Rahul Dhesi wrote:
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is
the enforcement of meaningless requirements
The CAFC has ruled that these requirements are not meaningless.
The CAFC opinion is advisory only and contrary to other
In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Since apparently we are not talking about either of those specific
situations, it is hard to see what your problem is.
I don't think it's at all hard to see what RJack's problem is.
--
Alan Mackenzie
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnnqah$gv...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is the
enforcement of meaningless requirements
The CAFC has ruled that these requirements
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message
news:tu2dnrufqjqs0qlunz2dnuvz_tfin...@giganews.com...
amicus_curious wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:nuenl.22790$ug1.14...@newsfe16.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
Note the fact that Verizon, the defendant, is not mentioned
in
amicus_curious wrote:
What irks me is that the victims of the SDLC are the little companies that use
Linux the way that it was intended to be used and do not have the resources to
waste on defending their otherwise clean conduct ..
Whould you mind enumerating and detailing these cases of
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnncnr$vo...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
That gives FOSS a bad name. Who wants to use stuff like that and risk
getting bitten by the looney
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnnqah$gv...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is the
enforcement of meaningless requirements
The CAFC
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:gnmr45$1qm...@colin2.muc.de...
Would you format your paragraphs properly in future, please?
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
So they [SFLC] didn't suddenly become
amicus_curious wrote:
What irks me is that the victims of the SDLC are the little
companies that use Linux the way that it was intended to be used
and do not have the resources to waste on defending their
otherwise clean conduct. So they are pounced upon by the
FSF/SDLC and made to pay
Rjack wrote:
What I see is an increasingly negative reaction to the SFLC tactics and growing support
for projects that are developed under truly free open source licenses that do
not attempt to control other people's contributions to projects.
Whould you mind enumerating and detailing these
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
amicus_curious wrote:
What irks me is that the victims of the SDLC
Wait, where are the victims if the rant du jour is that the cases are
all voluntarily dismissed with damage to the SDLC? Really, our trolls
should try not to claim too many contradictory things
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:85iqn36egq@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnnqah$gv...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I don't suggest that enforcement
Doug Mentohl doug_ment...@linuxmail.org wrote in message
news:gnp2os$e4...@news.datemas.de...
amicus_curious wrote:
What irks me is that the victims of the SDLC are the little companies
that use Linux the way that it was intended to be used and do not have
the resources to waste on
David Kastrup wrote:
I have Google automatic alerts set for tracking various
elements of software licensing. What I see is an increasingly
negative reaction to the SFLC tactics and growing support for
projects that are developed under truly free open source
licenses that do not attempt to
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
but that is meaningless to me.
Laws don't depend on you seeing a meaning in them.
Who is talking about the law?
The judges, and you can read in the subject title that this thread is
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:25:20 +, Doug Mentohl wrote:
Rjack wrote:
What I see is an increasingly negative reaction to the SFLC tactics and
growing support for projects that are developed under truly free open
source licenses that do not attempt to control other people's contributions
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Look at the SFLC website for a complete list. Typically, some company, for
example Monsoon, uses stock FOSS stuff in their product, which is what the
FOSS folk seem to want them to do...
Typically these example companies are misappropriating copyrighted
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[ quoting a blogger ]
Developers care about the licenses on the software they use and
incorporate into their projects, they like permissive licenses, and
they will increasingly demand permissive licenses.
...
The FSF's apparent lack of vision will
lead to the
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:gnp3nr$2qe...@colin2.muc.de...
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnncnr$vo...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
[...]
Some of the biggest players in the software industy, including
Microsoft,
http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/
IBM,
http://www-03.ibm.com/opensource/
Oracle,
http://oss.oracle.com/
and Adobe,
http://opensource.adobe.com/
What is your point, Rahul?
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[ quoting a blogger ]
Developers care about the licenses on the software they use and
incorporate into their projects, they like permissive
licenses, and they will increasingly demand permissive
licenses.
...
The FSF's apparent lack of
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:851vtr64ch@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
but that is meaningless to me.
Laws don't depend on you seeing a meaning in them.
Who is talking
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:85r61r4nvu@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
If it fails early, it gets returned to the store or to the
manufacturer for credit.
If your whole computing centre gets compromised because a packet logger
could be
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnpj2u$7q...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Look at the SFLC website for a complete list. Typically, some company,
for
example Monsoon, uses stock FOSS stuff in their product, which is what the
FOSS
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:gnp50j$2qe...@colin2.muc.de...
The Verizon website, http://www.verizon.com/, appears to contain no
mention of their victory. You'd think they'd put up something to
counteract the negative publicity, surely? Or to discourage future
fools from
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:851vtr64ch@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Well that subject line was long ago. What I
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:39:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
The FOSS value proposition is that if you use it, fine, and if you
modify it and distribute it you must disclose your modifications.
Who says?
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Well that subject line was long ago. What I am saying is the the SFLC and
its client BusyBox are just wasting the world's time. Perhaps they have a
legal right to do that, but it is still nonsense and at the end of the day
they will be remembered as being
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnpj2u$7q...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Look at the SFLC website for a complete list. Typically, some company,
for
example Monsoon, uses
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
...If takes negligible effort to include a copy of the GPL with
their software distributions. If they don't, this is clearly an attempt
to hide their wrong-doing.
--
I don't agree with that. The FOSS value proposition is that if you use
it, fine, and if
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:39:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
The FOSS value proposition is that if you use it, fine, and if
you modify it and distribute it you must disclose your
modifications.
Who says?
-Thufir
U.S. copyright law certainly doesn't support the FOSS
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:gnq384$27e...@colin2.muc.de...
You could make the same sort of argument about any petty peccadillo.
Why bother prosecuting a fare dodger for a 2 Euro fare? Seems a bit
disproportionate, doesn't it?
Do they arraign and prosecute people for
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnq41q$sr...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Well that subject line was long ago. What I am saying is the the SFLC and
its client BusyBox are just wasting the world's time. Perhaps they have a
legal
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:do0ol.50595$xk6.48...@newsfe12.iad...
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:39:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
The FOSS value proposition is that if you use it, fine, and if you
modify it and distribute it you must disclose your modifications.
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:gnq4bn$27e...@colin2.muc.de...
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnpj2u$7q...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Look at the SFLC
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
The companies misappropriating GPL software are thus causing a lot of
time and effort to be expended. If they respected the copyrights of
software authors, all of this discussion would be unnecesary.
Or if the authors weren't such egomaniacs, they could
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is
the enforcement of meaningless requirements
The CAFC has ruled that these requirements are not meaningless.
The CAFC opinion is advisory only and contrary to other circuits
(including its own
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
The CAFC has ruled that these requirements are not meaningless.
--
They suggested that the requirements were not meaningless to the
copyright holders who get a thrill out of seeing their name in print,
but that is meaningless to me. I think that it speaks
38 matches
Mail list logo
