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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
---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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
amicus_curious wrote:
Sermo Malifer sermomali...@noemail.com wrote in message
news:grcvqf$r5...@news.albasani.net...
No, he's just observing you have no evidence to support your assertions.
Of course I do. TomTom paid. They didn't pay just because they felt like
paying, they paid
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:35:30 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
Sermo Malifer sermomali...@noemail.com wrote in message
news:grcvqf$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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
45 matches
Mail list logo
