Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote: ...
I knew you'll bite. That's why I've omitted as such and said just
linking, not linking as such. It's just like the upcoming EU patent
law harmonization directive and software as such. Bwahahah.
Seriously, if A and B
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:31:15 +0100
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A book that refers the user to a dictionary for
the definition of a number of words is not a derivative
work
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:59:23 +0100
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tell me to respect the wishes of the author, and I'm all with you,
even if these wishes seem - at first sight - rather
an incompatible licence and one can't cleanly
separate the parts into on the page into separate components, the
whole is a derivative work and can only be distributed as a whole
under the GPL or not at all.
It is not that hard to understand.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
to mailing list only.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
of downloadable
software around with restrictions on use and redistribution: AFPL,
shareware, even MS-EULA-ware.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo
.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
COPIES of YOUR copy and (re)DISTRIBUTE them
unless you have distribution rights. This is plain default
copyright law.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
.
And those papers tell quite a lot more about Stallman than could be
subsumed in a religious lapel pin, anyway.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo
they can't be sure to prevail with it.
But that does not change that there is a lot of code around which
_does_ fit the GPL protection when linking with it.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss
actually be cheaper.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
that the FSF themselves believe that they are
unlikely to get sued over such trivial code pieces. And that they
believe nobody could claim based on that that the FSF has dirty hands
when they sue for copyright misuse themselves.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
escapes me how you can imagine to have the right to do
that.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
different in the
context of the law and of computing.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
, you can leave them alone. But you are
not free to grab more than what was offered to you.
This is not enforcing the license. It is enforcing the copyright from
which you were only given relief under conditions you chose not to
accept.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
[plonked] David Kastrup writes:
What would it mean to enforce a unilateral permission?
It would mean to produce it as a defense against an infringement claim by
the copyright owner.
Right.
I'd not call that enforce. I'd
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christopher Browne wrote:
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would write:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote: ...
http://www.linuxworld.com/read/49064_4.htm
Linuxworld
utilities.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wahaj Khan wrote: ...
One and two are the same. Mere aggregation.
It is nonsensical to talk about aggregation if one aggregate is
not even accessible for separate use.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
required that the
product, however priced or available, is then licensed under the GPL
and includes the source code.
So you better explain what exactly is your complaint.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
software?
The copyright laws protecting non-free software are the same laws as
those protecting free software.
The FSF cooperates with several other organizations trying to limit
the overreaching extent of copyright laws. This sort of lobbying
affects both free and non-free software.
--
David
can distribute them as I see fit (apart from rental) without the
authority of the copyright owner.
But you could not create them in the first place without the authority
of the copyright owner.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu
violation (no
contract says FSF). That's it.
If you fetch 20 copies of some GPl'ed software, you can give away
_those_ 20 copies in the manner you wish.
Where fetch means lawfully acquire. Something like buying a copy.
Or having gained explicit permission to make such a copy.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak
Your lies about your plonking are as transparent as your lies about
the GPL.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc
as such.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Linux-Klausel in the most recent UrhG, my dear (plonked) GNUtian
dak.
Sure. But the GPL is not a gift certificate. It is a licence.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
on my computer: Do I
have to make my changes public anyway?
No.
Google for GPL FAQ, I think this is covered.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
a
_particular_ guideline is not met by your license.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
in what the clueless cretin who
posts those things has to say.
\[EMAIL PROTECTED]
is a group of posters I don't care reading from. Looks like the
latest worm to me, and it certainly has hit the GNU mailing lists
pretty heavy. Moderating a lot of those out on my lists.
--
David Kastrup
to avoid such conflicts of interest.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
price you wish. Be aware that your customers
might choose to copy and pass on your software.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
fare in court. The MySQL people can tell you
whether you'd be likely to be dragged into court in the first place.
If you are not satisfied with the answer from the MySQL people, you
can still contact a lawyer.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
authored by a
programmer-not-a-lawyer RMS, it has no legal effect whatsoever.
Hope this helps.
In case this is not very obvious already, following Mr Terekhov's
advice with regard to the GPL does not involve erring on the safe
side, to put it mildly.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going
on.
We don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going
on.
We don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand,
have a nice lawsuit from Wallace. Kudos to him for calling the bluff
right in the GNU
Republic) or GPL compatible license (but that's for extra
regulation fee) is a felony under GNU law.
You are babbling. Of course you were babbling above as well, but I
chose to use that as an excuse for showing something people tend not
to realize.
--
David Kastrup
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if you use it internally in a business then you are distributing
the program to anyone who uses it.
Your opinion differs from that in the GPL FAQ as writtem by the FSF.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 11:43 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
But that's not really a good analogy
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GNUtian logic in action.
GNUtian David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any I accept
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the sake of nailing stupid dak once again...
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But copyright law does not allow you redistribution of copies. The
GPL grants you additional rights. You are free not to accept those
additional rights.
quote source
use.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
is internal for my use, and then
simply refuse to release the source to anyone, since it is `internal
use', if one would follow your thread.
Tell that to the FSF and to judges and lawyers in general.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu
and
worker property remain separate. Even if you are living in a
communistic state, the unity is merely theoretical.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
to release
that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other
organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular,
providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
from your predetermined
views that are in flat contradiction to how the law operates, and
consequently also to what the FSF states.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
in general.
Maybe I will. :-)
Good luck.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
resides
on is.
But you have no license to do whatever you want with the content if
you just have a copy that is the property of the company you are
working for.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if I let you run a program from a CD of mine, the CD then
becomes yours? Because CDs can be copied?
CDs are still physical like cars. Apples vs rocks.
You'll be hard put to run a program without a physical copy.
--
David Kastrup
it is the interpretation of the FSF as well.
Read the FAQ. I pointed out the article number to you after you
claimed that this was not in the FAQ.
Claiming falsehoods about what people say or don't say seem to happen
a lot to you.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
more sense than you on a bad day.
Look, get a clue about corporate law. It is not so hard to do. If a
company were not a legal entity of its own, there would not need to be
such laws.
And if you don't believe me about this, read the GPL FAQ.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
under the GPL (or intending to do
so) does not magically make it ubiquitous. Even when I finish it, it
does not mean that it ends up on archive servers magically.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it
Sitecom didn't bothered. So what?
If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded
without waiting for an injunction, wouldn't
an advantage in the long run.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
. You'll only get stuff that is
_designed_ to be junk after few years, at the cost of sustainable
resources.
DRM is just putting into practice for software what has been the rule
for hardware: built-in self-destruction.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
the terms under
which person B might make use of person A's physical property.
You really don't get internal use.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
the
content of the copy is the sole right of the copy's owner.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
have been gained by accidental server
misconfiguration) is not a license to do so: if I leave open the door
to my house by mistake, that does not allow you to enter and read my
books.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss
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 property
to that.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
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 dacha. The key
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
not give you a copy. The copy is still his own. He granted
you temporary use in the course of his work.
I don't give my head to a barber. I just grant him access to it, and
he is not free to do with it as if it were his own.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
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 act of distribution
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
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. You are only
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD
containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not
entitled to make a copy
Bernd Jendrissek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The GPL can only give the owner of a copy rights.
What if I, as a homeless vagrant scouring the city dump for cool
stuff, some across a three-year-old CD with a bunch of GNU
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Uh, you are being confused.
Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is
the author.
So you disagree with him and still quite him?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Uh, you are being confused.
Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is
the author.
So you disagree with him
to the physical copy, it applies to the
software. Please read the license, it even says so
But you can't get the software without accessing the physical media,
and what you are allowed to do with the media is its owner's decision.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
*THE*LICENSEE*. The
GNU General Public License version 2 explcicly states this.
It doesn't. And waffling about that won't change it. Quote anything
that would state such a thing.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
the content of the letters is not
tangible property.
You still confuse access and ownership. The owner is the
licensee, nobody else.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
the terms under which the software was
offered. Id.
-
My, this is such a fun. Kudos to Wallace.
For making a royal fool of himself? Have you ever seen a contract
stating:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it.
--
David Kastrup
.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Barnes Thornburg LLP on price:
---
Plaintiff's argument [...] is untenable [...]
He he.
You are hopping with glee because a commentary butchers the theories
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
misc.int-property added
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
appealing this dismissal is not going to be too easy, ...
Oh really?
Offer Wallace to lay out the money for the appeal, for a share in the
winnings
, the international TeX user
group.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wallace_(plaintiff)
Uh, the case has been closed. Get over it.
Not so fast, dear. IIUC Wallace has 30 days to appeal (possible Rule
60 Motion aside for a moment).
Poor Dan
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You did not answer the question.
Really? Oh dear. How about this:
You still have not answered the question. And all your posting of
irrelavant quotes does not change that. You are weaseling as usual.
How do you
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
So you feel unable to face the facts.
The fact is
The fact is that there is a lot of competition between GNU/Linux
vendors and very little between proprietary operating system vendors
because they all create
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
in more innovation.
He said nothing of that sort AFAICT,
Fire a search for more innovation in
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceFSFGrantingDismiss.pdf
So your pseudo-quote about price-fixing at zero was a plain
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
So your pseudo-quote about price-fixing at zero was a plain lie.
Oh dear.
http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-17.pdf
A. Vertical maximum price restraints are not per se unlawful.
The essence
.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 18:59 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
So you feel unable to face the facts.
The fact is that the GPL price-fixes IP at zero.
Really?
Global File System: 2200 USD. GPL'ed.
https
. That Usenet group
has been completely claimed by trolls.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
,
as expressed in your pseudonym behind which you hide.
Why should anybody bother about the insinuations of a troll?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
why he did it. To me, it appears that he is less
versed in antitrust than Wallace.
To you a lot of things appear. Legal competence necessitates a
certain correlation to what things appear to judges. And they
apparently have not been raised in Terekhov land.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15
not to try bedding them.
Microsoft is by and large irrelevant to free software as long as they
don't indulge in business practices that harm free software, like
pressuring vendors into producing hardware that is incapable of
running it.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Tarquin Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Kastrup wrote:
Tarquin Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Kastrup wrote:
Tarquin Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Should the FSF back complete monopolisation by Microsoft, or should
is registered as
a trademark), but that's about it.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
, and intentionally
misleading. Some hobby of his.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
that practice, the GPL has been written.
No, there is no way around it, since that is the _purpose_ of the
GPL.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
?
No.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
that the patch is
useless without GPL software is irrelevant - that's not the way
copyright law works. Gas engines are useless without gas, but that
doesn't mean I need a license from an oil company to sell engines.
Because oil is a substance, not a medium with copyable content.
--
David
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't care what you say. Thanks to Wallace, the GPL drafter is on
record: quote In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic
aggregation of software copyrights under
only related by topic. You can throw out parts and retain a
compilation.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't care what you say. Thanks to Wallace, the GPL drafter is on
record: quote In fact, the GPL
require me to publish my
source code to the world?
No. What's wrong with the GPL FAQ?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
keep it 'in-house' ?
Right now the GPL makes a distinction for in-house code. Only
if you distribute binaries do you have to share the source. I
was just saying that that should change: also in-house code
should be shared, once it's out of testing.
Why should that change?
--
David Kastrup
1 - 100 of 1030 matches
Mail list logo
