amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:gnq384$27e...@colin2.muc.de...
You could make the same sort of argument about any petty peccadillo.
Why bother prosecuting a fare dodger for a 2 Euro fare? Seems a bit
disproportionate, doesn't it?
Do
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnq41q$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
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
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
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Our company has a strict rule that we are not allowed to use anything
that is connected to the GPL. The MIT license is OK though.
Having such a strict rule is neither necessary not sufficient.
An ethical person won't misappropriate copyrighted software
An ethical person won't misappropriate copyrighted software anyway.
No company rule is needed.
An unethical person will ignore the copyright license if it's
convenient for him to do so, and he will likewise ignore the
company rule if it's convenient for him to do so.
Ignoring a
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
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
Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org writes:
An ethical person won't misappropriate copyrighted software anyway.
No company rule is needed.
An unethical person will ignore the copyright license if it's
convenient for him to do so, and he will likewise ignore the
company rule if it's
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[ out-of-context quotes again ]
...
The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their
particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned
exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions
and in this case.; ATARI,
An ethical person won't misappropriate copyrighted software
anyway. No company rule is needed.
An unethical person will ignore the copyright license if it's
convenient for him to do so, and he will likewise ignore the
company rule if it's convenient for him
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
In the trademark portion of this case, we will be guided by the
relevant law in the Ninth Circuit, to the extent it can be
discerned, and not require the district court here to follow
conflicting rules, if any, arrived at in other circuits.
Let me try to
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
In the trademark portion of this case, we will be guided by
the relevant law in the Ninth Circuit, to the extent it can
be discerned, and not require the district court here to
follow conflicting rules, if any, arrived at in other
circuits.
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:85fxi6u9li@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
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
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnqf0f$8b...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
The companies misappropriating GPL software are thus causing a lot of
time and effort to be expended. If they respected the copyrights of
software authors,
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:85bpsuu9if@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnq41q$sr...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Well that subject line was long ago.
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:85k57iua3r@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
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
Mart van de Wege mvdwege_pub...@myrealbox.com wrote in message
news:86wsbic07e@gareth.avalon.lan...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
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
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:857i3iu9e9@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
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
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I think that you are misreading the situations. Certainly a copyright
owner who is selling access to his work is not interested in giving it
away. That makes sense. But the BusyBox authors are totally willing
to give their work away and have been doing so
blockquote
what=official Columbia University's Developer Lounge announcement
rsvp=requested, see below
edits=some reformatting
Columbia University's Developer Lounge: Guest Speaker Series
Special Guest - OpenGeo team on Free and Open geospatial software and
data
Date: Thursday, Feb
blockquote
what=official NYSIA announcement
entrance-fee=yes, $10 for non-members
note=no guarantee of getting in, see below
more=http://www.nysia.org/events/calendar_disp.cfm?me_id=614;
edits=some badly rendered lines removed
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:01:00 -0500 (EST)
From: NYSIA
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Mart van de Wege mvdwege_pub...@myrealbox.com wrote in message
news:86wsbic07e@gareth.avalon.lan...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:85r61r4nvu@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net
blockquote
what=official NYC Broadband Advisory Committee announcement
main-issue=network neutrality^W^WFreedom of the Net
implicit-error=The word 'broadband' is ambiguous.
Cable TV is not the Net.
To confuse these two different things,
risks the Net we have
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:14:47 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:do0ol.50595$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
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:13:42 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
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
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:51:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
So I think we can both agree that copyright today goes too far.
I don't think that computer source should have copyright protection
period.
If computer source doesn't have copyright protection then, of course,
it's fine to
amicus_curious wrote:
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnqh4u$9j...@blue.rahul.net...
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
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Your severe reading comprehension problem is showing up again.
Your severe legal comprehension problem concerning U.S. law is
showing up again.
There is absolutely not requirement that the source has have to
be changed in any shape or form by the GPL.
The mere fact
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:gnrq0u$8t...@colin2.muc.de...
It seems to me, you're in favour of ignoring the GPL's conditions, yet
are in favour of conforming to the conditions of proprietary licenses.
Why?
As I stated elsewhere in this thread, I am opposed to copyright
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Section 3 of the GPL incorporates Section 2 which is rendered
unenforceable due to 17 USC 301(a)
Copyright invalid because federal law supersedes state law? What a
headline that would make.
Now if you could only get some defendant to actually argue this.
And
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnrq16$77...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I think that you are misreading the situations. Certainly a copyright
owner who is selling access to his work is not interested in giving it
away. That
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:gpjol.24760$ug1.4...@newsfe16.iad...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:51:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
But the BusyBox authors are totally willing to give their work away and
have been doing so for years. The only thing that they are
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:dsjol.24796$ug1.19...@newsfe16.iad...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:51:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
So I think we can both agree that copyright today goes too far.
I don't think that computer source should have copyright protection
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:ynjol.24739$ug1.20...@newsfe16.iad...
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:13:42 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
The companies misappropriating GPL software are thus causing a lot of
time and effort to be expended. If they respected the copyrights of
Ben Pfaff b...@cs.stanford.edu wrote in message
news:87myce5s72@blp.benpfaff.org...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
No one takes apart complex applications in order to change
them, there is no value in having all those restrictions as
posed by the GPL.
What a bizarre, incorrect
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:ekjol.24698$ug1.18...@newsfe16.iad...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:05:02 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
I have read through it previously and I don't have any problem with the
notion as a concept. However, in the case of BusyBox, such
Peter Köhlmann peter.koehlm...@arcor.de wrote in message
news:49a1cb88$0$31337$9b4e6...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
amicus_curious wrote:
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnqh4u$9j...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
The CAFC
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Exactly, if you choose to distribute *their* work then there are
conditions. What's wrong with that?
The conditions are silly and useless, making the authors appear to be the
same.
To the person who wishes to misappropriate somebody else's coyprighted
Mart van de Wege mvdwege_pub...@myrealbox.com wrote in message
news:86skm6bdgk@gareth.avalon.lan...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Mart van de Wege mvdwege_pub...@myrealbox.com wrote in message
news:86wsbic07e@gareth.avalon.lan...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:t9jol.24565$ug1.12...@newsfe16.iad...
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:14:47 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
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,
Ben Pfaff stated in post 87iqn153fs@blp.benpfaff.org on 2/22/09 6:48 PM:
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Ben Pfaff b...@cs.stanford.edu wrote in message
news:87myce5s72@blp.benpfaff.org...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
No one takes apart complex applications in order to
Snit c...@gallopinginsanity.com writes:
Ben Pfaff stated in post 87iqn153fs@blp.benpfaff.org on 2/22/09 6:48 PM:
I've been doing a lot of Linux kernel work in at the office.
We haven't yet tried to contribute it upstream. Perhaps later
this year.
What type improvements are you working
Ben Pfaff stated in post 87eixp4zib@blp.benpfaff.org on 2/22/09 8:13 PM:
Snit c...@gallopinginsanity.com writes:
Ben Pfaff stated in post 87iqn153fs@blp.benpfaff.org on 2/22/09 6:48 PM:
I've been doing a lot of Linux kernel work in at the office.
We haven't yet tried to contribute
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Mart van de Wege mvdwege_pub...@myrealbox.com wrote in message
news:86skm6bdgk@gareth.avalon.lan...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Mart van de Wege mvdwege_pub...@myrealbox.com wrote in message
news:86wsbic07e@gareth.avalon.lan...
amicus_curious wrote:
Peter Köhlmann peter.koehlm...@arcor.de wrote in message
news:49a1cb88$0$31337$9b4e6...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
amicus_curious wrote:
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnqh4u$9j...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:52:22 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
You're begging the question. Your conclusion is that the source need
only be available if it's been modified, and, since the source wasn't
modified, then it need not be available.
I am not arguing the meaning of the text contained in
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:55:44 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
The mere fact that you are distributing the software (usually the
binaries, or as firmware) requires the distributor to make the source
(and the very *same* source for the binaries) available. Failing to do
so will put the distributor
46 matches
Mail list logo
