On Jul 21, 9:02 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Willem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words: There cannot be any commercial applicaiton
written in C, because in your view it is not well suited to
one or two application types you can think of.
I don't think that's what James meant. I
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:
http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Yet another complaint.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jul/21/busybox/extreme-networks.pdf
The piece of shit above is
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I just wonder how long will it take until some GPL defendant decides that
enough is enough and initiates disbarrment of the entire SFLC gang
including Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337).
Alexander,
We must give credit where credit is due. The S.F.L.C. attorneys are
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:
http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx
So when did this page appear? And do they actually honor
requests for the source? If they do, I would once again
assume that a grabber has come around to meeting the
rjack wrote:
The S.F.L.C. attorneys are *consistent* and we may *always*
count on them. They have filed six consecutive incompetent
pleadings in the Southern District of New York.
In any of these cases, is there an instance where the
source code of the GPLed software was not available
once
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
May 28th, 2008
Today I was admitted to practice
And your point is what, exactly? Public interest groups often
hire interns and people just starting out in the profession.
The group gets relatively cheap labor, and the employee gets
experience.
For all your wailing
Rjack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
defeat and everyone else will regard as a victory.
Uhh! Everyone is plural. Contrast with I.
I don't understand what you mean. Do you believe that
We will thus soon see another dismissal,
which you will proclaim as a defeat and
everyone
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:
http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx
So when did this page appear? And do they actually honor
So once again you want me to prove something?
The latest (as of now) google's
Hyman Rosen wrote:
rjack wrote:
The S.F.L.C. attorneys are *consistent* and we may *always*
count on them. They have filed six consecutive incompetent
pleadings in the Southern District of New York.
In any of these cases, is there an instance where the
source code of the GPLed
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
None of those mirrors of out-dated busybox and other GPL'd source code
that nobody really cares about comply with the FSF/SFLC view on
complete corresponding source code regarding Infringing Products
being made available by defendants.
It is false that nobody really
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
requires that the source for those versions be made available.
Read the complaint you idiot. The claimed unresolved issue is
18. On June 25, 2008, after a series of communications between the
parties regarding other of Plaintiffs requirements for settlement,
Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source
CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that company B
contract with company A to do this? If so company A is company B's agent
and the GPL is violated, not circumvented.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hyman Rosen wrote:
It occurs to me that in the U.S. there is a relatively easy
way to circumvent the requirement of giving away source code
for GPLed software.
You assume the GPL is enforceable and then scheme to circumvent it, but the
license is preempted by 17 USC sec 301. You can't
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
defeat and everyone else will regard as a victory.
Uhh! Everyone is plural. Contrast with I.
I don't understand what you mean. Do you believe that
We will thus soon see another dismissal,
which you will proclaim as a defeat
John Hasler wrote:
Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source
CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that company B
contract with company A to do this? If so company A is company B's agent
and the GPL is violated, not circumvented.
I don't see
rjack wrote:
I was objecting to your use of the pronoun everyone. On what day was
the election held that empowered you to speak for everyone?
It's the isolating we :-)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It occurs to me that in the U.S. there is a relatively easy
way to circumvent the requirement of giving away source code
for GPLed software.
Company A prepares a work derived from GPL-licensed code.
Company B purchases copies of this work from Company
John Hasler wrote:
Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source
CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that company B
contract with company A to do this? If so company A is company B's agent
and the GPL is violated, not circumvented.
An agent
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the
source CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that
company B contract with company A to do this? If so company A is
company B's agent and the GPL is
David Kastrup wrote:
Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the
point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you
unable to do copies yourself?
That way Company A gets to have its cake and eat it to.
It leverages available GPLed software so that
David Kastrup wrote:
You mean if I pay somebody to drop a brick from a window
when I signal him, I am not accountable for murder?
If I hire a company to develop a program for me, that
company is not me. I pay money, I provide a specification,
they deliver the software to me, and that's that.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:
http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx
So when did this page appear? And do they actually honor
requests for the source? If they do, I would once again
assume that a grabber has come
James Kanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
C doesn't have any support for decimal arithmetic, nor any means
of adding it comfortably.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/open/n4060.pdf
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
James Kanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
C doesn't have any support for decimal arithmetic, nor any means
of adding it comfortably.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/open/n4060.pdf
And in case you don't feel like waiting,
I just wonder how long will it take until some GPL defendant decides
that enough is enough and initiates disbarrment of the entire SFLC
gang including Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337).
Under what grounds? Calling something a web log, or a funny comment?
None of those are reasons for
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
You mean if I pay somebody to drop a brick from a window
when I signal him, I am not accountable for murder?
If I hire a company to develop a program for me, that
company is not me. I pay money, I provide a specification,
they
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the
point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you
unable to do copies yourself?
That way Company A gets to have its cake and eat it to.
I was
David Kastrup wrote:
I was asking where the point was for B.
B gets handsomely paid by A.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
David Kastrup wrote:
That's the same if I pay somebody to drop a brick when I signal him.
It's not illegal to hire a company to develop software
to your specifications, allow them to retain all rights
to that software, and just buy copies from them.
Any software vendor who accepts suggestions
David Kastrup wrote:
B gets _paid_ by A and yet receives the disks by first _sale_ rather
than acting as an agent of A? You'll have a _really_ hard time selling
that to a judge.
A gives specifications to B. B develops the software.
A buys a bunch of copies of the software from B and
resells
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
I recommend that you reread the thread and decide on who you call A and
who B. It will make it easier for the judge to figure out things.
Oops, I did mix them up. But in any case, there is
no law of copyright that says that if I
David Kastrup wrote:
I recommend that you reread the thread and decide on who you call A and
who B. It will make it easier for the judge to figure out things.
Oops, I did mix them up. But in any case, there is
no law of copyright that says that if I ask someone
to develop software, even if I
On 2008-07-22, Rahul Dhesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess that the plaintiffs decided that having the manufacturer of the
routers comply with the GPL was good enough for them, because it would
be difficult to explain in court that Verizon was not complying
JEDIDIAH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can force people to walk the chain all the way back to the manufacturer,
but they are still ultimately on the hook for using someone elses work without
proper authorization.
Ultimately the GPL depends on copyright law, so unless you own the
copyright, you
On 2008-07-22, Rahul Dhesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JEDIDIAH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can force people to walk the chain all the way back to the manufacturer,
but they are still ultimately on the hook for using someone elses work without
proper authorization.
Ultimately the GPL depends on
David Kastrup wrote:
You don't need to become the owner.
It is enough if you become _responsible_.
Enough for what? I just don't understand what you're
saying. Remember, the GPL is just a copyright license.
It has no notion of responsibility. It states only
whether and how covered software
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The courts should simply not enforce invalid contracts. LAW 101. To
date, the courts did NOT enforce the GPL. And violations flourish.
What a strange notion! The courts vigorously enforce copyright
on songs and movies. And violations flourish.
Rjack wrote:
The seller of the router, when he distributes it to a buyer purportedly
promises to license the code to all third parties. The irony is that
the GPL specifically excludes the *parties* to the contract (the
distributors) since the class all third parties does not include the
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the buyer of the
router, the right to get source code from somewhere.
It does, unless the chain of GPL licensing is somehow broken,
perhaps through the use of the First Sale Doctrine.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]the license is preempted by 17 USC sec 301.[...]
And since invalidating the GPL would be worth billions to some companies, how
do you explain that your discovery (and that of Alexander Terekhov) are
ignored by everyone in a
John Hasler wrote:
It also means that B is free to sell or give the software, source
and all, to anyone, including A's customers.
But A and B can enter into an arrangement where B will
agree not to do this, perhaps with A paying B for this.
___
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I see you have [...]
What I've done is I've applied Richard Feynman's simple rule about theories:
if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.
You proposed a controversial, completely unproven idea of copyright law that
would have certain consequences. I
rjack wrote:
The trouble is you can't write a copyright license that controls all
third parties as long as they follow the GPL. Congress specifically
forbid this situation with 17 USC sec. 301.
That's the federal preemption clause. What does that
have to do with anything? Who says anything
John Hasler wrote:
The sale is then no longer an arms-length transaction.
A US Federal judge will see right through the subterfuge
and tell A that it is a distributor.
Why does it have to be arms-length? Where is the subterfuge?
A software developer is perfectly free to enter an arrangement
I wrote:
The sale is then no longer an arms-length transaction. A US Federal
judge will see right through the subterfuge and tell A that it is a
distributor.
Hyman writes:
Why does it have to be arms-length?
In order to be a first sale under the intent of the law. First sale
clearly
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:31:50 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
I guess that the plaintiffs decided that having the manufacturer of the
routers comply with the GPL was good enough for them, because it would
be difficult to explain in court that Verizon was not complying with the
GPL given this
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess that the plaintiffs decided that having the manufacturer
of the routers comply with the GPL was good enough for them,
because it would be difficult to explain in court that Verizon
was not complying with the GPL given this
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the
buyer of the router, the right to get source code from somewhere.
It does, unless the chain of GPL licensing is somehow broken,
48 matches
Mail list logo
