Hi.
[I don't know whether this, MinGW g++ tool usage, is on-topic here. I've failed
to find a more relevant group. *MULTI-POST*: posted yesterday to gnu.gcc.help.]
I'm trying to build an import library for the Windows GDI+ API (Windows' basic
modern graphics API), because it isn't supported
Hi, Alfred!
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 09:19:56AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison
and conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to
merit copyright, just as composing the sentence This is
silly.
The degree of creativity involved in writing a few
comparison and conditional/unconditional jump
instructions is too low to merit copyright, just as
composing the sentence This is silly. would be.
Well, depends... Duff's device is quite a smart
Afternoon, Alfred!
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 01:12:53PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
The degree of creativity involved in writing a few
comparison and conditional/unconditional jump
instructions is too low to merit copyright, just as
composing the
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
SIXTH DEFENSE
(FIRST SALE DOCTRINE)
Plaintiffs claims are barred by the first sale doctrine.
When defendants post an answer to a complaint, they assert
every conceivable defense against the arguments of the
plaintiffs. That's routine lawyering. Then the plaintiffs
Rjack wrote:
The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER allow a court to review the enforcibility
of the GPL.
Not as long as defendants NEVER, NEVER decline to settle.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Rjack wrote:
Professor Robert P. Merges
But what is most significant about the agreement is that it
purports to restrict subsequent transferees who receive software
from a licensee, presumably even if the licensee fails to attach
a copy of the agreement.
Of course the GPL does no such
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably held to be held
by those who have copyright of the source files, not those who wrote the
compiler.
An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms of a
computer program do not have separate copyrights.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER allow a court to review the
enforcibility of the GPL.
Not as long as defendants NEVER, NEVER decline to settle.
Yeah...
Is that like Verizon Communications telling the SFLC to kiss their
royal, deep-pocketed ass and subsequently
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably
held to be held by those who have copyright of the source
files, not those who wrote the compiler.
An interesting aside is that the source and
Rjack wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably
held to be held by those who have copyright of the source
files, not those who wrote the compiler.
An interesting aside is that the source
Rjack wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably
held to be held by those who have copyright of the source
files, not those who wrote the compiler.
An interesting aside is that the source
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms of a
computer program do not have separate copyrights. They are considered
to be the same work for copyright purposes.
Are you sure, on this one?
Yes. See
Rjack wrote:
Is that like Verizon Communications telling the SFLC to kiss their
royal, deep-pocketed ass and subsequently receiving a NICE
BIG, FAT voluntary dismissal *WITH PREDJUDICE*.
It is only your interpretation that this is what happened.
The manufacturer of the routers, Actiontec, made
Rjack wrote:
I have argued that a compiler adds no creative element to qualify
the translation because of its fixed algorithms but this is a
legally unsupported *conjecture*.
It is the codified practice of the US Copyright Office.
Rjack wrote:
They are *not* considered to be the same work for copyright
purposes. One form is considered to be a translation of the other.
That makes one a *derivative* work of the other under US law:
You are wrong.
http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0300.asp
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
They are *not* considered to be the same work for copyright
purposes. One form is considered to be a translation of the
other. That makes one a *derivative* work of the other under US
law:
You are wrong.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
If you think the Copyright Office may re-define the definitions
provided by Congress in the Copyright Act then you are either
extremely naive or smoking something causing you to hallucinate.
Given the choice of believing you or believing the manual of
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
While disposition of a work downloaded to a floppy disk would only
implicate the distribution right, the transmission of a work from
one person to another
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:cndil.225$ti1@newsfe21.iad...
Rjack wrote:
Is that like Verizon Communications telling the SFLC to kiss their
royal, deep-pocketed ass and subsequently receiving a NICE
BIG, FAT voluntary dismissal *WITH PREDJUDICE*.
It is only your
In article hshil.3427$pm6.2...@newsfe08.iad,
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Anyone who conveys copies of covered works is not bound by
the GPL's voidable terms and has a perfect defense of estoppel.
You're welcome to try this. How about making a version of GCC with
a
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
So what was your point, Hyman?
You posted the link to sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf in what appeared
to be a claim that being shipped DVDs and downloading copies was
equivalent as far as subsequent redistribution. I demonstrated
that the same document regards these as
amicus_curious wrote:
a more expansive view would say that the copyright holders
were forced to abandon their suit after reading the handwriting
on the wall.
And what evidence do you have for this claim? The evidence
for my claim is that the actual manufacturer makes the source
available,
ZnU wrote:
I form two corporations...
This works fine, as long as the copyright holders can't
prove that the two companies are just a sham created to
violate their rights. If they're really separate, it's OK.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I personally believe that even if a particular instance of object code
is judged to include protected expression of both/either source code's
copyright owner and/or compiler's copyright owner, the resulting binary
is merely an
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
That is, indeed, the best answer. ;-)
Actually, it's not the GPL's mere aggregation, which means
putting multiple independent programs on the same media for
shipping. But it is an aggregation and not a derived work.
___
blockquote
what=official FLOSSify announcement
via=Fred Benenson of Free Culture
where=http://eyebeam.org
540 W. 21st Street,
New York, NY 10011
between 10th and 11th Avenues,
on the Island of the Manahattoes,
Tel. 212.937.6580 Fax: 212.937.6582
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
That is, indeed, the best answer. ;-)
Actually, it's not the GPL's mere aggregation, which means
putting multiple independent programs on the same media for
shipping.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Hyman, Alan believes .
Hah! Some while ago, on this newsgroup, Alexander Terekhov said
he was a troll.
Have a nice day Alan!
_ _
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I still don't get your point, Hyman.
If you wish to make a copy of GPLed code and convey it,
you must abide by the restrictions of the GPL, including
when you make such a copy by downloading it.
Note that the Copyright Act doesn't define a
30 matches
Mail list logo
