Re: GPL traitor !
On Mon, 11 May 2009 08:57:50 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com writes: On Sat, 09 May 2009 10:52:41 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: They would clearly like not to have copyright apply to this situation, since then they would not need the GPL to provide its copyleft mechanism there. Without copyright the GPL is pointless. Without an attack, a defense is pointless. Nope. The GPL rests upon the existence of copyright law, ie: without copyright law there can be no GPL. A burglar alarm is a defense without an attack, it's a precaution. Or, would you say that a burglar alarm is pointless because no burglar is lurking about? Or, a password on computer? etc, etc. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL traitor !
On Tue, 05 May 2009 22:23:49 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote: Some the misunderstandings you cite are effects of the GPL. For instance, sure, there's only a downstream requirment, but, in effect improvements will make their way upstream. So, what's the harm of this misconception? No, improvements don't necessarily make their way upstream. Let's say I create an app derived from GPL code. I sell it for $1 million dollars. Do you really think the guy that paid $1 million for it will just give the code away to others? Nope. Effectively, they do, which is the source of the understanding. Technically, no, there's no requirement to do so, but effectively, yes, that's what happens. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL traitor !
On Tue, 05 May 2009 12:36:00 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote: On Tue, 5 May 2009 13:01:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom: On Tue, 5 May 2009 07:13:19 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: Nice summary of standard legal procedure, corner cases, and descriptions of uninformed people. You know, the tip-of-the-iceberg stuff that people focus on for purposes of FUD, while the vast majority /depend/ on the GPL. None of which supports Alan's argument that nobody can honestly misunderstand the GPL. Nobody can honestly not understand the main meanings of the GPL. That being said, version 3 is a bit more difficult to follow. ahh.. now you move the goalpost.. the main meaning. The main meaning is certainly clear, but the details are where the trouble lies, and where most people don't understand or interpret differently. Some the misunderstandings you cite are effects of the GPL. For instance, sure, there's only a downstream requirment, but, in effect improvements will make their way upstream. So, what's the harm of this misconception? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL is like a cancer
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:32:26 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: As we were going over the scan results I noticed a very interesting trend. The GPL licensed software tends to assimilate quite a bit of BSD-style and public domain source code. By including that other source code it ends up spreading like a cancer. http://questonsecurity.blogspot.com/2009/04/gpl-license-is-like- cancer.html Hm? The whole point of BSD-style and public domain source code (and what the proponents are proud about) is that it is _intended_ for assimilation into differently licensed software. Hm? The whole point of the BSDL'd and the public domain source code is that it (original source code released under the BSDL or entered/dedicated/ in/to the public domain) is _intended_ to remain under the BSDL and (respectively) the public domain. What, precisely, prevents the GPL code from using BSD code (copy/paste)? The inverse is prevented, however. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:57:33 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ. They go on and on and on obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and coherent. A typical one of your posts assumes, often tacitly, something you showed in some previous post, sometime. Even you haven't got a mental overview over your many hundred, possibly several thousand, posts on this worn out topic. Please put your arguments in a coherent form on a web site, somewhere. Hear, hear. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
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 of settling is, partially, to avoid a jury. Suppose Microsoft is suing you over FAT, and you won't settle, so it is going to trial. One of the things both sides do at trial is argue what they think the damages should be. What Microsoft has licensed the patent for to others is very relevant to your argument, and you'll have asked for the details on all licensing of the patent as part of your discovery requests. (Well, *you* won't ask. Your lawyers will ask, and the lawyers and your damages expert will get to see the answers, but *you* might not get to see them--all you might see is an average that the damages expert computes and testifies about). 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. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:27:35 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:e2dbl.724$9t6@newsfe10.iad... On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:34:29 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:3ijal.118624$rg3.97...@newsfe17.iad... On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:55:28 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: [...] All it really indicates is that is was likely a term or result of the settlement. The underlying reason for the settlement can only be speculated. YOU can say that, but what would a jury say? There are a bunch of companies licensing the FAT system already and here is a company who wanted to fight originally who surrendered quickly. And you want to bank on the infinitessimal probability that it was all a mistake? 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 of settling is, partially, to avoid a jury. 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? It's just guess work and interpretation. The lack of a statement from TomTom is telling. No one has posted firsthand knowledge about what TomTom was thinking. My reference to a jury was in regard to TomTom's certain introspection about their chances, not about what a jury would infer from a settlement. The purpose of a settlement is to avoid a verdict not just a jury considering the implications of a previous case. If I am charged with some civil issue and pay a settlement, the fact that I paid is evidence that I accepted some liability for what I was charged with. A jury can consider that in a subsequent case, it is a matter of public information. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
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 being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Why not extend that argument to the conclusion: don't use any license at all. Sqlite is public domain. You're free to develop public domain software on your own. However, you're not likely to ever see a penny for your efforts. You're free to change the argument any new conclusion you wish. I never changed the argument, but extended your argument to its logical conclusion. Short of waiting seventy five years after its creation, it is difficult to place a work in the public domain. Well, sqlite is in the public domain according to wikipedia, which, for a layman like me, is sufficient evidence of its licensing. You must somehow unequivocally and publicly relinquish all claims of ownership. Some Circuits would probably disagree with that broad assertion. I was comparing Free Software licensed code and permissively licensed code. So what is the point you wish to make? The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
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. What's your argument that isn't enforceable? The GPL is unequivocally a contract under U.S. law. (More specifically it is a contract for a grant of permission or license.) It's just as much a contract as any other EULA. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
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 arrangements for distribution. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:34:29 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:3ijal.118624$rg3.97...@newsfe17.iad... On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:55:28 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: [...] All it really indicates is that is was likely a term or result of the settlement. The underlying reason for the settlement can only be speculated. YOU can say that, but what would a jury say? There are a bunch of companies licensing the FAT system already and here is a company who wanted to fight originally who surrendered quickly. And you want to bank on the infinitessimal probability that it was all a mistake? 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 of settling is, partially, to avoid a jury. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
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. What's your argument that isn't enforceable? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
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 being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Why not extend that argument to the conclusion: don't use any license at all. Sqlite is public domain. You're free to develop public domain software on your own. However, you're not likely to ever see a penny for your efforts. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:55:28 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: Whatever they paid, they also agreed to change their GPL code to not infringe on the FAT patents. That is an acknowledgement that they consider the patents valid. All it really indicates is that is was likely a term or result of the settlement. The underlying reason for the settlement can only be speculated. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:15:32 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote: The GPL isn't a contract. It's a license which lays out the conditions under which someone has permission to copy and distribute a covered work. If someone copies and distributes a covered work without adhering to the conditions, he is liable for copyright infringement. Rjacks argument is that because the GPL is unenforceable there is no liability, although I've not seen a clear explanation for the premise. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:04:54 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote: All EULA would be contracts, yes? Not complying with an EULA opens up a can of worms. Depends on whether the EULA is ultimately found by the courts to be enforceable or not. Do please generalize as to whether other EULA are, or are not, contracts in your view. All EULAs are contracts. So, when an EULA is ignored, the usual response is copyright infringement, right? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:32:52 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote: IF A COPYRIGHT LICENSE EXISTS, ITS LANGUAGE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS A CONTRACT IN DETERMINING ITS COVENANTS FOR PURPOSES OF BREACH AND THEN EXAMINED FOR LANGUAGE DETERMINING SCOPE FOR PURPOSES OF INFRINGEMENT. Assuming this is so, what's your point? The point of an original newsgroup post seems to evolvs with the number of posts to the thread. I think we were discussing legal enforcement of the GPL. If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in your view? The GPL contains unenforceable terms. When other EULA are ignored by the end users, the response is typically copyright infringement, right? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:55:46 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:bgwyl.50925$et1.40...@newsfe20.iad... On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:58 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in your view? It is not any different at all. Both are contracts. Now, what do you think happens when such a contract is breached? IANAL, are you? IANALs also have a right to think, y'know. The GNU land is hilarious brain-free zone: thinking will not be tolerated. The typical response when an EULA is ignored by an end user is that the company, it's usually a company, goes after the user on copyright infringement, so far as I know. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:41:15 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:bgwyl.50925$et1.40...@newsfe20.iad... On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:58 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in your view? It is not any different at all. Both are contracts. Now, what do you think happens when such a contract is breached? IANAL, are you? Do you think that it would matter much to you? Certainly there are many lawyers who disparage the GPL and there are at least a few who think it is a wonderful thing. Will you only listen to lawyers who agree with your emotional interests or would you change your mind if a lawyer told you that you were wrong? If a lawyer really isn't enough, would you believe a judge? The only problem there is that there are judges on both sides of the issue, too. If you ANAL, what are you ever to do? I would give your words more weight on these legalisms were you to claim to be a lawyer. So far as I can tell this thought process lumps the GPL in with all other EULA on the one hand, and then differentiates on the other, but only when convenient. In all of the postings I've seen no reason to treat the GPL differently from other EULA -- violation, ignoring it, whatever, results in being charged/sued/whatever with copyright infringement. Just like other EULA's, right? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:31:50 -0400, Rjack wrote: I would give your words more weight on these legalisms were you to claim to be a lawyer. Lawyer or not, I would never claim to form a lawyer-client relationship over the internet. That would most likely constitute the unauthorized practice of law in most jurisdictions. LOL, of course, but that wasn't my point. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:31:50 -0400, Rjack wrote: So far as I can tell this thought process lumps the GPL in with all other EULA on the one hand, and then differentiates on the other, but only when convenient. Why? Every EULA (contract) is written differently and should be subject to somewhat uniform rules of contract interpretation depending upon what jurisdiction you reside. EULA should be subject to somewhat uniform rules? If you break an EULA with Microsoft, what would be the result versus breaking an EULA (the GPL) with Redhat? I've seen no reason why either scenario would that different. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:05:53 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: When an end user gets a copy of a commercial software program from a warez site or just by borrowing a DVD from the office or a friend, that is not true. That end user is not authorized to use the software and the copyright owner can take some sort of action to get compensation, if only to nag the user constantly via some means. That is what it says in the EULA. That is what is different about the GPL, I think, namely that the end user arrives at the same endpoint condition and the copyright owner is in the same condition regardless of the way that the software is conveyed. Going with the Verizon example, I disagree. When the end user received the binaries there was no GPL notice, so I see how the EU is bound by the GPL. OTOH, that binary was no more legit than a borrowed DVD. If there were a black box connecting the copyright owner to the end user, you could not ever say just what was in the box, only that some mechanism existed for conveying the software from the owner to the user. After conveying the license to use the software to the end user, the GPL goes on and on about what is allowed to be in the black box. I don't think that the courts really care. They can only assess what variance there may be in the condition of the copyright owner based on what happens in the black box and, if there is no measurable effect, there can be no corrective action taken or compensation awarded. Could the end user in receipt of the Verizon router end up owing copyright fines? Well, only if the binary were illegitimate. So, if an EU started distributing that binary, I think there would be consequences. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:37:23 -0400, Rjack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: That leaves the GPL open to the different common law contract interpretation rules of the fifty different states (plus Guam and Puerto Rico). This is not a problem because of 17 USC 301. If it were legally enforceable, which it is not. The GPL is legal and enforceable (in the sense that if someone copies and distributes without obeying its conditions he is liable for copyright infringement). If it were legally enforceable, which it is not. Why would the GPL be different from any other EULA out there? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:42:08 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: If it were legally enforceable, which it is not. Oh, but it is. Ain't neither. Sure 'nuff is. Ah, usenet at its finest. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:28:55 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: Since the license is strictly construed against the drafter the license, because of promissory estoppel, would provide a defense to copyright infringement. As I recall, when I asked you for what was promised, I got no answer. Rahul, implicit in a copyright license is the promise not to sue for copyright infringement. How is it not copyright infringement to distribute the work without following the terms of the license? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:22:19 -0400, Rjack wrote: IF A COPYRIGHT LICENSE EXISTS, ITS LANGUAGE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS A CONTRACT IN DETERMINING ITS COVENANTS FOR PURPOSES OF BREACH AND THEN EXAMINED FOR LANGUAGE DETERMINING SCOPE FOR PURPOSES OF INFRINGEMENT. Assuming this is so, what's your point? All EULA would be contracts, yes? Not complying with an EULA opens up a can of worms. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote: All EULA would be contracts, yes? Not complying with an EULA opens up a can of worms. Depends on whether the EULA is ultimately found by the courts to be enforceable or not. Do please generalize as to whether other EULA are, or are not, contracts in your view. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote: IF A COPYRIGHT LICENSE EXISTS, ITS LANGUAGE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS A CONTRACT IN DETERMINING ITS COVENANTS FOR PURPOSES OF BREACH AND THEN EXAMINED FOR LANGUAGE DETERMINING SCOPE FOR PURPOSES OF INFRINGEMENT. Assuming this is so, what's your point? The point of an original newsgroup post seems to evolvs with the number of posts to the thread. I think we were discussing legal enforcement of the GPL. If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in your view? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:58 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in your view? It is not any different at all. Both are contracts. Now, what do you think happens when such a contract is breached? IANAL, are you? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:59:03 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: [ Update: Ray Beckerman sends a correction. He says the reasoning of the four cases and two law review articles and the brief is equally applicable to commercial copyright infringement defendants.] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090321164736122 Sincerely, Rjack So it's more support for the concept of proportionality and asking the court to consider the Constitutionality of statutory damages in copyright cases involving noncommercial individuals. -from the above link. *cases involving noncommercial individuals*. Is cisco such an individual? ...even in Pirate culture there is a distinction made between piracy for personal use and piracy for commercial gain. Of course this is a line that has been blurred in recent changes to the law. It's a distinction that used to be there and quite plain in the law. It has been eroded at the request of media monopolists. That the argument *can* be applied to commercial individuals is neither here nor there unless the FSF is making such an argument. Is anyone making such an argument? Oh, another strawman, you say? The FSF doesn't go around helping Cisco pay less for copyright infringement, but they might help Grandma vs. RIAA. Why Rjack cannot distinguish between the two is a curiosity. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:37:37 -0400, Rjack wrote: The FSF doesn't go around helping Cisco pay less for copyright infringement, but they might help Grandma vs. RIAA. Your Robin Hood analogy doesn't fly. The FSF promotes an illegal copyright license in an attempt to steal the exclusive copyrights of programmers. Illegal is illegal. Savvy Kemo Sabe? Just an empty assertion of yours. No, the FSF doesn't promote an illegal copyright. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:37:37 -0400, Rjack wrote: Rjack doesn't accept the rationalization of piracy due the thief's state of mind or motive. The difference between commercial and non-commercial piracy is comparable to the difference between being pregnant and a little bit pregnant. Who does accept the rationalization of piracy? Be specific with an example. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:46:14 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: Your Robin Hood analogy doesn't fly. The FSF promotes an illegal copyright license in an attempt to steal the exclusive copyrights of programmers. The GPL is completely legal, and there is no theft because acceptance of the GPL is completely voluntary. The theft occurs when code grabbers try to steal GPLed code instead of paying for it by properly making the sources available. The topic is now completely different from where it started, this is merely a complex setup for a strawman. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:35:59 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:37:37 -0400, Rjack wrote: Rjack doesn't accept the rationalization of piracy due the thief's state of mind or motive. The difference between commercial and non-commercial piracy is comparable to the difference between being pregnant and a little bit pregnant. Who does accept the rationalization of piracy? Be specific with an example. http://www.tlug.jp/docs/rms.html quote HY: Hmmm. Then tell me what you think about pirated software. HY: Hmmm. Then tell me what you think about pirated software. RMS: I don't call this copying piracy, because that is a propaganda word. I don't think it is wrong to copy and share information. Governments can pass laws against it, but that does not make it wrong, just illegal. I think it's illegal. However, these warez types, apparently, don't impact, to pick a company a random, Microsoft's bottom line, because they wouldn't buy the software anyhow. So, hitting some warez punk with huge fines is silly. There are also cases where Windows Genuine Advantage fails to correctly assess what is or isn't pirated software. On that note, there's a quote of Bill Gates floating around where he effectively advocates piracy of windows because, in the long run, it will help Microsoft. Piracy is more prevalent among Windows users than Linux users; often Windows users aren't even aware they're pirating. The point was that the FSF wasn't, and shouldn't, defend a company which willfully violates the law. The FSF might defend *individuals*, and make various arguments, depending on the circumstances -- which have been ignored so far. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:48:37 -0400, Rjack wrote: The Free Software Foundation is asking for permission to file an amicus brief in the current case of Sony v. Tenenbaum in the federal District Court of Massachusetts: We are submitting this brief to bring to the Court's attention some of the growing body of authority suggesting that the State Farm/Gore due process test applicable to punitive damage awards is likewise applicable to statutory damages, and in particular bars the suggestion that each infringement of an MP3 file having a retail value of 99 cents or less may be punishable by statutory damages of from $750 to $150,000 -- or from 2,100 to 425,000 times the actual damages. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090321164736122 The FSF thinks 2,100 - 425,000 times actual dahages is excessive! Well. . . Huh? ...MP3 file having a retail value of 99 cents or less may be punishable by statutory damages of from $750 to $150,000 -- or from 2,100 to 425,000 times the actual damages.1 So it's more support for the concept of proportionality and asking the court to consider the Constitutionality of statutory damages in copyright cases involving noncommercial individuals. That link is about mp3's, apparently, and non-commercial piracy. In the current suit Free Software Foundation Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc. the FSF is asking for monetary damages: which is commercial, so the comparison fails there. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: IBM doesn't like the GPL
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:42:59 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: the FSF propaganda campaign is falling flat on its ass On the contrary, the campaign successfully led to Sun releasing Java under the GPL, Putting SUN's stock price into free fall, bringing massive layoffs, and fire sale of the company. So you assert without establishing any sort of cause and effect. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: IBM doesn't like the GPL
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:44:38 -0400, Rjack wrote: IBM wasn't happy when Sun released Java under the GPL instead of a more permissive open source software license. It's possible that if IBM acquired Sun, Big Blue would move Java towards a multi-licensed approach and potentially put it under the Apache Software License in addition to the GPL. This would make it easier for Sun's Java technology to be integrated into existing open source Java implementations, such as the Apache Harmony project, and it would also make it easier for Java to be repurposed by third parties for proprietary uses. http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2009/03/report-ibm-eyes-sun.ars The SFLC suits are having an effect -- just not the one they hoped for. As more and more companies move away from free software to open source software the FSF propaganda campaign is falling flat on its ass. Sincerely, Rjack :) You have it backwards. When *sun* licenses software, IBM likes apache/ BSD type licenses. When *IBM* licenses software, ie gnu/linux, IBM likes the gpl. Obviously, if you're planning on modifying source and don't want to share those changes then a bsd type license is to your advantage. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: IBM doesn't like the GPL
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:21:14 -0400, Rjack wrote: You have it backwards. When *sun* licenses software, IBM likes apache/ BSD type licenses. When *IBM* licenses software, ie gnu/linux, IBM likes the gpl. You Freetards never learn. For Christ's sake, IBM was the World's first viscous computer monopolist. Well, asshole's like you never see the obvious: of course it would've been in IBM's interests to have never released any source code at all. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:32:21 -0400, Rjack wrote: There go the goalposts! You wish to minimize my assertion. Let me repeat. The GPL is unenforceable under U.S. copyright law. Is any EULA enforced under copyright law? I thought that the logic went: here's an EULA, abide by it or not. I don't believe that the EULA is under copyright law at all, but provides a way around copyright. Failure to abide by the EULA might then prompt a lawsuit, for instance on copyright infringement. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [!NEWS] The GNUtards Must Be Crazy
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:55:58 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote: Since no one is forced to use the GPL, the GPL cannot thrust anything upon anyone. [...] It is extremely ill-suited to whiners who feel entitled to the work of others while denying those others the remuneration they want for their work, namely freedom for their users. Very well said. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 09:17:47 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: The point is that you've not demonstrated that the files are stored on a verizon server yet proceed as if you have. They are accessed via the Verizon webserver. What difference would it make if they were somehow linked behind the scenes to some server owned by another company. Do you seriously believe that is the case? It would be very unusual for Verizon to have back office direct connections to Actiontec. I don't know whether it's the case or not, and neither do you. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:41:17 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: None of the above demonstrate that the file(s) are stored on Verizon servers, the files could be hosted on Actiontek servers. With a URL of download.Verizon.net? Perhaps their servers could be linked behind the scenes, but that would be rather unusual at best. Why would they do that in lieu of just storing a copy of the download file? The point is that you've not demonstrated that the files are stored on a verizon server yet proceed as if you have. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 10:55:35 -0500, Rjack wrote: Any copying beyond that point is copyright infringement -- the GPL itself says so. The court will ignore what the GPL says and instead rely on what The Copyright Act of 1976 (As Amended) says in light of prevailing federal and state law. which imposes steep penalties per infraction. To avoid those steep penalties a settlement will be agreed to. The settlement? Follow the GPL. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:56:54 -0500, Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Copyright_Directive http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML (27) The mere provision of physical facilities for enabling or making a communication does not in itself amount to communication within the meaning of this Directive. Since Verizon provides a link to an actiontec gateway URL, it can easily be argues that it's Actiontec, not Verizon, who is making the software available. Clearly, the SFLC beleieves so, since it is satisfied with having Actiontec provide the GPLed sources. I don't think a copyrighted jpg could be distributed that way, though. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:05:35 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:1blpl.46156$ci2.13...@newsfe09.iad... On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:26:56 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Does the binary file which is being distributed reside on the verizon server? If so, then Verizon would be required to make the source available upon request from a customer. If the binary isn't on a Verizon server then Verizon has no obligations is the argument. The fact that there's a link on verizon.com which causes this binary to download doesn't prove that the binary file is on a Verizon server. Well, the link resolves to downloads.verizon.net and that is most certainly a Verizon site. Verizon does not need to make any source available at least in regard to the BusyBox library, and indeed does not do so, since the case filed by the SFLC complaining of that practice was dismissed with predjudice. Try the link yourself. None of the above demonstrate that the file(s) are stored on Verizon servers, the files could be hosted on Actiontek servers. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:41:47 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message news:axvpl.58231$6r1.31...@newsfe19.iad... amicus_curious wrote: Well, the link resolves to downloads.verizon.net and that is most certainly a Verizon site. You cannot know from the outside what the Verizon webserver is doing when it processes the actiontec gateway URL, because a webserver is a general purpose program which may take arbitrary action based on the form of the URL. Well you can try the link and see where you end up, eh? The firmware update link resolves on the Verizon site, downloads.Verizon.net. Have you not tried it yourself? Are you afraid to do so? Nothing you've written demonstrates that the files are stored on Verizon hardware. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft going after Linux?
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:00:07 +, Andrew Halliwell wrote: Doctor Smith iaintgotnostinkinem...@ols.net wrote: They will be utterly crushed into the ground. Who? Tomtom? In europe? (I presume as they're a european company, that's where the trial will be held...?) If not, tomtom could just utterly ignore anything microsoft says. They're out of their jurisdiction. American laws do not apply. Europe still holds software patents as extremely dubious if not illegal. A few have slipped through but they've by no means been accepted like they have in america. Err, cannot Microsoft be sued by the EC in europe? Of course, it's the European company which is sued. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:26:56 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message news:0fcpl.43919$ci2.32...@newsfe09.iad... amicus_curious wrote: You ignore the rather obvious fact that Verizon is distributing binary code for the routers from its own website to anyone and everyone who wants it without regard to the requirements of the GPL that this binary code be accompanied by the source that created it. Whether Verizon is incurring a GPL obligation depends on the fine details of what it is doing, and who is considered to be doing the copying when a person clicks on a URL in order to obtain software. Since the URL contains the string actiontec gateway it's plausible that the Verizon webserver contacts an Actiontec gateway in order to get the software to the clicker. Not plausible at all. I am sure that Verizon obtained their copy of the binary files from Actiontec, but they are plainly sourced from the Verizon site. Does the binary file which is being distributed reside on the verizon server? If so, then Verizon would be required to make the source available upon request from a customer. If the binary isn't on a Verizon server then Verizon has no obligations is the argument. The fact that there's a link on verizon.com which causes this binary to download doesn't prove that the binary file is on a Verizon server. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:34:48 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: I said that I think that it should not have copyright protection not that it doesn't have it. That would require a change to the law, eh? But then there wouldn't be any issue for the SFLC to sue over either. If you somehow got a hold of Microsoft's source, you would be able to use it, too. Are you aware that (old versions) of Windows source are out there? Your wish is just pie-in-the sky. This whole thing goes back to visicalc, I believe. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:03:47 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: You seem to be fixated on the text of the GPL. I don't disagree with what it says. I disagree with the notion that it has any practical value. Then I cannot fathom what your point is, aside from some vague desire on your part to see software copyright revoked. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:20:07 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Are you aware that (old versions) of Windows source are out there? Your wish is just pie-in-the sky. This whole thing goes back to visicalc, I believe. That is more handwaving, I think. Can you point to a site that actually contains Windows source from some old version? I believe that the source was leaked years ago, of course it would be piracy to have it, which is the point. So, no, you can't find a site to download it. A dedicated warez type could find it, I'm sure. This is now the point of contention? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000_source_leak -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:20:07 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Do you think anyone, other than the odd hobbyist, is interested in Visi-calc? What could you possibly learn from the source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_1-2-3#Rivals -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:35:04 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:9psol.15170$si4.8...@newsfe22.iad... On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:55:44 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: The mere fact that you are distributing the software (usually the binaries, or as firmware) requires the distributor to make the source (and the very *same* source for the binaries) available. Failing to do so will put the distributor at odds with copyright law No shit, Dick Tracy. I simply say that is silly. And if the source isn't available then where's the attribution? At a minimum, sounds like plagiarism. Only if you don't know the meaning of the term. How can not attributing source *which you downloaded*, and then choose to distribute in binary *not*, at least ethical, require attribution? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:42:49 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Then I cannot fathom what your point is, aside from some vague desire on your part to see software copyright revoked. I simply made the comment long ago that the BusyBox authors and their lawsuits were useless activities that gave FOSS a bad name. All that anyone has been able to assert, yourself included, is that the GPL demands that a user follow its exact rules to the letter. FWIW, that's the point in contention in this thread. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:14:47 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:do0ol.50595$xk6.48...@newsfe12.iad... On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:39:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: The FOSS value proposition is that if you use it, fine, and if you modify it and distribute it you must disclose your modifications. Who says? Do you have some other interpretation? It would be useful for you to state it. It's not that if you *modify and distribute* it that you must disclose your modifications, but that if you *distribute* you must disclose the source, at least for the GPL. -Thufr ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:13:42 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: The companies misappropriating GPL software are thus causing a lot of time and effort to be expended. If they respected the copyrights of software authors, all of this discussion would be unnecesary. Or if the authors weren't such egomaniacs, they could just ignore the situation and be happy that someone else thought enough of their creation to use it themselves. You're advocating plagiarizing? Never mind the GPL for the moment. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:51:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: So I think we can both agree that copyright today goes too far. I don't think that computer source should have copyright protection period. If computer source doesn't have copyright protection then, of course, it's fine to distribute GPL'd code without including the license. As you're advocating that it's ok to distribute without including the license, then you're conclusion is that source code doesn't have copyright protection? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:52:22 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: You're begging the question. Your conclusion is that the source need only be available if it's been modified, and, since the source wasn't modified, then it need not be available. I am not arguing the meaning of the text contained in the GPL, I am saying that, unless the code has been modified in some useful way, then it is of no value to the community. So you don't dispute the legality of the GPL? You're just find it inconvenient? If so, then don't distribute GPL'd software and go about your business. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:55:44 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: The mere fact that you are distributing the software (usually the binaries, or as firmware) requires the distributor to make the source (and the very *same* source for the binaries) available. Failing to do so will put the distributor at odds with copyright law No shit, Dick Tracy. I simply say that is silly. And if the source isn't available then where's the attribution? At a minimum, sounds like plagiarism. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:39:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: The FOSS value proposition is that if you use it, fine, and if you modify it and distribute it you must disclose your modifications. Who says? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:05:35 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Verizon openly distributes the Ationtec product. That makes them a distributor and does not make Actiontec a Verizon agent. Even though Verizon is openly distributing a product that contains GPL licensed software, they do not provide the source. One has to go to some upstream locatoion in order to obtain source. You're begging the question and haven't established that Verizon is a distributor *in the sense which applies here*. The critical point is that the OEM is Actiontec. How does Verizon obtain the routers? Actiontec distributes the routers to Verizon. It seems debatable that Verizon is even a distributor in this sense as Verizon didn't install Linux onto the router. I think that the key distinction is *who* put Linux on the router, and that whoever did is the distributor. Some third party who sells a device with GPL software installed on it isn't necessarily distributing that software. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: The GPL is non-commercial!
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:04:01 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] But if one has permission to make lawful copies, one does not need any additional permission to distribute those copies to the public. -- The GPL puts conditions on the above permissions. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
