
I prefer Lisp.
In any case, what you say is bollocks. A company is intangible, but it
can be owned (I happen to own one very, very small company :).
A company
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it just means that they have not yet been universally accepted as
property. We have no problems considering land (real estate) property,
but traditionally Bantu societies do not consider that land can be
owned by an
So bohoo. You're a troll.
Steven quite the opposite of a troll. He is probobly one of the saner
people on these lists. Resorting to petty name calling just because
you disagree with him isn't very nice, or useful.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Ter, 2006-12-05 às 22:21 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels escreveu:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:48:46 +
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A government GRANTED and TEMPORARY MONOPOLY right is not property.
So land cannot be property by your definition.
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suppose you call Richard Stallman and the Free Sofware Foundation
a democracy? The free in free software is euphemistic and semantic
gobbledegook. RMS is an absolute dictator -- a mini Stalin --
concerning supposedly free software.
So is Picasso concerning
Richard writes:
The law gives abstract works that characteristic by granting monopolies
such as copyright and patents
Exactly. What is owned is not the literary work or the invention but the
exclusive right to copy the work or practice the invention.
To reiterate: the distinction between
Ter, 2006-12-05 às 23:44 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt escreveu:
So bohoo. You're a troll.
Steven quite the opposite of a troll. He is probobly one of the saner
people on these lists. Resorting to petty name calling just because
you disagree with him isn't very nice, or useful.
A sane troll
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:19:39 +
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ter, 2006-12-05 às 22:21 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels escreveu:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:48:46 +
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A government GRANTED and TEMPORARY MONOPOLY right is not
On 5 Dec 2006 22:07:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it just means that they have not yet been universally accepted as
property. We have no problems considering land (real estate)
property, but
rjack writes:
I suppose you call Richard Stallman and the Free Sofware Foundation
a democracy?
When did anyone claim that the FSF was a democracy? It is a corporation,
ruled by its board.
The free in free software is euphemistic and semantic gobbledegook. RMS
is an absolute dictator -- a
You cannot own intangible objects.
If they're objects they're not intangible. Unless you're into
perversions like OO.
I prefer Lisp.
It's a speech impediment that can be cured. Scheme's more fun.
:-)
In any case, what you say is bollocks. A company
So bohoo. You're a troll.
Steven quite the opposite of a troll. He is probobly one of the saner
people on these lists. Resorting to petty name calling just because
you disagree with him isn't very nice, or useful.
Me tips hat. Thanks, kind sir.
My apologise for the
Rui writes:
A sane troll is still a troll.
I don't agree with him on everything but Steven most certainly is not a
troll.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
rjack wrote:
[...]
Kunze Letter
http://www.nccusl.org/nccusl/meetings/UCITA_Materials/kunze-ucita.pdf
Oh that's great. Eben should send another similar letter to the DISTRICT
COURT OF FRANKFURT AM MAIN, I suppose.
DISTRICT COURT OF FRANKFURT AM MAIN On behalf of the people JUDGMENT
The GPL
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
If you want analogies, Intellectual Property is to Patents, Copyrights,
Trademarks and Trade Secrets what All Living Beings Have Lungs is to
amoebas, cattle and afids.
A false expression, disguised of sensible generalisation.
As we read the Framers'
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Seg, 2006-12-04 Ã s 09:16 +0100, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Intellectual property is a form of property which, like physical
property, can be bought or sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise
transferred, wholly or in part. Accordingly, some or all of the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh moron. Property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone
who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her
consent.
Intellectual property is property.
And property is theft.
-- Richard
[...] Property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone
who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her
consent.
Entierly true.
Intellectual property is property.
No, since a) intellectual property has no meaning and b) you cannot
own something that
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh moron. Property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone
who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her
consent.
Intellectual property is property.
And
Alexander Terekhov writes:
Intellectual property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone
who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her
consent.
Then you agree that trade secrets are not property.
Rui writes:
Says who?
The law (which is completely orthogonal
John Hasler wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
Intellectual property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone
who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her
consent.
Then you agree that trade secrets are not property.
Eh?
To the extent that appellee
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...] Property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone
who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her
consent.
Entierly true.
Intellectual property is property.
No, since a) intellectual property has no meaning and
[...] You can own it because intellectual property laws make
information not free. They make information into a form of
property.
Information is indeed free, you cannot dictate what someone can or
cannot do with it. E.g. if you give me this great idea that would
save the world from
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Intellectual property is property.
And property is theft.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon
As usual, you miss the point. Just as the fact that's there's an
often-quoted assertion property
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone
who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her
consent.
Intellectual property is property.
So why are
Richard writes:
Both are just slogans for a political viewpoint.
Intellectual property is not a political slogan (though some use it as
such). It's just a legal term of art.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Both are just slogans for a political viewpoint.
Intellectual property is not a political slogan (though some use
it as such). It's just a legal term of art.
Erm, not really. It is not a legal term at all. The legal terms that
embody the coctail known as Intellectual property don't
I wrote:
Intellectual property is not a political slogan (though some use it as
such). It's just a legal term of art.
Alfred M. Szmidt writes:
Erm, not really. It is not a legal term at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
The legal terms that embody the coctail known
Erm, not really. It is not a legal term at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
Define law does not Wikipedia, says the wise man.
The legal terms that embody the coctail known as Intellectual property
don't even have anything to do with art.
Seg, 2006-12-04 às 18:47 +0100, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Intellectual property is property.
And property is theft.
On Saturday 02 December 2006 13:42, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra stood up and
addressed the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
[...]
Oh, and don't pay attention to Alexander, remember this is a GNU
list/newsgroup so isn't it weird that someone hangs around here trying
to destroy the
Aragorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Saturday 02 December 2006 13:42, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra stood up and
addressed the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
[...]
Oh, and don't pay attention to Alexander, remember this is a GNU
list/newsgroup so isn't it weird that someone hangs
On Sunday 03 December 2006 12:42, David Kastrup stood up and addressed the
masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
Aragorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Saturday 02 December 2006 13:42, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra stood up and
addressed the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
[...]
Aragorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I prefer clarity under all circumstances, so I would then also
prefer it if Alexander were to express his views and the motives to
his stances more clearly. Then at least, people would know whom
they are talking to (or who is talking to them). ;-)
You can't
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Do you know where could I find a link with a tutorial about GPL
licensing? For me official document is very difficult to read, i
dont understand anything.
Try the GPL FAQ,
GNU moron's Torah. Law of Stallman.
regards, alexander.
P.S. Hey
On Sunday 03 December 2006 14:31, David Kastrup stood up and addressed the
masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
Aragorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I prefer clarity under all circumstances, so I would then also
prefer it if Alexander were to express his views and the motives to
his
Dom, 2006-12-03 às 11:27 +, Aragorn escreveu:
On Saturday 02 December 2006 13:42, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra stood up and
addressed the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
[...]
Oh, and don't pay attention to Alexander, remember this is a GNU
list/newsgroup so isn't it weird
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Dom, 2006-12-03 às 11:27 +, Aragorn escreveu:
On Saturday 02 December 2006 13:42, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra stood up and
addressed the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
[...]
Oh, and don't pay attention to Alexander, remember this is a GNU
You must be confusing this group with some other group. Free software
isn't a economic model. The GPL is a copyright license, that protects
users freedom to run, study, improve and distribute software, and has
nothing to do with Communism/Capitalism, free software and any kind of
freedom can
Without copyright law the GPL would be unenforceable.
It would also be unnecessary
FSF supporters tend to be predominantly libertarian gun-nuts in my
experience, not marxists. I'm not saying there aren't people who
self-identify as marxists or communists who support the FSF, it's
cross-spectrum,
On Sunday 03 December 2006 18:01, David Golden stood up and addressed the
masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
FSF supporters tend to be predominantly libertarian gun-nuts in my
experience, not marxists. [...]
Well, I am certainly not a libertarian, and I'm not really a Marxist
either.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
You must be confusing this group with some other group. Free
software isn't a economic model. The GPL is a copyright license,
that protects users freedom to run, study, improve and distribute
software, and has nothing to do with Communism/Capitalism, free
software
How the hell do you get can happily coexist and destroying
intellectual property to logically fit together?
I didn't write anything about mess that is Intellectual Property,
and strongly disagree with any usage of the word. Not to mention that
copyright law, patent law, and trademark law
Without copyright law the GPL would be unenforceable.
It would also be unnecessary
Such claims are not really true, without copyright law we would not
have any means to protect the rights of users. Copyright is a double
edged sword. Only with laws that explicitly ban non-free software
On Sunday 03 December 2006 18:26, rjack stood up and addressed the masses
in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
You must be confusing this group with some other group. Free
software isn't a economic model. The GPL is a copyright license,
that protects users freedom
David Golden writes:
FSF supporters tend to be predominantly libertarian gun-nuts in my
experience, not marxists.
Your experience is extremely limited (that goes for both FSF supporters and
libertarians).
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Dom, 2006-12-03 às 10:43 -0500, rjack escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Dom, 2006-12-03 às 11:27 +, Aragorn escreveu:
From what I could make up so far, Alexander seems to
be someone who doesn't like GPLv3, but that's all I know at this stage.
He doesn't like any GPL, Lesser
Dom, 2006-12-03 às 12:26 -0500, rjack escreveu:
I'm the general counsel of the Free Software Foundation, and I'm trying
to report on the revolution which is destroying intellectual property.
Of which I am entirely in favour.
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/texts/eben-moglen-dmca-and-you.html
How
Dom, 2006-12-03 às 11:39 -0600, John Hasler escreveu:
David Golden writes:
FSF supporters tend to be predominantly libertarian gun-nuts in my
experience, not marxists.
Your experience is extremely limited (that goes for both FSF supporters and
libertarians).
Extremely limited. In fact I
rjack writes:
It's an economic model that hopes to destroy capitalistic notions of
intellectual property.
There is nothing capitalistic about intellectual property. Quite the
contrary: it is very socialistic for the state to decide who gets to
exploit ideas, make copies, and attach certain
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Without copyright law the GPL would be unenforceable.
It would also be unnecessary
Such claims are not really true, without copyright law we would not
have any means to protect the rights of users. Copyright is a double
edged sword. Only
Without copyright law the GPL would be unenforceable. It
would also be unnecessary
Such claims are not really true, without copyright law we would
not have any means to protect the rights of users. Copyright is
a double edged sword. Only with laws that explicitly
Alfred M. Szmidt writes:
Only with laws that explicitly ban non-free software would the GPL become
unnecessary.
I would find such laws highly objectionable.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra writes:
I think that the right to bear arms and gun-nut aren't quite the same
thing.
They are quite different, though the anti-gun lobby tries hard to equate
them.
In the case of the USA, the ammendment in question is rather more
important when put into focus that
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Or Treacherous Computing/Digital Restriction Managment, which is one
of the nicest things the GPLv3 draft touches upon.
Hmph. I'm not sure - Maybe taking copyright law as too broad a brush,
but in its absence, anti-circumvention provisions would disappear? It's
not
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Dom, 2006-12-03 às 12:26 -0500, rjack escreveu:
I'm the general counsel of the Free Software Foundation, and I'm trying
to report on the revolution which is destroying intellectual property.
Of which I am entirely in favour.
Dom, 2006-12-03 às 18:33 -0500, rjack escreveu:
We're all in favour of destroying intellectual property, but don't
mind at all balanced laws over copyright, patents, trademarks, etc...
Rui
We're all in favour of destroying intellectual property, but don't
mind at all balanced laws
Only with laws that explicitly ban non-free software would the
GPL become unnecessary.
I would find such laws highly objectionable.
Laws like that are exactly what laws should be like, they should make
immoral and unethical behaviour punishable. All users should have the
four
Did you chek it with RMS, mini-RMS? Microsoft is developing its
software for the benefit of someone else (who is willing to pay)
as well.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Hello,
I'm going to develop a project for public administration. They will be
the users of this software, they are not going to sell it. After
finishing the project, I have to deliver all the sources to them, so I
will not own the sources after that. My question is, could I use gpl
libraries? I am
I'm going to develop a project for public administration. They will
be the users of this software, they are not going to sell it. After
finishing the project, I have to deliver all the sources to them,
so I will not own the sources after that.
One never owns software. Maybe you meant
On 1 Dec 2006 03:04:36 -0800
miguelx6 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm going to develop a project for public administration. They will be
the users of this software, they are not going to sell it. After
finishing the project, I have to deliver all the sources to them, so I
will not own the
I find a link with a tutorial about GPL
licensing? For me official document is very difficult to read, i dont
understand anything.
(sorry for my english, im spanish)
Thanks for your answers
Miguel
Stefaan A Eeckels ha escrito:
On 1 Dec 2006 03:04:36 -0800
miguelx6 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Do you know where could I find a link with a tutorial about GPL
licensing? For me official document is very difficult to read, i
dont understand anything.
Try the GPL FAQ, or maybe even a unoffical translation of the GPL in
your native language. http://www.gnu.org has all the relevant
89 matches
Mail list logo
