In article 5065832f.12351...@web.de,
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Thus copies made under copyleft (and other public licenses) fall under
exhaustion doctrine preventing copyright owners (licensors) using tort
theory (copyright infringement claims) regarding control of terms and
In article buoaai4a43h@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com,
Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
For instance, gcc actually uses unicode quotes if LANG (or whatever)
suggests it's possible...
Setting LANG=C will save you from this.
-- Richard
___
gnu-misc-discuss
In article mailman.1861.1235661754.31690.gnu-misc-disc...@gnu.org,
Tord Romstad tord.roms...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that he plans to hire a professional graphics designer
to draw the piece images and some other graphics, and to keep these
graphical image files proprietary. He asks me
In article u4odnyawuuxu3djunz2dnuvz_odin...@giganews.com,
Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
I love revisionist history.
We've noticed.
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
In article _vodnzumo53tcznunz2dnuvz_juwn...@giganews.com,
Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
I have some unfortunate news for those socialists and communists
who still believe that open source is their movement.
Who ever thought that? Open source was always a watering-down
of free software to make
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My third party compiler is none of their damn business. I can paint
it red, pee on it or give to charity -- it's simply none of their
damn business.
Feel free to try shipping Microsoft's C++ compiler with your program.
The statement
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Drunken self-contradictory idiots.
Just as predicted!
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Why aren't the trolls denouncing the judge in the model railroad
case as insane, drunk, etc?
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have have never found any *verifiable* detail of *any* settlement of
these lawsuits other than the court records available on PACER.
I have never found any *verifiable* evidence that you're a real person.
But then I've never
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. In each case, the defendant gave in and did what was required
by the GPL.
In each case, the plaintiffs dismissed before the Court could even read
the text of the GPL.
Because the defendants gave in.
In your world, if
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Their track record in court, as plaintiffs, is absolutely impressive:
1. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
2. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
3. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
4. Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is that Eben Moglen doesn't appear to be a sponsor of his
own charity and that it is the other way around in his case.
And (supposing it's true; I neither know nor care) just what does
this have to do with how
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Koh Choon Lin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to find out how long would a software be under the GNU
GPL before it expires and transfers to the public domain. Forever?
The GPL gives you the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was once a company called SCO [...]
Remind me, who sued whom?
This is reminiscent of David Irving, whose defenders talk about the
Deborah Lipstadt libel action as if he were the victim of oppressive
lawsuits, when in fact he
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Koh Choon Lin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to find out how long would a software be under the GNU
GPL before it expires and transfers to the public domain. Forever?
The GPL gives you the right to copy something that copyright law would
otherwise restrict
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One does not call BSD using Mach for
Mach, one calls it BSD.
I'm not sure what you mean by for Mach, but if you mean one doesn't
call it Mach then you're mistaken. I have often heard people refer
to it that way, and I can't
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
James White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nobody should be able to stop you from writing any code that want, ***and
GPLv3 protects this right for you***.
When were the GPL folks given the right to write and establish what IS the
LAW?
I don't see any mention of law in
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is D.O.A. under a F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss in a US
federal court.
Seems to work though, doesn't it?
-- Richard
--
Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets - X3.4,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL and Linux keeps Micro$oft out of hot water with the Antitrust
Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Empowering Micro$oft to
maintain its hegemony in the U.S. software market without D.O.J.
interference is certainly
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[rant deleted]
Yawn. One minute it's GPL is going to be overturned by the courts,
and when that doesn't happen you back off to you can't destroy
Microsoft. None of your ravings have the slightest bearing on real
life.
-- Richard
--
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And to reiterate, Miles does not represent or speak for GNU. So he
cannot state who does or does not represent the GNU project.
Anyone can state facts. Who you find more reliable depends on lots
of factors.
-- Richard
--
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gnu.misc.discuss is a mailing-list gatewayed to a newsgroup.
Really. I didn't know, I just thought it was a newsgroup.
So then everything here is emails? Whoa...
No, it's both. Some people read it and post to it through usenet,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except that pieces of GPLed programs _can't_ be used in programs
licensed under a different license.
Sure they can. You can use pieces of a GPLed program in a program
that is licensed under the modified BSD license.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In your email's headers one can read:
He's not sending email. He's posting an article to the gnu.misc.discuss
newsgroup. If you are seeing it as email, it's because you are using
a usenet-to-email gateway, and
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Copyright licenses apply to work, idiot.
Copyright arises from works, licenses (which require copyright) apply
to copies.
Stop being an utter idiot. Think human brain. And why I'm not
surprised that in the GNU
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that this provides a problem for dual-licensed code like that
from Trolltech: they provide a GPLed version of their code, and they
sell a version that can be linked into proprietary programs. Assuming
that those are the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is interesting, because as I understand it the FSF claims that if
I distribute code that only works with their libraries (because I use
their interfaces), then I must distribute my code under the GPL even
if I don't
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
If the interface is optional, it sounds like there is code in it which
_only_ serves the purpose of interfacing to readline and does not make
any sense otherwise. In that case
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the GPL only covers distribution.
And copyright law covers derivatives.
So what authorises you to make a derivative of a GPLed program? I
thought the FSF's view was that anyone could do that without a
licence. If I
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So presumably the idea is that the two acts together constitute
distribution of a derivative work? If so - to go back to my earlier
example - is the distribution of the Aquamacs source, distribution
of a derivative work of
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding my question. Aquamacs (as far as I
know) contains code to access Apple's graphical interface
libraries. As far as I know, there is no other implementation of
these. So according to your
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the GPL only covers distribution. Even if the original author has
some of the responsibility for the act of creating the derivative
in-memory image, the GPL does not apply to that act. If you don't
distribute the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't relicense the work of others under any license you like,
period. Regardless how much or little you add to it.
This begs a question, dear GNUtian dak. How come that Linux kernel as
a whole (in GNU speak)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your project is a compilation (this legal term includes
collective works) under copyright law.
Terekhov is not a reliable source of information. Your project may
well be a derivative work rather than a compilation. If
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[presumably court opinions about derivative works - I have no intention
of reading them]
So what wording woud you suggest authors use in their licences if they
wish to prevent their work from being used in this way? Or do
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what wording woud you suggest authors use in their licences if they
wish to prevent their work from being used in this way?
What do you mean?
I have some software. Someone else wants to use my software in their
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You want to be able to restrict software of others, not only yours.
If they use my code, then yes. Of course, no-one is required to use
my code. It seems a reasonable offer: you use my code, you follow my
rules. Is
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Tin Tin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the BSDs copies some GPL'ed code and releases it under the BSD
license.
What you stated has just happened.
I think he knows about what happened. He's asking who would be liable
if Microsoft then used the BSD code.
--
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yada, yada, yada. As if first sale (copyright exhaustion in EU
speak) were nonexistent not only in the GNU Republic but everywhere.
That would only allow you to transfer your copy, not make more copies.
-- Richard
--
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patents, copyrights, and to a lesser extent trademarks are all
transferrable rights against the world and thus have enough of the
characteristics of property to be treated as a form of property by the law.
The law his given
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it just means that they have not yet been universally accepted as
property. We have no problems considering land (real estate) property,
but traditionally Bantu societies do not consider that land can be
owned by an
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh moron. Property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone
who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her
consent.
Intellectual property is property.
And property is theft.
-- Richard
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Intellectual property is property.
And property is theft.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon
As usual, you miss the point. Just as the fact that's there's an
often-quoted assertion property
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship
extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,
concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is
described,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[more deliberate misinformation deleted]
Tell you what, why don't you get a copy of the GNU Emacs source,
decline to accept the GPL, and start distributing modified copies of
it with a licence fee. By your theory this
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Without acceptance, an act of creating a derivative work (forget
17 USC 117 adaptations for a moment) is a copyright violation,
distribution or no distribution.
An author of a derivative work who accepts the GPL has
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Copyleft
requires all licensees to surrender right to charge for derivative
works.
No, it *gives* you the right to distribute derivative works subject to
certain conditions, which is a right that you wouldn't otherwise
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Copyleft
requires all licensees to surrender right to charge for derivative
works.
No, it *gives* you the right to distribute derivative works subject to
certain conditions, which is a right that you wouldn't
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it's a no. You don't have to surrender any rights, because you
didn't have them in the first place. It just doesn't give you the
right you seem to want.
Copyright law gives it, stupid. Copyright law gives authors
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An author of a derivative work who accepts the GPL has copyright in a
derivative work but is required to surrender a right to charge more than
zero for derivative work.
To surrender something you must first have it. So
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Plonker Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To surrender something you must first have it. So when was it that they
had the right to distribute the derivative work for a charge? Before or
after they accepted the GPL?
[...]
One just can't charge
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The web didn't really start with http, there were many other things,
like newsgroups:
There were many other things, but they weren't the web. In the case
of newsgroups, they weren't even the internet.
-- Richard
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There were many other things, but they weren't the web. In the
case of newsgroups, they weren't even the internet.
Depends very much on what you define as the internet.
I mean the large network running internet
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There were many other things, but they weren't the web. In the
case of newsgroups, they weren't even the internet.
Depends very much on what you define as the internet.
I mean the large network running
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There were many other things, but they weren't the web. In the case
of newsgroups, they weren't even the internet.
Erms... the Internet is now based on IP, as it may be very well based on
something else in the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], I wrote:
Well, it seems a little strange to say it was the internet when it
wasn't called the internet and was based on internet protocols,
Obviously I meant wasn't based on internet protocols.
-- Richard
___
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Newsgroups were originally distributed by UUCP, and that certainly
wasn't the internet.
Newsgroups (and mail) where distributed using various means. UUCP was
just one of them.
Can we please stop this history
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Karen Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As we are all well aware, Vista is upon us soon.
What's Vista?
-- Richard
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Freeware by definition is software which is distributed without fee,
so it cannot by definition be distributed commercially.
Can you explain the so in that sentence? Why does the fact that it
is distributed without fee
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, freeware is a term of art that refers to a specific distribution
methodology
What distribution methodology is that?
-- Richard
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, freeware simply means a non-free program that can be distributed
at no cost.
Where did you get that definition? I don't think most people's use
of the term excludes free programs.
When there is a charge on them, it
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All free software must be commercial, anyone can charge a fee for
the act of distributing it. Otherwise, it is not free software.
What makes you think that all freeware prohibits you from charging
a fee for the act of
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, a photo isn't a fact, while a dictionary is a list of facts
(definitins). And you cannot copyright a fact (or has this been
changed recently?), like the fact that hello is a common greeting
used in the English
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Writing all those definitions in the dictionary requires
creativity, so you get copyright on the dictionary.
It is about as creative as listing phone numbers and names
This is a very odd view. Have you ever tried
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The no charge clause is for _licensing_,
And licensing to do what?
To distribute further copies of your copy, not to receive a copy in the
first place. You don't need a licence to receive and use a copy.
A can charge
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[junk]
Go away, we're talking about you, not to you.
-- Richard
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seems to be a substantial profit for the buyer here: they get
a program for nothing.
I was talking about a profit for seller
You were pretending to answer David Kastrup's very reasonable comment:
Well, that
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but I don't understand the rationale
for MAKING THE LICENSE THAT WAY, why it demands the original
code become GNU ***and be USELESS for non-GNU projects without
making them GNU***. It's that last part in asterisks that I hate. The
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I don't know _WHY_ the license is made this way, WHAT is the
motivation for requiring people to make all their original work free
if they use the free code. Could you explain? More detailed than
it's needed or it works.
You'd have to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I don't know _WHY_ the license is made this way, WHAT is the
motivation for requiring people to make all their original work free
if they use the free code. Could you explain? More detailed than
it's needed or it works.
You'd have to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Sorry, not interested in wasting my time on you.
-- Richard
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But to me, it seems only fair that if I let other people use my code for
free, then they should do the same with theirs. If they want to make
money out of it, they should pay me some of it.
Then you'd better stop releasing
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why? If a program that was previously non-GPL was made GPL,
doesn't that mean the amount of non-GPL code shrinks?!
No, the old version of it is still non-GPL.
-- Richard
___
gnu-misc-discuss
73 matches
Mail list logo
