Merijn de Weerd wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:15:35 +0200 (CEST), "Alfred M. Szmidt"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >If I distribute illegally, I am not bound by the license. See you
> >in federal court for copyright infringement. I won't have to see
> >you in state court where you
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
> Our resident quote-spewing troll does prove useful occasionally: he
Hey only-derivative/not-only-derivative-(the GPL reciprocation scope)-
shizophrenik, I appreciate the acknowledgment.
> cited GRAHAM v JAMES which is exactly on point under New York law.
> http://c
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> No. You must make the entire _derivative_ (that is, the work consisting of
> the combination of your work and the GPL work) GPL.
That's not a derivative work under copyright law according to statutory
definitions (and case law), retarded uncle Hasler.
regards,
alexa
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> you see fit. It is only the work consisting of a combination of your work
> and a GPL work that may only be distributed under the GPL.
Sez who? See "mere aggregation" clause in the GPL, retard.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-mi
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Merijn writes:
> > The payment is a *covenant*, a promise made by the licensee. In the GPL's
> > case, the requirement to provide source is the covenant.
>
> IIRC IBM is counterclaiming against SCO for infringement, not breach of
> contract.
Uncle Hasler's RC-unit malfunc
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > John Hasler wrote:
> > [...]
> >> you see fit. It is only the work consisting of a combination of
> >> your work and a GPL work that may only be distributed under the
>
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> Dr
eeckels.
Dr. Dreckels.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> You do not give up any rights by distributing under the GPL.
You need to contact IBM's legal counsel and set them straight before
they further embarrass themselves, uncle Hasler.
Wallace (to the Appellate Judges):
IBM et al. state [IBM Brief at 15, ¶1] The owne
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
>
> Sure, why not. RedHat makes a couple millions a year.
RedHat doesn't sell software, idiot. RedHat's CEO is on record
explaining that. See also their SEC fillings, retard.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss m
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> This is a modification of the application.
The GPL is a copyright thing, retard. Show me original literary work,
(computer program works are protected as literary works) and modified
literary work (changed expression) modulo filtering of unprotected
elements (see
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Well, the last filing is at
> http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060710/rhat10-q.html>, and lo-and-behold,
See Full Filing, not summary, retard. Quotes from latest 10-Q:
-
Open source software is an alternative to proprietary software and
represents a different model for th
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Well, the last filing is at
> >> http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060710/rhat10-q.html>, and lo-and-behold,
> >
> > See Full Fi
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Not at all, since they don't prohibit copying software, but rather
> refuse servicing such copies.
Uh, lazy retard dak. Quoting Red Hat's Subscription Agreement:
The term "Installed Systems" means the number of Systems on which
Customer installs or executes the S
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> have no vendor lockin on their customers, and indeed, this is the one
> thing one hasn't when dealing with GPLed software.
You're being incredibly stupid. The lockin is done using certification
schemes with partners.
Oracle (Red Hat's large investor), for example,
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Microsoft would not sell software, they only sell the delivery in form
> of CDs you are allowed to install.
You can buy copies online. The point is that you don't have to enter
into any services contracts with microsoft. And as for fixing, there's
product warranty an
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Well, you can also get whitebox Linux or something like that (don't
> remember the name right now) which is basically the RedHat enterprise
> software without the service.
http://www.centos.org freeware. Major pain in Red Hat's ass.
Sponsored by SUN. :-)
http://www
John Hasler wrote:
>
> > Well, you can also get whitebox Linux or something like that...
[Red Hat's free-riders]
>
> White Box Linux and Centos.
WBL is not well supported. Centos has more friends (Sun Microsystems
and OpenSolaris Project). At some point Red Hat will have to fire core
program
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> So then I guess I _can_ do the following? Yay!:
>
> 1. Make non-GPL program.
>
> 2. Combine a little bit of someone else's GPL program.
>
> 3. Release the _combined work_ under GPL.
>
> 4. Take a bit of my _original work_ from the *original*
> part of said comb
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> The GPL creates its own software pool
of intellectual property price fixed below the cost of its creation.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listin
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Not at all. He can still _fully_ assert his copyright on those parts.
> That means he can demand that recipients _obey_ his license terms
Hey stupid dak, "_obey_ his license terms" is a contract claim, not
copyright infringement. And "assert his copyright" means sui
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> The GPL creates its own software pool
> >
> > of intellectual property price fixed below the cost of its creation.
>
> Well,
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
> > Man oh man. Profit = buyer's cost to obtain - seller's cost to create.
>
> The marginal cost of creating a copy of a piece of software is close enough
> to zero as makes no difference. And it is a _copy_ tha
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Not at all. He can still _fully_ assert his copyright on those parts.
> >> That means he can demand that recipients _obey_ his lice
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Man oh man. Profit = buyer's cost to obtain - seller's cost to create.
> >
> > Okay?
>
> Ok.
>
> > Now we take the case with distribution of new (we are now going to
> > create) derivative work of something under the GPL:
> >
> >buyer's cost to obtain = 0 (per
lichen678 wrote:
[...]
> I don't entirely follow the legalese,
That's because it's Stallmanese, not legalese. But anyway, according
to the FSF itself, one must convert that LGPL'd stuff to GPL per LGPL
Section 3 in order to use that stuff "combined"/"linked" with GPL'd
stuff. So the LGPL is i
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Last time I looked, one could not make much use of a WORK without
> obtaining a copy previously.
And you obtain it from the net or a friend for free. Free-riders like
centos aside for a moment.
>
> > Nobody in his right mind will buy multiple copies if one can buy
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> So you claim that they were not profitable? How then did they survive
> and expand?
IPO scam.
Red Hat abandoned retail market in mid fiscal 2004, IIRC.
Now, here's the data (in thousands, fiscal, restated):
1997: net LOSS1318 (-)
1998: net LOSS3738 (-)
199
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> And it would be stupid not to have net losses following an IPO: where
> is the purpose in asking for money if you are not going to spend it?
It appears that your expertise in financials is as good as in IP
licensing basics. Ignorant retard. Try
http://investor.goog
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> And another irrelevant link, congratulations. What the concrete
> Google financials have to do with what to expect in the wake of an IPO
> will probably remain your secret.
Google also had an IPO, stupid.
>
> If it has not escaped you,
http://www.linuxjournal.com
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > buyer's cost to obtain = 0 (per GPL "no charge" provision)
> >
> > seller's cost to create = programmer's salar
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> There seems to be a substantial profit for the "buyer" here: they get
> >> a program for nothing.
>
> >I was talking
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> So are you saying
I was quoting Stallman. And the link was to Moglen's dotCommunist
manifesto. Feel free to ask them. Regarding dak's comment, I bet
they won't endorse Red Hat and OSDL (current home of Torvalds,
IPOs scam millionare).
regards,
alexander.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> 3. I then have to distribute the combined work C = O+G under GPL
> because that's the terms.
That's not the terms. That's merely GNUtian crackpot theory of
derivative works to mislead you. Don't expect to hear this
crackpot theory in court of law. The FSF already
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Google is one company. Are you claiming that the return of investment
> time plan and turn out for all IPOs are the same?
I'll let you keep guessing that. You might also want learn what
various financial metrics actually mean.
regards,
alexander.
__
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Richard writes:
> > There seems to be a substantial profit for the "buyer" here: they get a
> > program for nothing.
>
> They get a copy of the program (what they want) for whatever price they and
> one of the supliers thereof agree on.
Yeah, and it's totally unforeseen
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> versed expression of Homer's Ilias and Odyssey,
Homer is in public domain.
[...]
> > (instead of removing economic incentive to create derivative works
> > by making profit in a free market by trading derivative works) and
> > I'd have no problem with that. That is
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> So you say that civilization should be considered ended with the
> advent of copyright?
No. I simply see no problems with unilateral decisions to release
something straight into the public domain in our modern civilization
with IP market economy.
>
> You might be
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > No. I simply see no problems with unilateral decisions to release
> > something straight into the public domain in our modern civilization
> > with IP market economy.
>
> So behavior benefiting society and progress should become optional.
Even utterly proprietary a
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> Sighs, it has been said by four people by now, me included: you retain
> all the rights to your code! Period, end of story, nothing more to
> discuss. Be it original, or deriviate, it is your code, you are the
> copyright holder. End of story.
End of ams' bu
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Even utterly proprietary and closed software can benefiting
> > society.
>
> Sure, and so does war. That does not mean that it is a good idea to
> create circumstances where this is the case.
Yeah right, and so, to braindamaged GNUtians like you, all-rights-
reser
It's not clear whether the subject is audiovisual or computer programs
(i.e. literary apart from unprotectable elements filtered out by the
AFC test) works, but assuming the later...
>
> * Neil Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Steven Fuerst wrote:
> > > I think it has something to do with the "
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> license that disallows charging a fee for copying is not free in any
> sense of the word.
How come that the GNU GPL, which prohibits charging a fee *for copying*
(see "no charge"), is considered "free" by GNUtians? And, BTW, don't
you know the GNU FDL is consid
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> In mine, the GPL reads:
>
> (clause 1)
>
> You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
> and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange
> for a fee.
That's not about copying, stupid. It's about a "physical act of
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> In mine, the GPL reads:
> >>
> >> (clause 1)
> >>
> >> You may charge a fee for the physical act of
Go to doctor, GNUtian Tobin.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
You're talking bullshit, GNUtian Tobin. In the GPL context, B's right
to give a ("lawfully made") copy to C is not an exclusive right of A
and hence it can not be licensed. It's statutory right. 17 USC 109,
idiot. A copy can be "lawfully made" if it is made by the copyright
owner, made with the
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You're talking bullshit, GNUtian Tobin. In the GPL context, B's right
> > to give a ("lawfully made") copy to C is not an exclusive right of A
> > and hence it
Hey Burfel, developments!
8/28 IBM filed "supplimental authorities."
Wallace didn't file a response to IBM's "supplimental authorities." (The
FRAP says that a reply can be filed if it is "prompt.")
IBM filed "Schor v. Abbott Laboratories" concerning a section 2
"monopoly leveraging" theory (with
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > 8/28 IBM filed "supplimental authorities."
>
> [...]
>
> > These appellate judges are no morons
>
> Remember that line. You'll be singing
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > 8/28 IBM filed "su
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > "And a copy made under a license retains the license obligations."
> >
> > is quite telling.
>
> Read a dictionary. "Keep in place" is perfectly acceptable definition
Which place, dak? And what puts it in place to begin with? And recall
that your GNUtian authorit
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > "And a copy made under a license retains the license obligations."
> >> >
> >> > is quite telling.
> &g
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> And thus you are bound by the license, since the license is a
> extention of copyright law.
Yeah, as if RMS is the same as Congress and his moronic pseudo
legalese somehow "extends" statutory law. Only in the GNU Republic,
retard.
regards,
alexander.
__
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
[...]
> will not be allowed to distribute the work without breaking copyright law
> (which you are bound by, whether you accept it or not).
17 USC 109, stupid. Read it. And try to spell come "conditions" to
make a copy under the GPL. And once a copy is lawfully mad
http://news.com.com/Linux+lab+GPL+clarification+needed+ASAP/2100-7344_3-6117785.html?tag=nefd.top
(Linux lab: GPL clarification needed ASAP)
--
FSF attorney Eben Moglen met members of a committee of corporate
powers on Tuesday and Wednesday in Chicago, said OSDL Chief Executive
Stuart Cohen.
commentators at work...
--
Comment 1747: Does not consider combining.
Regarding the text: When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at
your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from
any part of it.
In section: gpl3.licensecompat.p15.s1
Submitted by: coezbek on 20
[... [EMAIL PROTECTED] v. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...]
idiot + idiot = 2 x ueberidiot.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
kussion bereichern dürfte, auch wenn man nicht jedes Ergebnis
teilen muss.
---
He he.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hey lazy GNUtian dak, why don't you simply read the paper before
> &g
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am having this issue as pointed out by the faq. The application i am
> writing would be a commercial product so what issues should i be
> looking out for?
Your major issue is the risk to become GPL-moronized by that
moronic FAQ
>
> http://www.gnu.or
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: (failing to attribute and quote properly)
and snipped "You get convicted and have to pay compensation, maybe go
to jail."
>
>The point is: you will not get ordered to start complying with the
>GPL.
>
> The option to start complying with the GNU GPL exists,
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>> The option to start complying with the GNU GPL exists,
>
>Even in a criminal action brought by the state? Must be fun to live
>on the GNU Republic: GPL or else go to jail. Paradise of freedom.
>
> My beloved Alexander, you seem to not be able to read m
It only appears to be irrelevant to you, GNUtian retards. And only
because it doesn't fit in your moronic GNU Law theology.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-dis
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
Man oh man. This is fun.
Hero Welte gets around 3K EURO and D-Link must tell him from whom and
how many routers they've bought (I'm pretty sure that the stuff came
from Taiwan) and subsequently resold. The rest of the case was
dismissed.
And now a
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
> >
> > Man oh man. This is fun.
> >
> > Hero Welte gets around 3K EURO and D-Link must tell him from whom and
> > ho
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
> >>
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> >> Yup. And the only "rest" was the key for the damages.
> >
> > That's your interpretation. I'd have to see all filings to agree or
> > disagree with it. If you have access and can provide this
> > information, I'd appreciate it greatly.
>
> Uh, you can just read th
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Well, yes. That's a consequence of the GPL being a license, not a
> contract.
:-)
I love you, dak. Hey, can you read the judgment? Let us count the
number of "vertrag" and "Vertrag" occurrences in it. You go first.
regards,
alexander.
Hey dak, would you please share your understanding (in English words)
of German phrase "Vertragsverhältnis zwischen". And what the heck is
meant to be accepted "durch Vorname der Zustimmungsbedürftigen
Handlung" (please be so kind and translate that phrase to English as
well). Pg 11. Finally, ple
And here comes the GPL girl.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060922134536257
Well, there's a somewhat refreshing comment. (Anonymous != terekhov)
---
GPL validity isn't a package deal
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 22 2006 @ 05:24 PM EDT
"Even if you could prove the
s ten years worth of tickets for driving without a license."
--
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> And here comes the GPL girl.
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060922134536257
>
> Well, there's a somewhat refreshing comment. (Anonymo
David Kastrup wrote:
[snip crapola]
> When I develop GPLed software for customers of mine, the construction
I gather that you're not employee.
> we usually use is that they get licensed to do with the software more
> or less at their behest, while we have an understanding that I am free
> to li
http://lwn.net/Articles/200422/
--
6 Conclusions
The three key objections noted in section 5 are individually and
collectively sufficient reason for us to reject the current licence
proposal. However, we also note that the current draft with each of the
unacceptable provisions stripped out co
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And the benevolent dictator elaborates (on Groklaw):
> >
> > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060922134536257
>
> [Presumably a quote, though one can't be sur
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/msg/a8f1cd22169e9daf
(Subject: An Ode to GPLv2 (was Re: GPLv3 Position Statement))
---
One of the reasons I didn't end up signing the GPLv3 position statement
that James posted (and others had signed up for), was that a few weeks ago
I had signed up
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Warm and fuzzy does not work as a legally binding license. One has to
> spell out all areas where "tit for tat" can be undermined to a fatal
> degree.
You mean the FSF's crackpot theory regarding "based on" copyright
derivation a la "Subclassing is creating a deriva
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Stallman's work, later enhanced by other parties but kept (c) FSF all
> the time.
(C) FSF doesn't mean that the code was written by the FSF, retard. Folks
assign their 100% original code to the FSF on regular basis. Then comes
FSF's crackpot derivation theory (e.g.
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Stallman's work, later enhanced by other parties but kept (c) FSF all
> >> the time.
> >
> > (C) FSF doesn't
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/msg/7488049cd45cd87b
(Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement)
---
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Michiel de Boer wrote:
>
> I support the current draft of the GPL version 3 and am very dissapointed
> it will not be adopted as is. IMHO, Linux has the power and
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> In this case, the FSF is the legally-recognised author and the
> exclusive licensor. They hold the copyright.
AFAIK, the FSF isn't exclusive licensor of assigned stuff. Assignors
reserve and retain right to license assigned stuff under any terms they
like. At
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> > [...]
> >> In this case, the FSF is the legally-recognised author and the
> >> exclusive licensor. They hold the copyright.
>
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>> In this case, the FSF is the legally-recognised author and the
>> exclusive licensor. They hold the copyright.
>
>AFAIK, the FSF isn't exclusive licensor of assigned
>stuff. Assignors reserve and retain right to license assigned stuff
>under an
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> But anyway, vi and its ilk (not derivatives) would fit the flowery
> "only retarded fanatics use that torturous editor" hyperbole of Mr
> Terekhov equally well: the vi family certainly is at least as
> idiosyncratic as Emacs.
Nah. Your comrade ams uses Emacs (not vi),
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> RMS and ams use RMAIL as a mail client, I (and most others) use Gnus.
So you're also using Emacs. Man, what a surprise.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mai
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
> The FSF is the exclusive, and soul copyright holder of all parts in
> GCC. They can choose to do whatever they want with IBM's code, they
> are the copyright holders of said code, not IBM.
Hey dak, call 911 for comrade ams.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2000-07/m
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> >>
> >> The FSF is the exclusive, and soul copyright holder of all parts in
> >> GCC. They can choose to do whatever they want wi
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > IBM didn't remain the copyright holder, but FSF just can't be
> > exclusive licensor
>
> Well, reread what Alfred wrote above. "exclusive copyright holder".
Yeah, as if copyright ownership can be non-exclusive (in the sense of
suing strangers -- not parties to li
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>Of course, contrary to ams' contention, the FSF can't just choose
>to do whatever they want to with IBM's code:
>
> I never said that. IBM is the copyright holder of IBM's code, in the
> case of GCC, it is not longer IBM's code, but the FSF's, since IBM has
http://gplv3.fsf.org/pipermail/info-gplv3/2006-September/11.html
From: GPLv3 Information <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Info-gplv3] GPLv3: recent misleading information
---
The Free Software Foundation wishes to clarify a few factual points
about the Second Discussion Draft of GNU GPL vers
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> Your predictions fall short of reality, or is it reality that falls
> short of your predictions?
There's nothing particular unreal to expect sensible judgments from
courts. According to the GPL-moronized court in Frankfurt, eventhough
the obligations part o
In comments to
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060925204515114
(FSF Responds to Misunderstandings about GPLv3)
---
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 25 2006 @ 10:57 PM EDT
I already actually replied to PJ in private (and in a separate email
to her I promised that I woul
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> The GPL (in any version) does not dictate that manufacturers have to
> equip the system with rewritable memory. But if they do, its access
In comments to
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060922134536257
---
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September
< gnu.misc.discuss added >
Beate Lustig wrote:
>
> David Kastrup schrieb:
>
> > Im Gegensatz zum Standpunkt des Gruppentrolls von gnu.misc.discuss
> > ("GPL ist ungültig, rechtswidrig, etc.") ist unser örtliches Exemplar
> > eher auf "GPL ist böse" geeicht, so daß dieses Urteil wenig geeignet
>
In comments to
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060925204515114
(FSF Responds to Misunderstandings about GPLv3)
---
Weasel-wording, part deux
Authored by: Linus on Tuesday, September 26 2006 @ 02:00 AM EDT
Is not the TIVO distributing under the GPL 2 restricting my 'use'?
Yes
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>> There is actually no good reason that RMAIL omits [attribution
>> lines].
>
>And the fact that it does is no excuse for their absence.
>
> People who complain about something non-essential like this should get
> a hobby; maybe adding such a feature to
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>Here, I mean the free and open the same way I mentioned.
>
>Why the split, FSF and OSI? OSI is free, but why FSF is not open?
>:(
>
> Open source software is not free at all in many cases. For example,
> the Microsoft Shared Source License is a non-free
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> Just look at Linus and the other kernel developers who abided to
> BitKeeper, until the owners of that proprietary software decided to pull
> the plug after a Free Software author found a way to free people from
> BitKeeper.
Tridgell didn't found a way to fr
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
> If it makes you happy, then the NASA Open Source Agreement is listed
> http://opensource.org/licenses/, but it is not a free software
> license.
>
> NASA Open Source Agreement
>
> The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free
> software license be
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> Which has nothing to do with why the NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSG)
> is a non-free license. I suggest you read section G:
>
> | G. Each Contributor represents that that its Modification is
> |believed to be Contributor's original creation and does not
>
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> McVoy's out of luck
McVoy is doing good.
http://www.bitkeeper.com/press/2006-04-25.html
BitMover Expanding North American Operations
Campbell, CA, April 25, 2006 -- BitMover Inc., the provider of
BitKeeper, the industry's only peer-to- peer
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>> Which has nothing to do with why the NASA Open Source Agreement
>> (NOSG) is a non-free license. I suggest you read section G:
>>
>> | G. Each Contributor represents that that its Modification is
>> |believed to be Contributor's original crea
801 - 900 of 3067 matches
Mail list logo
