Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > I still don't get your point, Hyman. > > If you wish to make a copy of GPLed code and convey it, > you must abide by the restrictions of the GPL, including > when you make such a copy by downloading it. Note that the Copyright Act doesn't def

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Alan Mackenzie wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, Alan believes . Hah! Some while ago, on this newsgroup, Alexander Terekhov said he was a troll. Have a nice day Alan! _ _ |a|

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

Alexander Terekhov wrote: I still don't get your point, Hyman. If you wish to make a copy of GPLed code and convey it, you must abide by the restrictions of the GPL, including when you make such a copy by downloading it. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing l

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> > Hyman, Alan believes . >> Hah! Some while ago, on this newsgroup, Alexander Terekhov said >> he was a troll. > Have a nice day Alan! > _ _ > |a|

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > >> Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >> > That is, indeed, the best answer. ;-) > > >> Actually, it's not the GPL's "mere aggregation", which means > >> putting multiple independent programs on the same media for > >> shi

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > So what was your point, Hyman? > > You posted the link to sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf in what appeared > to be a claim that being shipped DVDs and downloading copies was > equivalent as far as subsequent redistribution. I demonstrated > that the

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> > That is, indeed, the best answer. ;-) >> Actually, it's not the GPL's "mere aggregation", which means >> putting multiple independent programs on the same media for >> shipping. But it is an aggregation and not a d

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > That is, indeed, the best answer. ;-) > > Actually, it's not the GPL's "mere aggregation", which means > putting multiple independent programs on the same media for > shipping. But it is an aggregation and not a derived work. Hyman, Alan believe

NYC LOCAL: Friday through Sunday 6-8 February 2009 FLOSSify: Freeing up the Digital Foundations textbook

http://eyebeam.org 540 W. 21st Street, New York, NY 10011 between 10th and 11th Avenues, on the Island of the Manahattoes, Tel. 212.937.6580 Fax: 212.937.6582" when="three days starting Friday 6 February 2009, at 10:00 am" on-facebook="If you

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

Hyman Rosen writes: >Alexander Terekhov wrote: ... >As always, the case was dismissed because the defendants >came into compliance with the GPL. Usually one would say "the case was settled", which means both parties came to some mutual agreement out of court. "Dismissed" is not the common term fo

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Alan Mackenzie wrote: That is, indeed, the best answer. ;-) Actually, it's not the GPL's "mere aggregation", which means putting multiple independent programs on the same media for shipping. But it is an aggregation and not a derived work. ___ gnu-mi

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Hyman Rosen wrote: > Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> I personally believe that even if a particular instance of object code >> is judged to include protected expression of both/either source code's >> copyright owner and/or compiler's copyright owner, the resulting binary >> is merely an aggregation

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

Hyman Rosen writes: > amicus_curious wrote: >> a more expansive view would say that the copyright holders >> were forced to abandon their suit after reading the handwriting >> on the wall. > > And what evidence do you have for this claim? The evidence > for my claim is that the actual manufacture

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

ZnU wrote: I form two corporations... This works fine, as long as the copyright holders can't prove that the two companies are just a sham created to violate their rights. If they're really separate, it's OK. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

amicus_curious wrote: a more expansive view would say that the copyright holders > were forced to abandon their suit after reading the handwriting on the wall. And what evidence do you have for this claim? The evidence for my claim is that the actual manufacturer makes the source available, a

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

Alexander Terekhov wrote: So what was your point, Hyman? You posted the link to sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf in what appeared to be a claim that being shipped DVDs and downloading copies was equivalent as far as subsequent redistribution. I demonstrated that the same document regards these as diffe

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

In article , Hyman Rosen wrote: > Rjack wrote: > > Anyone who conveys copies of covered works is not bound by > > the GPL's voidable terms and has a perfect defense of estoppel. > > You're welcome to try this. How about making a version of GCC with > a proprietary addition? Be sure to let us kn

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

"Hyman Rosen" wrote in message news:cndil.225$ti1@newsfe21.iad... Rjack wrote: Is that like Verizon Communications telling the SFLC to kiss their royal, deep-pocketed ass and subsequently receiving a NICE BIG, FAT voluntary dismissal *WITH PREDJUDICE*. It is only your interpretation tha

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Alexander Terekhov wrote: I personally believe that even if a particular instance of object code is judged to include protected expression of both/either source code's copyright owner and/or compiler's copyright owner, the resulting binary is merely an aggregation of multiple computer program wor

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf > > While disposition of a work downloaded to a floppy disk would only > implicate the distribution right, the transmission of a work from > one person to an

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Rjack wrote: > > If you think the Copyright Office may re-define the definitions > > provided by Congress in the Copyright Act then you are either > > extremely naive or smoking something causing you to hallucinate. > > Given the choice of believing you or believing the m

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Rjack wrote: If you think the Copyright Office may re-define the definitions provided by Congress in the Copyright Act then you are either > extremely naive or smoking something causing you to hallucinate. Given the choice of believing you or believing the manual of procedures for the governmen

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: They are *not* considered to be the same work for copyright purposes. One form is considered to be a "translation" of the other. That makes one a *derivative* work of the other under US law: You are wrong.

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Rjack wrote: I have argued that a compiler adds no creative element to qualify the "translation" because of its fixed algorithms but this is a legally unsupported *conjecture*. It is the codified practice of the US Copyright Office.

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Rjack wrote: They are *not* considered to be the same work for copyright purposes. One form is considered to be a "translation" of the other. That makes one a *derivative* work of the other under US law: You are wrong.

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

Rjack wrote: Is that like Verizon Communications telling the SFLC to kiss their royal, deep-pocketed ass and subsequently receiving a NICE BIG, FAT voluntary dismissal *WITH PREDJUDICE*. It is only your interpretation that this is what happened. The manufacturer of the routers, Actiontec, made

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Alan Mackenzie wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms of a computer program do not have separate copyrights. They are considered to be the same work for copyright purposes. Are you sure, on this one? Yes. See

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Rjack wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably held to be held by those who have copyright of the source files, not those who wrote the compiler. An interesting aside is that the source and executable fo

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Rjack wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably held to be held by those who have copyright of the source files, not those who wrote the compiler. An interesting aside is that the source and executable fo

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Alan Mackenzie wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably held to be held by those who have copyright of the source files, not those who wrote the compiler. An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms of a com

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER allow a court to review the enforcibility of the GPL. Not as long as defendants NEVER, NEVER decline to settle. Yeah... Is that like Verizon Communications telling the SFLC to kiss their royal, deep-pocketed ass and subsequently

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Hyman Rosen wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably held to be held >> by those who have copyright of the source files, not those who wrote the >> compiler. > An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms of a > computer program d

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Alan Mackenzie wrote: Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably held to be held by those who have copyright of the source files, not those who wrote the compiler. An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms of a computer program do not have separate copyrights.

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

Rjack wrote: Professor Robert P. Merges "But what is most significant about the agreement is that it > purports to restrict subsequent transferees who receive software > from a licensee, presumably even if the licensee fails to attach > a copy of the agreement. Of course the GPL does no such th

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

Rjack wrote: The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER allow a court to review the enforcibility of the GPL. Not as long as defendants NEVER, NEVER decline to settle. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gn

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf While disposition of a work downloaded to a floppy disk would only implicate the distribution right, the transmission of a work from one person to another over the Internet results in a

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

Alexander Terekhov wrote: SIXTH DEFENSE (FIRST SALE DOCTRINE) Plaintiffs claims are barred by the first sale doctrine. When defendants post an answer to a complaint, they assert every conceivable defense against the arguments of the plaintiffs. That's routine lawyering. Then the plaintiffs have

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Afternoon, Alfred! On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 01:12:53PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >>>The degree of creativity involved in writing a few >>>comparison and conditional/unconditional jump >>>instructions is too low to merit copyright, just as >>>comp

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

>>The degree of creativity involved in writing a few >>comparison and conditional/unconditional jump >>instructions is too low to merit copyright, just as >>composing the sentence "This is silly." would be. >> Well, depends... Duff's device is qui

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

Hi, Alfred! On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 09:19:56AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >>The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison >>and conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to >>merit copyright, just as composing the sentence "This is >>

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

>The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison >and conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to >merit copyright, just as composing the sentence "This is >silly." would be. > Well, depends... Duff's device is quite a smart way to unroll

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

>The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison >and conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to >merit copyright, just as composing the sentence "This is >silly." would be. > Well, depends... Duff's device is quite a smart way to unroll

MingW/Windows: Building g++ import lib for existing DLL

Hi. [I don't know whether this, MinGW g++ tool usage, is on-topic here. I've failed to find a more relevant group. *MULTI-POST*: posted yesterday to gnu.gcc.help.] I'm trying to build an import library for the Windows GDI+ API (Windows' basic modern graphics API), because it isn't supported