Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[... FSF: the contract controls ... ]
I don't think anything since I don't know not of what you're speaking.
But the anecdotal evidence portrayed by your posts leave you very little
credit as far as saying a truthful thing goes.
Try
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 14:35 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Keep in mind that copyright law doesn't concern itself with
distribution of AUTHORIZED copies and that the act of distribution
doesn't turn AUTHORIZED copies into unauthorized copies.
Here you
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were
pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't
link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or
statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary in
The license _does_ apply. It is you who don't get it. You are
saying that all companies that have illegal copies of Windows,
are not breaking the law, since they are `for internal use' and
no rules apply.
No one is saying that. Copying of windows software is illegal. So
In the case of our friend Backslash,
I'm assuming that I am this Backslash person; if I'm not ignore the
following: Have the decency to call me by my name, instead of calling
me obscure names.
where he's trying to argue he can copy GPLed software because his
company gave him the CD (to
I am not. A company is a legal entity that enters into agreements
as itself. Agents of the company are not party to these
agreements. It is not because a work is released under the GPL that
you can grab from whenever you please.
I never claimed that. Please reread what my claim is:
In defending your position that combining GPL and some other
software on my computer system was not allowed you cited some
statements indicating that the GPL did not allow putting additional
restrictions on users.
How can you draw a conclusion that I can pop by your place, and copy
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] is at it again:
[ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ]
[ 2 meaningless lines of original content ]
Do we see a pattern here? We have here a person who pokes around
apparently all day, every day, on Google, finds stuff and repeatedly
reposts it into
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] is at it again:
[ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ]
[ 2 meaningless lines of original content ]
Hey Rahul, but the most charming piece regarding GNUtian legal system
from you is this:
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 18:28 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
- When you get GNU software by anonymous ftp, *there is no contract*
and you have no legal right to use it. You are granted rights by the
GPL that you did not have, but these are not legal rights, because
you cannot enter into
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] is at it again:
[ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ]
[ 2 meaningless lines of original content ]
And he follows up with 48 more lines of quoted content!
Does anybody remember the zumabot? We seem to have a
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:35:00 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the case of our friend Backslash,
I'm assuming that I am this Backslash person; if I'm not ignore the
following: Have the decency to call me by my name, instead of calling
me obscure names.
As you've
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sources.d/msg/3c633bf50d950b8c
(early Rahul Dhesi, before he was brainwashed by GNU)
You mean that people can't know better and learn in almost 20 years?
Know better what? The FSF hired lawyers are telling to the
Just to stress...
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/
LWN: A while back, you said something about getting an answer from
Linus on the Linux kernel license. Since there is a COPYING file
that makes it clear that the kernel is governed under the GPL,
where's the
Recent court decisions in Germany?
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf
You are confusing a `critique' of a court decision, and the actual
court decision. The courts decision was in favour of the GPL.
In short, what Moglen says is perfectly correct, and what
As you've noticed, it the backslash in your name. It stands out
like a sore thumb. My apologies, I was frustrated with you and
David.
Noted, I am still abit frustrated with David; and it might have come
over you. As for the backslash, I really have no idea how to fix
that, sorry.
Portuguese Judges wouldn't show such a high level of tolerance against
people who make fun of the Judicial system as Wallace is doing.
There are rules for dealing with frivolous litigants.
I think Wallace is quite serious (though loony), and I think that the judge
thinks he is serious, too.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Recent court decisions in Germany?
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf
You are confusing a `critique' of a court decision, and the actual
court decision.
That utterly defective judgement (keep in mind that the context is
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it
Sitecom didn't bothered. So what?
would seem like it would have to be printed on _very_ expensive paper
in order to be worth less than that.
Oh dear. I take it that you agree that the GPL is a
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it
Sitecom didn't bothered. So what?
If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded
without waiting for an injunction, wouldn't
-
As to the definition of derivative work, the uncertainty is
experienced by those who would like to make proprietary uses of
GPL'd code, and are unsure whether a particular way of making a
proprietary enhancement to a free work will certainly or only
arguably infringe the free developer's
21 matches
Mail list logo
