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
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,
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
___
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
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
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,
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
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
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.]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:41:47 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:axvpl.58231$6r1.31...@newsfe19.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
Well, the link resolves to downloads.verizon.net and that is most
certainly a Verizon site.
You cannot know from the
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:00:07 +, Andrew Halliwell wrote:
Doctor Smith iaintgotnostinkinem...@ols.net wrote:
They will be utterly crushed into the ground.
Who? Tomtom?
In europe? (I presume as they're a european company, that's where the
trial will be held...?)
If not, tomtom could
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:26:56 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:0fcpl.43919$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
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
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
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
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
___
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:35:04 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:9psol.15170$si4.8...@newsfe22.iad...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:55:44 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
The mere fact that you are distributing the software (usually the
binaries
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:42:49 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
Then I cannot fathom what your point is, aside from some vague desire
on your part to see software copyright revoked.
I simply made the comment long ago that the BusyBox authors and their
lawsuits were useless activities that gave
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:14:47 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:do0ol.50595$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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
62 matches
Mail list logo
