Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:04:20 -0700, Tim Smith wrote: In article e2dbl.724$9t6@newsfe10.iad, Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote: Err, why would a jury have anything to say about a settlement? How could this settlement ever be introduced as evidence in some other case? The point of settling is, partially, to avoid a jury. Suppose Microsoft is suing you over FAT, and you won't settle, so it is going to trial. One of the things both sides do at trial is argue what they think the damages should be. What Microsoft has licensed the patent for to others is very relevant to your argument, and you'll have asked for the details on all licensing of the patent as part of your discovery requests. (Well, *you* won't ask. Your lawyers will ask, and the lawyers and your damages expert will get to see the answers, but *you* might not get to see them--all you might see is an average that the damages expert computes and testifies about). Again, the settlement terms here wouldn't be evidence in a lawsuit not between tomcat and microsoft, which is what I was replying to -- a comment about the jury. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:27:35 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:e2dbl.724$9t6@newsfe10.iad... On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:34:29 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:3ijal.118624$rg3.97...@newsfe17.iad... On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:55:28 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: [...] All it really indicates is that is was likely a term or result of the settlement. The underlying reason for the settlement can only be speculated. YOU can say that, but what would a jury say? There are a bunch of companies licensing the FAT system already and here is a company who wanted to fight originally who surrendered quickly. And you want to bank on the infinitessimal probability that it was all a mistake? Err, why would a jury have anything to say about a settlement? How could this settlement ever be introduced as evidence in some other case? The point of settling is, partially, to avoid a jury. You say that the reason they settled cannot be determined, but it must be that TomTom had no confidence in winning and were concerned with minimizing their likely loss. Where's your evidence? It's just guess work and interpretation. The lack of a statement from TomTom is telling. No one has posted firsthand knowledge about what TomTom was thinking. My reference to a jury was in regard to TomTom's certain introspection about their chances, not about what a jury would infer from a settlement. The purpose of a settlement is to avoid a verdict not just a jury considering the implications of a previous case. If I am charged with some civil issue and pay a settlement, the fact that I paid is evidence that I accepted some liability for what I was charged with. A jury can consider that in a subsequent case, it is a matter of public information. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Why not extend that argument to the conclusion: don't use any license at all. Sqlite is public domain. You're free to develop public domain software on your own. However, you're not likely to ever see a penny for your efforts. You're free to change the argument any new conclusion you wish. I never changed the argument, but extended your argument to its logical conclusion. Short of waiting seventy five years after its creation, it is difficult to place a work in the public domain. Well, sqlite is in the public domain according to wikipedia, which, for a layman like me, is sufficient evidence of its licensing. You must somehow unequivocally and publicly relinquish all claims of ownership. Some Circuits would probably disagree with that broad assertion. I was comparing Free Software licensed code and permissively licensed code. So what is the point you wish to make? The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:20:08 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44:43 -0400, Rjack wrote: The Free Software Foundation has *never* advanced a legal argument to refute the fact that the GPL is contractually unenforceable and preempted by the Copyright Act. What's your argument that isn't enforceable? The GPL is unequivocally a contract under U.S. law. (More specifically it is a contract for a grant of permission or license.) It's just as much a contract as any other EULA. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:20:08 -0400, Rjack wrote: To summarize, this means the GPL is a contract to requiring that: 1) you must cause Only if you choose to accept the GPL, only if you accept it. If you decline to accept it, that's fine, you can then contact the copyright holder to make arrangements for distribution. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
In gnu.misc.discuss Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote: It[the GPL]'s just as much a contract as any other EULA. The GPL isn't a EULA, except perhaps the tiny part of it that says you may run this program unconditionally. The concept of end user is absent in free software licensing, and the GPL goes to considerable lengths to ensure that nobody is relegated to the status of an end user, except by choice. The GPL is a license for distributing and changing software, not for using it. -Thufir -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:20:08 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44:43 -0400, Rjack wrote: The Free Software Foundation has *never* advanced a legal argument to refute the fact that the GPL is contractually unenforceable and preempted by the Copyright Act. What's your argument that isn't enforceable? The GPL is unequivocally a contract under U.S. law. (More specifically it is a contract for a grant of permission or license.) It's just as much a contract as any other EULA. -Thufir So? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:20:08 -0400, Rjack wrote: To summarize, this means the GPL is a contract to requiring that: 1) you must cause Only if you choose to accept the GPL, only if you accept it. If you decline to accept it, that's fine, you can then contact the copyright holder to make arrangements for distribution. -Thufir So? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:w6hcl.1223$g%5...@newsfe23.iad... You say that the reason they settled cannot be determined, but it must be that TomTom had no confidence in winning and were concerned with minimizing their likely loss. Where's your evidence? It's just guess work and interpretation. The lack of a statement from TomTom is telling. No one has posted firsthand knowledge about what TomTom was thinking. Well, you could take some view that was more favorable, but you are just whistling past the graveyard, I think, telling yourself that maybe things are not as bleak as they appear. Maybe TomTom was confident of winning their case but their lawyers had planned to go on an extended tour of the Holy Lands and wanted the whole thing to just go away before they left so that they were not going to be interrupted by having to work on the case. Maybe TomTom felt that things were going so bad for Microsoft that they owed them a leg up and so considered the settlement payments as a gift. I think it was probably because they knew they were going to lose and it was cheaper to make a settlement and take a license. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote: It[the GPL]'s just as much a contract as any other EULA. The GPL isn't a EULA, except perhaps the tiny part of it that says you may run this program unconditionally. The concept of end user is absent in free software licensing, and the GPL goes to considerable lengths to ensure that nobody is relegated to the status of an end user, except by choice. The GPL is a license for distributing and changing software, not for using it. Your remark concerning use is interesting. There is a subtle distinction between use in the context of patents and that of copyrights. The patent grant states: 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(1) Every patent shall contain a short title of the invention and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, of the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States, and, if the invention is a process, of the right to exclude others from using, offering for sale or selling throughout the United States, or importing into the United States, products made by that process, referring to the specification for the particulars thereof. Here using is a *broad* grant concerning *any* use of the invention that falls within the limits of the patent specification. This defines scope of use in patent cases that gives rise to infringement. The Supreme Court has stated: The owner of a patent may assign it to another and convey (1) the exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention throughout the United States; or (2) an undivided part or share of that exclusive right; or (3) the exclusive right under the patent within and through a specific part of the United States. . . Conveying less than title to the patent or part of it, the patentee may grant a license to make, use, and vend articles under the specifications of his patent for any royalty, or upon any condition the performance of which is reasonably within the reward which the patentee by the grant of the patent I entitled to secure.; United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U.S. 476 (1926). The crucial idea is that the restriction must remain within the scope of the enumerated right: [Is] reasonably within the reward which the patentee by the grant of the patent is entitled to secure. (supra). Therefore in patent cases use is a broad in rem right giving rise to infringement that violates 35 U.S.C. 154. In copyright matters there is no broad right to use a work. In copyright scope of use must *directly* limit one of the the *specific* enumerated rights in listed in 17 U.S.C. 106: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. So unlike patent cases, in most (not all) copyright suits alleging use violation it is a matter of breach of contract and not copyright infringement. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. :-) The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky document with hidden traps waiting to snap. A normally intelligent child could understand it. If you conform to its requirements, which are few and clear, you won't have any problem with wild-eyed socialist zealots. If you don't like those requirements, use other code instead. If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument. It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own interpretation of some judges' decisions, that licensing code under the GPL is tantamount to making it public domain. Sincerely, Rjack :) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote: It[the GPL]'s just as much a contract as any other EULA. The GPL isn't a EULA, except perhaps the tiny part of it that says you may run this program unconditionally. The concept of end user is absent in free software licensing, and the GPL goes to considerable lengths to ensure that nobody is relegated to the status of an end user, except by choice. The GPL is a license for distributing and changing software, not for using it. Your remark concerning use is interesting. There is a subtle distinction between use in the context of patents and that of copyrights. The patent grant states: [ ] In copyright matters there is no broad right to use a work. In copyright scope of use must *directly* limit one of the the *specific* enumerated rights in listed in 17 U.S.C. 106: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. So unlike patent cases, in most (not all) copyright suits alleging use violation it is a matter of breach of contract and not copyright infringement. That's a non-sequitur. There's no logical implication of your last paragraph by your second last. Anyhow, my point was more about the end in end user. As soon as somebody is an end user, the GPL imposes no restrictions or conditions of any kind on her. It is only when her use is other than an end use that the GPL becomes important. Sincerely, Rjack :) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Forward of moderated message
---BeginMessage--- Hello, When reading the article http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html by RMS, I remembered of a site that allows inserting modifications into any webpage: http://www.shiftspace.org/. This is free software and it is implemented by a greasemonkey script. It allows people who have installed the same software to share their changes to the respective web site. In my opinion this could help reduce or even eliminate the risks of the Javascript trap. What do you think? Thanks, Bogdan ---End Message--- ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:02:43 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:w6hcl.1223$g%5...@newsfe23.iad... You say that the reason they settled cannot be determined, but it must be that TomTom had no confidence in winning and were concerned with minimizing their likely loss. Where's your evidence? It's just guess work and interpretation. The lack of a statement from TomTom is telling. No one has posted firsthand knowledge about what TomTom was thinking. Well, you could take some view that was more favorable, Or you could just support your view. but you are just whistling past the graveyard, I think, telling yourself that maybe things are not as bleak as they appear. No, he's just observing you have no evidence to support your assertions. Maybe TomTom was confident of winning their case but their lawyers had planned to go on an extended tour of the Holy Lands and wanted the whole thing to just go away before they left so that they were not going to be interrupted by having to work on the case. Maybe TomTom felt that things were going so bad for Microsoft that they owed them a leg up and so considered the settlement payments as a gift. You seem to like to make up stories. That's a lot easier than getting the facts, isn't it? I think it was probably because they knew they were going to lose and it was cheaper to make a settlement and take a license. A Wintroll thinks a Linux company couldn't possibly win against M$! Somebody alert the news services! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote: It[the GPL]'s just as much a contract as any other EULA. The GPL isn't a EULA, except perhaps the tiny part of it that says you may run this program unconditionally. The concept of end user is absent in free software licensing, and the GPL goes to considerable lengths to ensure that nobody is relegated to the status of an end user, except by choice. The GPL is a license for distributing and changing software, not for using it. Your remark concerning use is interesting. There is a subtle distinction between use in the context of patents and that of copyrights. The patent grant states: [ ] In copyright matters there is no broad right to use a work. In copyright scope of use must *directly* limit one of the the *specific* enumerated rights in listed in 17 U.S.C. 106: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. So unlike patent cases, in most (not all) copyright suits alleging use violation it is a matter of breach of contract and not copyright infringement. That's a non-sequitur. There's no logical implication of your last paragraph by your second last. Anyhow, my point was more about the end in end user. As soon as somebody is an end user, the GPL imposes no restrictions or conditions of any kind on her. It is only when her use is other than an end use that the GPL becomes important. The GPL is legally important only in the sense that it generates grounds for claims of promissory estoppel for users of GPL'd code. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack u...@example.net writes: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. :-) The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky document with hidden traps waiting to snap. A normally intelligent child could understand it. If you conform to its requirements, which are few and clear, you won't have any problem with wild-eyed socialist zealots. If you don't like those requirements, use other code instead. If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument. It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own interpretation of some judges' decisions, that licensing code under the GPL is tantamount to making it public domain. You are not entitled to make up your own facts. Where have I ever claimed that GPL licensed code is tantamountto public domain code? Please use Google and all the resources at your disposal to demonstrate that I have claimed such a thing. I have long argued that users who rely on GPL licensed code have grounds for a contract claim of promissory estoppel. Sincerely, Rjack :) Are you two guys still arguing? Peter Koehlmann said it was all ridiculously simple and even a retard could understand it or words to that affect. -- In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. :-) The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky document with hidden traps waiting to snap. A normally intelligent child could understand it. If you conform to its requirements, which are few and clear, you won't have any problem with wild-eyed socialist zealots. If you don't like those requirements, use other code instead. If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument. It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own interpretation of some judges' decisions, that licensing code under the GPL is tantamount to making it public domain. You are not entitled to make up your own facts. Where have I ever claimed that GPL licensed code is tantamountto public domain code? Please use Google and all the resources at your disposal to demonstrate that I have claimed such a thing. Sorry, my mistake. You haven't claimed tantamount to. Your claims are tantamount to. That is my claim. ;-) I have long argued that users who rely on GPL licensed code have grounds for a contract claim of promissory estoppel. Whatever that means, exactly. ;-) You have repeatedly asserted that the GPL isn't a license, that it's a contract, and that one of upshots is that companies can violate the GPL without the copyright holders being able to stop the violation by injunction, or receive monetary damages. (I'm not quite sure you've said that last bit, but I think you have). This seems to me to being the same in practice as being in the public domain. Where do you see the difference, in practice, between software being in the public domain, and software being licensed under the GPL, understood as you understand it? Sincerely, Rjack :) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Hadron wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. :-) The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky document with hidden traps waiting to snap. A normally intelligent child could understand it. If you conform to its requirements, which are few and clear, you won't have any problem with wild-eyed socialist zealots. If you don't like those requirements, use other code instead. If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument. It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own interpretation of some judges' decisions, that licensing code under the GPL is tantamount to making it public domain. You are not entitled to make up your own facts. Where have I ever claimed that GPL licensed code is tantamountto public domain code? Please use Google and all the resources at your disposal to demonstrate that I have claimed such a thing. I have long argued that users who rely on GPL licensed code have grounds for a contract claim of promissory estoppel. Sincerely, Rjack :) Are you two guys still arguing? Peter Koehlmann said it was all ridiculously simple and even a retard could understand it or words to that affect. I believe Alan Mackenzie changed the retard description to normally intelligent child. We need to tread carefully here since there'll soon be charges and counter charges of ad hominen attacks and generally unacceptable social behaviors. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. :-) The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky document with hidden traps waiting to snap. A normally intelligent child could understand it. If you conform to its requirements, which are few and clear, you won't have any problem with wild-eyed socialist zealots. If you don't like those requirements, use other code instead. If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument. It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own interpretation of some judges' decisions, that licensing code under the GPL is tantamount to making it public domain. You are not entitled to make up your own facts. Where have I ever claimed that GPL licensed code is tantamountto public domain code? Please use Google and all the resources at your disposal to demonstrate that I have claimed such a thing. Sorry, my mistake. You haven't claimed tantamount to. Your claims are tantamount to. That is my claim. ;-) I have long argued that users who rely on GPL licensed code have grounds for a contract claim of promissory estoppel. Whatever that means, exactly. ;-) You have repeatedly asserted that the GPL isn't a license, that it's a contract, and that one of upshots is that companies can violate the GPL without the copyright holders being able to stop the violation by injunction, or receive monetary damages. (I'm not quite sure you've said that last bit, but I think you have). This seems to me to being the same in practice as being in the public domain. Where do you see the difference, in practice, between software being in the public domain, and software being licensed under the GPL, understood as you understand it? Code in the public domain doesn't have ownership or other rights attached to it. That's a BIG, BIG, difference between code in the public domain and code subject to claims of promissory estoppel. Claims of promissory estoppel would give a particular litigant rights to use the code IF the claim meets the criteria: Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A promisor — one who makes a promise — makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee—one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment — that is, an economic loss — ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel For example, if someone uses your licensed code and invests a million dollars in developing and improving the code then they shouldn't be out a million dollars because the copyright license that *you* offered turns out to be legally unenforceable. This principle is implicit in the rule of contract interpretation which holds that contracts are construed against the offering (drafting) party. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Where do you see the difference, in practice, between software being in the public domain, and software being licensed under the GPL, understood as you understand it? Code in the public domain doesn't have ownership or other rights attached to it. That's a BIG, BIG, difference between code in the public domain and code subject to claims of promissory estoppel. Claims of promissory estoppel would give a particular litigant rights to use the code IF the claim meets the criteria: Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A promisor ? one who makes a promise ? makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee?one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment ? that is, an economic loss ? ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel Well thanks, and all that, but the above is in legalese. Presumably it means something to lawyers. Where's the BIG, BIG, difference, when the legalese is translated into English? For example, if someone uses your licensed code and invests a million dollars in developing and improving the code then they shouldn't be out a million dollars because the copyright license that *you* offered turns out to be legally unenforceable. This principle is implicit in the rule of contract interpretation which holds that contracts are construed against the offering (drafting) party. You've asserted, occasionally, that the GPL is unenforceable. Assuming for the current purposes that you're right, then your last paragraph seems pretty much the same as saying that if the code is GPL'd, he can freely invest a million dollars in a way which violates the GPL, yet not be subject to any sanctions by the copyright holder. This is, in effect, the same as GPL code being in the public domain. Isn't it? Sincerely, Rjack :) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument. Sincerely, Rjack :) ... so poor rjack has a problem, he wants to steal some code GPL code but does not dare. so he tries to talk the code writers into using BSD licence, so that he can legally steal their code. oh, and is he upset that they dont want to licen? you can bet on that ... oh my, you should have spent your energy on learning ... but so .. just words in the wind ... LOL nik ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Where do you see the difference, in practice, between software being in the public domain, and software being licensed under the GPL, understood as you understand it? Code in the public domain doesn't have ownership or other rights attached to it. That's a BIG, BIG, difference between code in the public domain and code subject to claims of promissory estoppel. Claims of promissory estoppel would give a particular litigant rights to use the code IF the claim meets the criteria: Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A promisor ? one who makes a promise ? makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee?one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment ? that is, an economic loss ? ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel Well thanks, and all that, but the above is in legalese. Presumably it means something to lawyers. Where's the BIG, BIG, difference, when the legalese is translated into English? We'd all love for the lawyers to be ceremoniously fed to the the sharks. Unfortunately, many activities in life can't be summarized into simple sound bites. For example, if someone uses your licensed code and invests a million dollars in developing and improving the code then they shouldn't be out a million dollars because the copyright license that *you* offered turns out to be legally unenforceable. This principle is implicit in the rule of contract interpretation which holds that contracts are construed against the offering (drafting) party. You've asserted, occasionally, that the GPL is unenforceable. Assuming for the current purposes that you're right, then your last paragraph seems pretty much the same as saying that if the code is GPL'd, he can freely invest a million dollars in a way which violates the GPL, yet not be subject to any sanctions by the copyright holder. This is, in effect, the same as GPL code being in the public domain. Isn't it? Public domain code is freely available without legal reservation. *Anyone* who desires to use it may do so without legal consequence. As I previously stated, promissory estoppel is available only to a specific *individual* party who first goes to court and proves to the court that he is entitled to some equitable right. 1) Public domain rights are are freely available to the *whole world*. 2) Equitable rights granted through promissory estoppel by court decree are *personal* rights and have nothing to do with public domain rights. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
dr_nikolaus_klepp wrote: Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument. Sincerely, Rjack :) ... so poor rjack has a problem, he wants to steal some code GPL code but does not dare. so he tries to talk the code writers into using BSD licence, so that he can legally steal their code. oh, and is he upset that they dont want to licen? you can bet on that ... oh my, you should have spent your energy on learning ... but so .. just words in the wind ... LOL nik Thank you for your helpful contribution! Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
Sermo Malifer sermomali...@noemail.com wrote in message news:grcvqf$r5...@news.albasani.net... No, he's just observing you have no evidence to support your assertions. Of course I do. TomTom paid. They didn't pay just because they felt like paying, they paid because of the only reason that anyone would pay and that is because they had to pay or else suffer a worse consequence. If you think that there is any other reason possible, you are free to mention it, but I doubt that you will/ You seem to like to make up stories. That's a lot easier than getting the facts, isn't it? The facts are there for all to see. TomTom paid and is changing their version of Linux to be non-infringing. The losers may go into denial and try to fool themselves, but that is their problem. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see what happens. [deletia] The burdens of GPL software are no different than any other code that isn't public domain or effectively so. You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their living room floor and carting it off. -- The best OS in the world is ultimately useless ||| if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
amicus_curious wrote: Sermo Malifer sermomali...@noemail.com wrote in message news:grcvqf$r5...@news.albasani.net... No, he's just observing you have no evidence to support your assertions. Of course I do. TomTom paid. They didn't pay just because they felt like paying, they paid because of the only reason that anyone would pay and that is because they had to pay or else suffer a worse consequence. If you think that there is any other reason possible, you are free to mention it, but I doubt that you will/ You seem to like to make up stories. That's a lot easier than getting the facts, isn't it? The facts are there for all to see. TomTom paid and is changing their version of Linux to be non-infringing. The losers may go into denial and try to fool themselves, but that is their problem. you guys are nuts. what are you, unemplyed wannabee layers? do you really think going to court is fun and fighting to the end is heroic? nuts. go read maciavelli and clausewitz, think it over and think again. there are some civilized countries where you have to go to court to make a point, but its not written that you should stay there - people wont know it, press will ignore it, so what? go make your homework and try to think a bit futher than your next burger - but be warned, thinking causes more fat burning, so you'll need more burgers and probably coke instead of water ... n. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:35:30 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: Sermo Malifer sermomali...@noemail.com wrote in message news:grcvqf$r5...@news.albasani.net... No, he's just observing you have no evidence to support your assertions. Of course I do. No you don't, as proved by your continued failure to support your assertions. TomTom paid. Which doesn't give you license to make up stories about why they did. They didn't pay just because they felt like paying, they paid because of the only reason that anyone would pay and that is because they had to pay or else suffer a worse consequence. If you think that there is any other reason possible, you are free to mention it, but I doubt that you will/ TomTom could have settled because the cost of defending innocence is more than the cost of settlement, especially given they intend to rewrite their code not to use FAT in the future. You seem to like to make up stories. That's a lot easier than getting the facts, isn't it? The facts are there for all to see. Not in what you post! TomTom paid and is changing their version of Linux to be non-infringing. No, the version of Linux isn't changing, the FAT file system is being eliminated. The losers may go into denial and try to fool themselves, but that is their problem. Now that you realize you have a problem, you can work on solving it! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see what happens. [deletia] The burdens of GPL software are no different than any other code that isn't public domain or effectively so. You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their living room floor and carting it off. GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
Sermo Malifer wrote: Not in what you post! TomTom paid and is changing their version of Linux to be non-infringing. No, the version of Linux isn't changing, the FAT file system is being eliminated. The kernel of an operating system, typically provides memory management, process management, file management and I/O (input/output) management. I'd say completely removing the option of a file system, either compiled into the kernel or loaded as a module, changes the version of a kernel. I doubt TomTom which uses an embedded Linux version, loads FAT capability as a module. The losers may go into denial and try to fool themselves, but that is their problem. Now that you realize you have a problem, you can work on solving it! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
In article e4hcl.1222$g%5.1...@newsfe23.iad, Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote: Again, the settlement terms here wouldn't be evidence in a lawsuit not between tomcat and microsoft, which is what I was replying to -- a comment about the jury. Yes, they could be evidence in another lawsuit, not between Microsoft and TomTom. If Microsoft sues someone else over the same, or even similar, patents, that someone else would have a reasonable chance of getting at the Microsoft/TomTom settlement terms (at least partially--the settlement amount, for example) via a discovery request, and would be able to introduce that information into trial as part of their rebuttal to the damages part of Microsoft's case. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
dr_nikolaus_klepp dr.kl...@gmx.at wrote in message news:2fe2e$49da3f6c$557d7df2$12...@news.inode.at... you guys are nuts. what are you, unemplyed wannabee layers? do you really think going to court is fun and fighting to the end is heroic? nuts. go read maciavelli and clausewitz, think it over and think again. there are some civilized countries where you have to go to court to make a point, but its not written that you should stay there - people wont know it, press will ignore it, so what? go make your homework and try to think a bit futher than your next burger - but be warned, thinking causes more fat burning, so you'll need more burgers and probably coke instead of water ... You should pay more attention to the posts. No one is interested in going to court, how did you come to that conclusion. Rather we are just fans of the game being played out in these courts. To be sure, the game is nowhere near over, but the Microsoft fans are thrilled by the most recent events wherein Mr. Softee has just scored and is threatening to blow the game wide open. The Linux fans are desperate for a sign that their team is still able to continue. So far they are all huddled around the water bucket. We can't tell if they are strategizing their next play or just praying. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
NYC LOCAL: Tuesday 7, and Friday 10, April 2009 NYU: David Dill on Electronic Voting and Siva Vaidhyanathan on Copyright
blockquote what=informal announcements via the free-culture list, see below for full particulars of two headline events edits=some odd characters removed Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:24:49 -0400 Subject: [free-culture] meeting tomorrow (4/6) Kimmel 908 8pm From: Aditi Rajaram ad...@freeculturenyu.org To: Free Culture @ NYU's Listserv free-cult...@lists.nyu.edu Hey guys, Lots of events coming up this week as well as a meeting tomorrow! Same time, same place as usual, with food as usual! 8-10pm, Kimmel (40 Washington Square South) Room 908, Monday 4/6 Events of note for this week: A Symposium on Piracy and Property sponsored by the NYU Department of Social and Cultural Analysis WHEN: Friday, April 10, 2009 from 10-5pm (SCHEDULE TO FOLLOW) WHERE: SCA Gallery Space, 41 E. 11th Street, Department of Social and Cultural Analysis, 7th Floor KEYNOTE to be delivered by Siva Vaidhyanathan, Associate Professor of Media Studies and Law, University of Virginia FOR MORE INFORMATION: please email nyupiracysympos...@gmail.com Spring 2009: Intellectual Property and its Discontents Luncheon Lecture Series Thursdays at 12:15 at Columbia University All lectures are held in the Common Room on the second floor of the Heyman Center, which is located in the East Campus Residential Center of Columbia University. Lectures are free and lunch is provided. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/societyoffellows/events.html Professor David Dill, Computer Science, Stanford University Topic: Electronic Voting vs. Democracy Date: Tuesday April 7, 4:30-6:00 PM Place: Room 204, 20 Washington Sq South (Vanderbilt Hall) Professor Dill will be at NYU from the morning and happy to meet with colleagues to discuss either scientific or policy issues related to his work. If you are interested, please email Nicole Arzt (ar...@exchange.law.nyu.edu) with times that you're available. See you guys tomorrow, Aditi Secretary of Free Culture @ NYU /blockquote Distributed poC TINC: Jay Sulzberger secret...@lxny.org Corresponding Secretary LXNY LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization. http://www.lxny.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see what happens. [deletia] The burdens of GPL software are no different than any other code that isn't public domain or effectively so. You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their living room floor and carting it off. GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. -- This is a consumer product. ||| World domination simply isn't necessary./ | \ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote in message news:slrngtkmgi.vvv.j...@nomad.mishnet... GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. I don't think that you understood the analogy. Let me put it in what might be a more understandable form. Say you go to Chicago for the Open Source Expo and you and your buddies, being new to the big city, are wandering up State Street and get enticed into a titty bar. Then some sweet honeys cozy up to you and ask you to buy them a drink. Sure!, you say, flattered by such attention. Then later you find that the tab for the girls' drinks are not what you expected and are some $50 apiece. Pay up or we will call the cops! is what you are told. Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC. Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have been touched! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see what happens. [deletia] The burdens of GPL software are no different than any other code that isn't public domain or effectively so. You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their living room floor and carting it off. GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. Only in the mythical land of GNU where many marvelous fantasies become aq reality to its residents... ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
amicus_curious wrote: JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote in message news:slrngtkmgi.vvv.j...@nomad.mishnet... GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. I don't think that you understood the analogy. Let me put it in what might be a more understandable form. Say you go to Chicago for the Open Source Expo and you and your buddies, being new to the big city, are wandering up State Street and get enticed into a titty bar. Then some sweet honeys cozy up to you and ask you to buy them a drink. Sure!, you say, flattered by such attention. Then later you find that the tab for the girls' drinks are not what you expected and are some $50 apiece. Pay up or we will call the cops! is what you are told. Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC. Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have been touched! AHAH !! By using the analogy of a titty bar you are displaying your ugly misogynist side. Your sexist remarks have set women's rights back at least a half century. FOR SHAME ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On 2009-04-06, amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote: JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote in message news:slrngtkmgi.vvv.j...@nomad.mishnet... GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. I don't think that you understood the analogy. Let me put it in what might be a more understandable form. Say you go to Chicago for the Open Source Expo and you and your buddies, being new to the big city, are wandering up State Street and get enticed into a titty bar. Then some sweet honeys cozy up to you and ask you to buy them a drink. Sure!, you say, flattered by such attention. Then later you find that the tab for the girls' drinks are not what you expected and are some $50 apiece. Pay up or we will call the cops! is what you are told. Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC. Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have been touched! ...except the GPL is very plain and out in the open. The intent of RMS is very clear and rather blunt. The only way you can misunderstand anything is if it were your original intent to try and take advantage to begin with. The terms are by no stretch of the imagination hidden. Neither is the intent of the proprietor. -- Microsoft: Because the world doesn't have enough peasants.||| / | \ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see what happens. [deletia] The burdens of GPL software are no different than any other code that isn't public domain or effectively so. You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their living room floor and carting it off. GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. Only in the mythical land of GNU where many marvelous fantasies become aq reality to its residents... No. You are the one in some sort of fantasy land. Don't wander into Texas with an attitude like this. You might end up dead. -- Microsoft: Because the world doesn't have enough peasants.||| / | \ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC. Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have been touched! You have pointed out a potentially serious problem. Many anti-GPL people are trying to deceive software users into misappropriating GPL-licensed software, by telling them that the GPL is illegal, unenforceble, against public policy, etc. Later on, when the victims of this deception find that the GPL is actually being enforced, they may get into trouble. I'm not sure how actually serious this problem is. That would depend on how gullible software users are. Do they believe everything they read on Usenet? I suspect most of them are too smart to be fooled. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote: JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote in message news:slrngtkmgi.vvv.j...@nomad.mishnet... GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. I don't think that you understood the analogy. Let me put it in what might be a more understandable form. Say you go to Chicago for the Open Source Expo and you and your buddies, being new to the big city, are wandering up State Street and get enticed into a titty bar. Then some sweet honeys cozy up to you and ask you to buy them a drink. Sure!, you say, flattered by such attention. Then later you find that the tab for the girls' drinks are not what you expected and are some $50 apiece. Pay up or we will call the cops! is what you are told. Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC. Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have been touched! ...except the GPL is very plain and out in the open. The intent of RMS is very clear and rather blunt. The only way you can misunderstand anything is if it were your original intent to try and take advantage to begin with. The terms are by no stretch of the imagination hidden. Neither is the intent of the proprietor. Boldness and clarity of purpose does not make that purpose legal. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see what happens. [deletia] The burdens of GPL software are no different than any other code that isn't public domain or effectively so. You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their living room floor and carting it off. GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. Only in the mythical land of GNU where many marvelous fantasies become aq reality to its residents... No. You are the one in some sort of fantasy land. Don't wander into Texas with an attitude like this. You might end up dead. Death threats eh? That's pretty tough talk for a little feller. I'll bet your shorter than Kim Jong-il. The only thing I've ever seen come outta Texas is castrated steers tryin' to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. Have a nice day JEDIDIAH! _ _ |R| |R| |J| /^^^\ |J| _|a|_ (| o |) _|a|_ _| |c| | _(_---_)_ | |c| |_ | | |k| |' |_| |_| `| |k| | | | | / \ | | \/ / /(. .)\ \ \/ \/ / / | . | \ \ \/ \ \/ /||Y||\ \/ / \__/ || || \__/ () () || || ooO Ooo ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi wrote: I'm not sure how actually serious this problem is. That would depend on how gullible software users are. Do they believe everything they read on Usenet? I suspect most of them are too smart to be fooled. Uh... does that include messages from a certain Rahul Dhesi who posts on Usenet in gnu.misc.discuss? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message news:0yydnb8mcqht8kfunz2dnuvz_sbin...@giganews.com... By using the analogy of a titty bar you are displaying your ugly misogynist side. Your sexist remarks have set women's rights back at least a half century. That long? I wouldn't think that the initiative was so feeble. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxthexg.usenet.us.com wrote in message news:grduio$r3...@blue.rahul.net... amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC. Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have been touched! You have pointed out a potentially serious problem. Many anti-GPL people are trying to deceive software users into misappropriating GPL-licensed software, by telling them that the GPL is illegal, unenforceble, against public policy, etc. Later on, when the victims of this deception find that the GPL is actually being enforced, they may get into trouble. I'm not sure how actually serious this problem is. That would depend on how gullible software users are. Do they believe everything they read on Usenet? I suspect most of them are too smart to be fooled. -- Well, it is not really such a problem in the real world. There has never been a case of a company taking a GPL program and proprietizing it for a profit. I cannot even find a case of a company taking a GPL program and improving it and releasing it back other than Linux itself wherein Red Hat and Novell need to make various changes to keep it viable in their server regions. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
