On 2/10/2010 6:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
One *SINGLE* (consisting of a separate unique whole) project is not a
joint work although it produces a (single) (combined) larger program???
Correct. A joint work is created only when all of its
authors agree and intend to do so. Otherwise, as
On 2/10/2010 6:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
RJack didn't wrote that actiontec.com is verizon.net
In this matter, Actiontec is acting as Verizon's agent.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Every lawsuit filed by the SFLC has ended successfully with the
defendants coming into compliance with the GPL. I can only imagine
how much more could accomplished by competent attorneys!
Surely you are not referring to the SFLC's attorneys?
THAT'S HERESY HYMAN
On 2/11/2010 11:36 AM, RJack wrote:
Surely you are not referring to the SFLC's attorneys?
THAT'S HERESY HYMAN `
I shouldn't be surprised that irony is lost on you too.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote:
They are copyrighted so I can't provide the text but you
can easily access them at your favorite local law library
or purchase them online:
I haven't read them yet, but they're available for free:
On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote:
1) 2007-01-15 - ABA IP Journal Publishes Article by Skye Group Managing
Director: The American Bar Association's Intellectual Property
Newsletter has published an article by Managing Director Doug Hass
entitled The Myth of Copyleft Protection: Reconciling the
Sorry, wrong link to the paper. It's
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID966338_code410303.pdf?abstractid=957377rulid=10853909mirid=1
On 2/11/2010 12:03 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote:
1) 2007-01-15 - ABA IP Journal Publishes Article by Skye Group
On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote:
2) A Gentlemen's Agreement: Assessing the GNU General Public License
and its Adaptation to Linux. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual
Property, Vol. 6, p. 213, 2007.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote:
1) 2007-01-15 - ABA IP Journal Publishes Article by Skye Group
Managing Director: The American Bar Association's Intellectual
Property Newsletter has published an article by Managing Director
Doug Hass entitled The Myth of Copyleft
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote:
2) A Gentlemen's Agreement: Assessing the GNU General Public License
and its Adaptation to Linux. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual
Property, Vol. 6, p. 213, 2007.
On 2/11/2010 1:01 PM, RJack wrote:
Your link addresses EC competition law. I have no working knowledge of
European law concerning these matters.
Yeah, sorry about that - a Google search for the paper
turn up that one first. I've posted the correct link
elsewhere.
David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote:
2) A Gentlemen's Agreement: Assessing the GNU General Public
License and its Adaptation to Linux. Chicago-Kent Journal of
Intellectual Property, Vol. 6, p. 213, 2007.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/10/2010 6:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
RJack didn't wrote that actiontec.com is verizon.net
In this matter, Actiontec is acting as Verizon's agent.
Who said to you that Actiontec is Verizon's agent/not acting on its own
behalf, stypid Hyman?
regards,
On 2/11/2010 2:21 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Why didn't Erik Andersen fork the busybox to create his
own non-joint version of busybox?
As far as I understand, he made changes to BusyBox to
produce a new version. Fork would imply that he was
making a version separate from one undergoing
On 2/11/2010 2:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Who said to you that Actiontec is Verizon's agent/not
acting on its own behalf
The fact that Verizon web pages point to Actiontec
web sites and use Actiontec addresses, as you yourself
showed.
___
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
They do not. They post contributions to GPL-licensed
programs, and the GPL is the only documentation of
their intent. If the GPL intended to create a joint
work it would say so, and since it does not, no joint
Uh retard Hyman.
A joint work can be created without any
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/11/2010 2:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Who said to you that Actiontec is Verizon's agent/not
acting on its own behalf
The fact that Verizon web pages point to Actiontec
web sites and use Actiontec addresses, as you yourself
showed.
Take your meds Hyman.
On 2/11/2010 3:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The GPL seeks to deny creators of contributions forming derivative work
their copyright ownership in the sense that contributors are purportedly
impeded to license their copyright as they see fit and should use the
GPL and only the GPL instead.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/11/2010 3:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The GPL seeks to deny creators of contributions forming derivative work
their copyright ownership in the sense that contributors are purportedly
impeded to license their copyright as they see fit and should use the
GPL and
On 2/11/2010 4:01 PM, chrisv wrote:
Man, you have the patience of a saint
It's not precisely patience. As I have said before, I find
these exchanges entertaining. It's rather sad, actually :-)
More seriously, it's also educational to a get a layman's
glimpse of what it must be like being a
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/11/2010 2:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
A joint work can be created without any license at all.
But when there is a license, the presumption is that the license
states the terms.
Take your meds Hyman. The GPL states the terms of
On 2/11/2010 4:37 PM, RJack wrote:
We are not speaking about the intent of the developers concerning the
GPL and all third parties (meaning the general public -- remember
General Public License?) but the relationship among the *developers*
themselves. The GPL is irrelevant to the intent among
chrisv wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/11/2010 3:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The GPL seeks to deny creators of contributions forming
derivative work their copyright ownership in the sense that
contributors are purportedly impeded to license their copyright
as they see fit and should use
On 2/11/2010 4:53 PM, RJack wrote:
If the original authors accept a developer's code to be integrated
into the BusyBox project they show their intent to include that new
contributor as a joint author.
No, that's completely wrong. The new developers prepare
work distributed under the GPL,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/11/2010 4:53 PM, RJack wrote:
If the original authors accept a developer's code to be
integrated into the BusyBox project they show their intent to
include that new contributor as a joint author.
No, that's completely wrong. The new developers prepare work
On 2010-02-11, Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Snit wrote:
Hyman Rosen stated in post b4zcn.76921$je2.9...@newsfe09.iad on 2/11/10
12:42 PM:
On 2/11/2010 2:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
A joint work can be created without any license at all.
But when there is a
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:m9%cn.53092$np1.1...@newsfe19.iad...
On 2/11/2010 4:53 PM, RJack wrote:
If the original authors accept a developer's code to be integrated
into the BusyBox project they show their intent to include that new
contributor as a joint author.
27 matches
Mail list logo
