David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:39:25 +0100:
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know GPL-bashing is a hobby of yours, but most hobbyists develop
> some skills after a time. You do the same mistakes all over again.
David, a small linguistic point:
Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Your access is limited to what the owner of the copy allows you to do
>> with it. The GPL grants rights to the owner of the copy, not to you.
>> Since you have not bought or otherwise acquired ownership of
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your access is limited to what the owner of the copy allows you to do
> with it. The GPL grants rights to the owner of the copy, not to you.
> Since you have not bought or otherwise acquired ownership of the copy,
> you don't get the rights associated w
Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> What about "licensee" don't you understand?
>
> The part which (you claim) states that only the owner of the physical
> media on which the copy is 'fixed' can become a licensee.
Well, that is common law. Y
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about "licensee" don't you understand?
The part which (you claim) states that only the owner of the physical
media on which the copy is 'fixed' can become a licensee. I can see
nothing in the GPL which states that. On contrary the preamble states
t
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Nonsense. No contract has been formed. The only claim you can make
> is for violation of copyright. And that's exactly what has been done
> in all cases of pursued GPL violations.
Why don't you quote those cases? Preferably the judges. But feel free
to quote plain
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Conditional authorization does not magically turn into
>> unconditional authorization.
>
> A promise on my part to forbear from distribution right under first
> sale and instead do what you decree is a covenant, not
Isaac wrote:
[...]
> It's not a mistake. Preaching the gospel of first sale according to Alexander
> appears to be a life mission.
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/e123816845315e68
>What about the first sale doctrine? Indeed, if users own their own
>copies, including binary
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Conditional authorization does not magically turn into unconditional
> authorization.
A promise on my part to forbear from distribution right under first
sale and instead do what you decree is a covenant, not a condition.
And it has really nothing to do with copyrig
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:03:02 +0100, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>> [...]
>>> > What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
>>> > sale.
>>>
>>> Sure, but there has been no unconditional aut
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
>> > sale.
>>
>> Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are
>> talking about distribution of unauthorized copies.
>
> The ac
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>The content does not magically jump off the copy. Accessing the
>content of the copy is the sole right of the copy's owner.
>
> And since I can leaglly access the content, the GPL jumps into play.
Your access is limited to what the owner o
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
> > sale.
>
> Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are
> talking about distribution of unauthorized copies.
The act of distribution doesn't turn authorized copies into
unau
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Quite so. You can merely recoup damages for the breach of copyright,
>
> What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
> sale.
Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are
> Because the employeer gave me explicit access to the CD. See the
> above sentence.
If I am giving cleaning personnel access to my rooms, that does not
mean that they are free to read my letters and listen to my music
collection.
Access is not ownership. You don't get when in
Well, this is where you got it wrong - it's called IP (Intellectual
Property) because it is a form of property. Whenever you produce a
work of authorship (and software is considered a work of authorship
like a novel or a poem) you, the author, are the owner of that
work.
In the lega
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the
> software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired
> (become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that
> you have access to
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Quite so. You can merely recoup damages for the breach of copyright,
What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
sale.
Oh, BTW, be advised that if Wallace won't succeed in US, I'll
invite him to Germany.
http://www.allenovery.com/asp/pdf/gerco
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Nope. It gives you additional rights depending on conditions. You
> can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave
> it be. No contract. There is no obligation to accept the conditions.
^^^
Your ignorance works against you
> Because the employeer gave me explicit access to the CD. See the
> above sentence.
No, he instructed you, as his agent, to do things with the CD. You
are not accessing that CD as AMS, but as the agent of your
principal. You, as AMS, do not derive any rights from this action.
...
>The content does not magically jump off the copy. Accessing
>the content of the copy is the sole right of the copy's owner.
>
> And since I can leaglly access the content, the GPL jumps into
> play.
Your access is limited to what the owner of the copy allows you to
d
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Nope. It gives you additional rights depending on conditions. You
>> can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave
>> it be. No contract. There is no obligation to accept the conditions.
>
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally
>> > OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on
>> > another computer at my
Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why do you have to be the 'owner' of the copy? Consider, for a
> moment, a different scenario. You borrow from a library a book
> containing a work which has passed into the public domain. Although
> you have not become the 'owner' of the work, you are l
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the
> software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired
> (become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that
> you have access to the copy (you h
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally
> > OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on
> > another computer at my dacha. The key is that I can't legaly run it
> > simul
Isaac wrote:
[...]
> While it's true that some courts have decided that, the majority position
> seems to be otherwise. I'm not sure which court decision that line is
> from, but I suspect we can find decisions from other district courts
> in CA contrary to this one.
Regarding 17 USC 117, take a
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> As you can see, you are wrong. Again. Too bad. The meaning of
> "license" you refer to above does not exhaust the legal meanings of
> that term. Those are meanings 1&2, but meaning 3&4 are also valid
> uses.
Legal dictionaries are not legal authorities to begin wi
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
> [... license not a contract ...]
>
> Only if it's a "license" to do something regulated by
> government. Like a permit to run a public lottery or become a gun
> dealer. Such permits from state are neither contracts nor prope
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally
> OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on
> another computer at my dacha. The key is that I can't legaly run it
> simultaneously on multiple computers if I
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:10:17 +0100, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Isaac wrote:
> [...]
>> I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy
>> of software rather than having license it. Courts in the US don't
>> seem to recognize such a thing.
>
> "Othe
David Kastrup wrote:
[... license not a contract ...]
Only if it's a "license" to do something regulated by government. Like
a permit to run a public lottery or become a gun dealer. Such permits
from state are neither contracts nor property rights. Moglen and RMS
managed to bullshit you into be
Isaac wrote:
[...]
> I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy
> of software rather than having license it. Courts in the US don't
> seem to recognize such a thing.
"Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold
and not licensed."
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:00:56 -0600, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isaac writes:
>> 17 USC 117 is a limitation on the copyright holders rights that allows an
>> owner of a copy of software to make copies necessary to install and run
>> software without having any permission from the copyr
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Alfred, can you please try and maintain proper attributions and
>follow quoting conventions?
>
> I'm already doing that.
>
>>It depends on the license. The GPL gives an explicity right for
>> this, some other licenses may not.
35 matches
Mail list logo
