Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Be sure to keep the sales receipt for the copy you choose to _pass_
_on_ in order to show that you bought a copy from the copyright holder
or someone acting in his behalf.
Sales receipt is not needed. You would have
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Sure, and you can then resell this CD if you want to. What you can't
do is make additional copies and sell those without adhering to the
license.
Another legal persons makes copies. And he is in total compliance. I
, or even to new owners.
-
as exhibits to his complaint.
It would be nonsensical unless he was suing Trolltech, and he would
utterly not have standing to claim damages. And IBM, RedHat and the
FSF can hardly be blamed for the fantasies of Trolltech.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
this is obviously not what Trolltech intended
Trolltech's intentions is smoking gun stuff to invalidate the
whole scheme once and for all
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But Novell and RedHat are not responsible for the interpretation
Trolltech places on the parts copyrighted by Trolltech.
Both Novell and Red Hat are *parties* to the agreement with Trolltech
covering Qt under the GPL
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But Novell and RedHat are not responsible for the interpretation
Trolltech places on the parts copyrighted by Trolltech.
Both Novell and Red
sympathy is limited.
Any distributor worth his salt distributes source CDs. That's the
reason all free software package formats also have a corresponding
source package format.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
. Having to engage on a treasure hunt through all
previous parties who might or might not have changed some part is not
going to cut it. If there is any point in having the source code
available, it must be the duty of the immediate provider of your copy.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify AND
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.
Well, since you
in the courts.
--
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
. A bit of a stretch (but read the statute's
wording carefully). Still perfectly reasonable. No?
Too clever. Judges don't tend to like that.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:07:59 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Basically, it
says that if you have a legal copy of a copyrighted work, you do
*NOT* need the permission of the copyright owner
source as
a part of its offering) into something new? After all, in a GPLed
work, the source code can be considered an essential part of the
intended integrity (whether artistic or not) of the work.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu
.html
(RMS: You shouldn't install Sun Java on GNU Linux)
In my opinion Richard Stallman is a lunatic, some kind of Software
Taliban.
RMS is a lunatic. And GNU-nazi.
Get a life, you sad little man. That's something that Stallman
happens to have.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
communities, and a look at the license distribution of registered
projects on freshmeat.
Ignorance rules the world. (So that smart ones can live better.)
Except that one can't license software by default. Licensing
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Linus for President!
Ah, so finally you are enthusiastic about GPLv2, the license of the
Linux kernel, and its defenders. Took you a long time.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu
for the FUD and spins its opponents fabricate.
--
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
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup writes:
Well, the theory is that once you touch GPLed work, it jumps up and
magically gobbles up all of your portfolio.
That describes SCO's interpretation of the SysV source licence.
Well, it is hard to say just _what_ is supposed to have
of it (of which is it is unlikely there
are any), not the physical manifestation.
Seriously, go get a freaking life Alexander...
For one thing, he perfectly well has the life of a freak, and for
another, look at what you wrote above.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
this copy, however. So you can't, for example, make
shareware where the copy is available to the customer, but the license
agreement only gets made by the transfer of a fee.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
to copyright law.
--
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
standard in a computer dictionary of your
choice. A standard is about making criteria for subsequent creation
of _independent_ copyrightable material, by coercing _agreement_ in
separate pieces of software, not mere _compliance_ with copying
conditions.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
Last time I looked, he was not out for selling his copyright, so he is
_not_ intending to charge for his IP, but for _licensing_ his IP.
It's hard to tell for sure, but it appears to me that what he
the GPL does not
even try or claim to do anything beyond the scope of copyright.
--
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:
[...]
Well, did you read what you quoted? It says exactly what everybody is
telling you: copyright misuse is not a question ^
Piss off, stupid dak.
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg
. And he
has never said anything different. People tend to ascribe various
other motives they'd like to him and then get embarrassed or annoyed
when they find that he says the same things he always said.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Ferd Burfel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Uh, you can't blame Stallman for the fantasies people have about
his goals.
I don't. In my opinion, he has some rather radical ideas. But some
of his followers are more radical
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vincent Rivière [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GPL states that if I distribute my projet under GPL, I must
distribute the sources, too.
The GPL states no such thing. If you
mean that you
put it in a publicly available place with a GPL license notice. That
means that copies downloaded from there will be governed by the GPL.
But that does not mean that you can't distribute other copies under
other conditions.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
means that copies downloaded from there will be governed by the GPL.
The GPL governs work (rights to it) not copies, stupid.
Nonsense. That would preclude dual-licensing models, for example.
--
David Kastrup
the copyright holder.
The only person with standing to sue anybody over non-compliance with
the GPL is the copyright holder himself.
There is a remote possibility that competitors might sue for
misleading advertising, but that is not really something to bank on.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The only person with standing to sue anybody over non-compliance with
the GPL is the copyright holder himself.
Each party to the GPL contract can sue for non-compliance, retard.
Non-compliance with which obligations
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
My dearest Alexander, what would constitute the copyright holder and
licensor breaching the contract? There are no obligations to her
spelled out at all in the contract. So how would she breach them?
By failing
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Could you please cite the passage of the GPL where the licensor, as
opposed to the licensee, is required to provide source code?
And from where is the licensee (as opposed to the licensor) supposed
to get the source
a final image
format. Should not be too difficult if they are reduced versions, for
example.
Then try applying your theory. Good luck
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Vertrags-Rechtsschutz for something which you downloaded by your own
volition without recompensation?
Many by your own volition contracts don't require recompensation
in (direct) monetary sense, stupid. Licensee's
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
license, I don't see where you base this off.
I'm tired of you, stupid dak.
In short, you can't counter.
Here's GPL FAQ from Welte's attorneys:
Oh, that means that you agree with Welte? Interesting news. Anyway
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Now if the licensor did not even give the licensee source code, the
konkludentes Handeln which would make the closing of a contract
conclusive did not even happen.
Idiot. I don't need source code to enter into GPL
library as part in a non-GPLed program, quite the other way
round.
--
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:
Piss off, retard dak. Go to doctor.
It seems like I am already doing quite a good job at pissing you off
without requiring external input, but thanks for the suggestion.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piss off, retard dak. Go to doctor.
It seems like I am already doing quite a good job at pissing you off
without requiring external input, but thanks for the suggestion
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
GPL because the work as a whole has to be licensed under the GPL,
Man oh man. Go back to doctor, retard. Try another one.
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
And another long quote
contact
the author for permission, but in all likelihood the author would
charge a higher price or refuse altogether.
That's just being fair: you want to make a dime by dual-licensing, so
it is reasonable to offer a reasonable portion of that to the author
for dual-licensing to you.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
application WITH VERY visible caption THIS part comes from and
is based on GPL license?
Only if the work as a whole is licensed under the GPL without further
^
|
derivative
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Yes, and he quite clearly stated that their product as a whole was
supposed to have a GPLed component, ergo be a combined work derived
from (among others) the GPLed piece.
His product as whole is NOT a derivative work
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup wrote:
Competitors might try to sue for misleading advertising, but that's about
it. There are no warranties, implied or otherwise, coming with GPLed
software. The only person who has standing to sue for non
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tim Smith wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup wrote:
Competitors might try to sue for misleading advertising, but that's about
it. There are no warranties, implied or otherwise, coming with GPLed
software. The only person who
die bei Verträgen über Lieferungen neu hergestellter
Sachen und über Werkleistungen did you not understand? If you have
an _explicit_ contractual obligation (and the GPL is _not_ that) to
deliver a working product, you can't escape that obligation by the GPL
disclaimer.
--
David Kastrup
reserved
to exceptional cases.
--
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I assume that all committers on a given project put their names
in the license header of the files that they modify.
Rarely.
Hm. Whoops. I'd forgotten about copyright assignment for GNU
projects. For other
part of the second sentence, then pretend that the first part of it
somehow belongs to the first sentence.
If you want to make a point, please do this without previously
fabricating nonsense from a posting of mine. It is disingenuous.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
, then reply to
points I never made. If you don't like me complaining about it, stop
this disingenuous practice. Simple as that. As long as you continue
to do so, I'll continue to point it out.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been wondering about the GNU software and documentation license.
For one thing, although the goals are decent, I don't like what I
percieve as it's viral nature.
Too bad, since it is that which ensures
/licenses/gpl-faq.html.
--
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
into the Public Domain.
But it sounds like you are rather whining that you can't license your
own code under more restrictive terms, so this is just a bunch of
crocodile's tears, apparently.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
David Kastrup writes:
But the one thing that you can't do is take his material and do with
it as you like without heeding its license.
mike4ty4 writes:
But why forbid it?
To increase the amount of Free software in the world. You may
not mean that he accepted
it. In a shop, the act of taking wares from the shelves implies
having to pay them, but that does not mean that a shoplifter by the
act of taking something off the shelf indicates his acceptance.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
enough sense.
--
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
distribution.
But there is no such thing as an unintentional or automatic licensing
under the GPL. It may be the only _legal_ option, but it is not
automatic and can't be defaulted.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
can replace this
act. Anything else is naivety that can end you up in jail.
--
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
up to now the phrase To which
he'd respond has ended in the court saying Your reply means this and
that. Are you sure you want to dig yourself in any deeper? and an
out-of-court settlement.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
That is no force. It is the condition for its use. You are free
to take it or leave it, just like when you are in a supermarket,
nobody forces you to buy anything. If you do, you have to pay the
price.
But I don't know _WHY_ the license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wei Mingzhi wrote:
If you don't allow me using your code, then I don't allow you
using our code too. That's just fair.
I don't know. To me it seems like a way to slowly strip owners of
their rights
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which raises another question: What happens if I learn something
from the GNU software, like a trick or a more efficient way of
programming some algorithm? If I use that METHOD/KNOWLEDGE even
if not the ORIGINAL
had to your original work.
You still have all the rights to _your_ original work. You can take
it and create a work from it that does not use any GNU code. But you
don't have all the rights to the combined work.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Oh, so the license then spreads to cover all of your ORIGINAL work
as well.
No, it doesn't. You are bound by the GPL only for such software which
integrates GPLed software as a part of it. Namely software which
. This is in accord with the intent of that portion
of the law which provides that owners of authorized copies of a
copyrighted work may sell those copies without leave of the copyright
proprietor.50 ... 50 17 U.S.C. § 109.
That does not give you the right to create _new_ copies.
--
David
found it on some server does not make you the owner of a copy in
any manner that I found it on the street makes you the owner of a
copy of a book.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup writes:
I found it on some server does not make you the owner of a copy in
any manner that I found it on the street makes you the owner of a
copy of a book.
Finding it on some server involves creating a copy on your
computer. If you own
that calling people names lends no
credence to your arguments? As a matter of fact, it removes what little
credibility you might have left.
So what? It makes it easier for occasional visitors to determine who
is not to be taken seriously.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
to it being on some public server without any
notices concerning the legal status of the 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
the same question over and over, please explin
what you don't understand about the answers and links already provided
to you.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Yep. I _need_ the money, for example.
Then I suggest that you sell your own work then instead of mine. Why
should I be paying your bills?
So what if I don't have enough for the one-time payment (would it
be like $1000 or more
.
Of course, and I never denied that. It's just that I don't agree
with charging someone for a product with their original
creations.
Nobody is charging you for your original creation as long as it is
your original creation and not deriving value from somebody else's.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Yep. I _need_ the money, for example.
Then I suggest that you sell your own work then instead of mine.
Why should I be paying your bills?
The question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Of course it does. I make a living from it.
Care to elaborate? Who pays you and for what exactly?
Publishing houses and institutes with typesetting needs. I do
consulting and creation of individual software for TeX-based
typesetting
people
have told you to stop confusing GNU and GPL.
I don't see that repeating those answers will add anything
worthwhile. Unless you show some attempt of at least reading the
answers given, I won't continue to bother.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
free software instead of Open Source in the documentation.
Savannah, however, also hosts non-GNU free software projects. As far
as I know, there are no similar requirements for the documentation of
those.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
by Summerhill at him the people stare
He says it's nearly half past one
So I'll just insult yet another little one
For the heart of the rule is Alexnder.
Apologies to Mrs Riley.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
with this charade.
And it is obvious that you are intelligent enough that you do this
sort of create disingenuous quoting out of context on purpose, too.
What you hope to achieve by those tactics is beyond me.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
in internal and open discussion groups.
--
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
with this is fine, no need to become aggressive as
you always tend to become when someone disagrees with you.
You are correct that I find your sort of discussion tactics
extremely distasteful.
Again: it is easy to corroborate for others with a Groups search that
I am not alone in that.
--
David Kastrup
is beside the point: he has the _power_ to do so. You
don't need to throw away all you have got if you find that just one
detail is wrong for your purposes.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
can distribute the lifted sorting stuff
under my own terms.
So I don't see how with the given phrasing IBM's counsel would need to
change a word. And I don't see anybody embarrassing himself here
except from you and Wallace.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
and
with our continued international expansion.
In contrast, the training and service revenue is US$ 12,510,000.
So what are you talking about? Software subscriptions make the bulk
of their income.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Well, the last filing is at
URL:http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060710/rhat10-q.html, and lo-and-behold,
See Full Filing, not summary, retard. Quotes from latest 10-Q:
The quotes don't change that the software subscriptions
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Well, the last filing is at
URL:http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060710/rhat10-q.html, and lo-and-behold,
See Full Filing, not summary, retard. Quotes
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
hope is certifications
lockin barrier.
Well, and brand recognition. They still have an impressive set of
kernel and compiler developers.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
about.
--
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:
[...]
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
.
Providing access to a copy is a service that has non-zero value in the
market. Even if one knows that the copy might be found somewhere
cheaper if one hunts long enough for it.
Hunting costs time, too, and time is money.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
for that. But at least further recipients
will be able to continue making improvements instead of having to get
the unchanged stuff from a separate source and starting from scratch.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
Alexander, you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Yes, it makes it harder to turn programming into money, but one can
also make use of a lot of existing software.
But one can still make a decent amount of money? (notice to me,
decent does *not* mean Bill Gates super-wealth)
Linus Torvalds
are not rewarded.
--
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:
[...]
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
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
somebody a copy for whatever price and tell him and if you
pay me $50 more, I'll license this copy under the GPL to you.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
201 - 300 of 1030 matches
Mail list logo
