What about permission to read my letters don't you understand?
You are being singularly disingenuous.
What part of `permission to access the CD' do _you_ not understand?
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
(And that citation is actually from Frank Zappa, not Confucius,
parachutes didn't exist in 500BC, and the proper citation is `A mind
is like a parachute, it doesn't work if it is not open'.)
:-)
Great Confucius also said: Man with an unchecked parachute will
In fact, the entries I quoted refute all the assertions made by
Alfred and yourself:
You have serious reading problems.
1. Users of a web-based program are not covered by the GPL (and you
who like to extrapolate should have no problem in applying that to
people in front of a glass
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Oh nonsense. If the original license permits usage in a context with
different conditions, of course anybody can do so. That is the
distinguishing feature of the BSD licenses as opposed to the GPL: the
freedom to distribute under unfree conditions.
Stop spouting
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The GPL is entirely different TC, stupid. The BSD doesn't allow
relicensing under the GPL TC. Only the BSD TC apply.
There is nothing to indicate Only in the BSD license. You can
obviously add your own terms.
It is obvious only to GNU brainwashed population.
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:09:08 +
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I doubt that the intention was to provide more rights to users of
modified programs which read commands interactively than to users of
any other software licensed under the GPL. Therefore by extrapolation
it is saying
Each licensee is addressed as you.
You in the GPL refers only to licensees. To be a licensee, you
have to enter into interaction with a licensor.
And since I have a copy of the program, I am the licensee. Simple, is
it not?
They don't say anything different. How comes you
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With the new one (without advertising clause), relicensing under
the GPL is within the scope of the original license.
Only the copyright holder has the legal right to _relicense_ the
work. I.e. change the license of the
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, no third party (even the author of a GPLed work) can give
you permission to copy anything from a computer or medium that is
not your property.
The owner of the computer/CD explcitly gave this permission by giving
access to the
This very wide interpretation (giving copies to all who come into
contact with the program) is not how the GPL has been interpreted
by the FSF itself.
Nobody claimed this, stop inventing lies.
So it would seem you're out on a limb with your interpretation.
He isn't, you are though.
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This very wide interpretation (giving copies to all who come into
contact with the program) is not how the GPL has been interpreted by
the FSF itself.
Do you not agree that section 2 states that the users of modified[0]
programs which accept
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:51:56 +
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see nothing in the FAQ you quoted which states that
this is not the case, but one part 'However, putting the program on a
server machine for the public to talk to is hardly private use, so
it would be legitimate
First, no third party (even the author of a GPLed work) can
give you permission to copy anything from a computer or medium
that is not your property.
The owner of the computer/CD explcitly gave this permission by
giving access to the content. What part of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The employer cannot say that I am not allowed to do so, since that
would violate the license.
The employer may not legally redistribute *and* then also require the
recipients to
I believe the OP must have had the following in mind software
wants to be free). A GPLed work was modified by an employer to
suit their business, but they don't intend to release it.
The license applies to anyone who is in posession of the software, no
matter who made the modifications.
Do you really believe that a copyright holder can give me
permission to make copies of files on *your* computer, whatever the
license?
Nobody made such a claim, stop inventing things.
Your right to make copies of your copy depends on the license, but
your right to refuse anyone to
This is basic copyright law, one would assume that you had
understood copyright law to participate in this discussion.
Which has what to do with the rights that are applied to a work which
does not have a copyright notice? None.
Do you know what default copyright is?
David, stop the
Of course they could be covered by the GPL if they were under the
BSDL and are now re-licensed under the GPL. Hint: read up on
licenses that are compatible with the GPL.
[...] BSDL doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL. It doesn't have
LGPL like clause that allows it.
This is
David Kastrup wrote:
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course they could be covered by the GPL if they were under the
BSDL and are now re-licensed under the GPL. Hint: read up on
licenses that are compatible with the GPL.
[...] BSDL doesn't allow
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[... derived work (i.e. derivative work under GNU law) ...]
I suppose that id lrosen belongs to http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm.
Nice to see both Hollaar and Rosen commenting GNU legal nonsense
version three. (Note that the GPLv2 contains the same GNU
Graham Murray wrote:
[...]
Taking this in conjunction with clause 3b, even if the user is not
allowed to copy the binary from the system on which it is being run
then they are, under the terms of the GPL allowed to obtain the source
code of the program (being as it has to be made available to
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are not a licensee, as you are not the owner of the copy. So the
GPL language does not apply to you when it says you.
Since I'm in the lawful posession of the copy, I'm am allowed to
accept the GPL.
Non sequitur.
Section 0, section 1
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:25:51 -0600
Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:16:56 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:22:38 -0600
Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure whether I agree that you have to own a copy of GPL
software
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The GPL can only give the owner of a copy rights.
What if I, as a homeless vagrant scouring the city dump for cool stuff,
some across a three-year-old CD with a bunch of GNU packages
Bernd Jendrissek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The GPL can only give the owner of a copy rights.
What if I, as a homeless vagrant scouring the city dump for cool
stuff, some across a three-year-old CD with a bunch of GNU
Stefaan writes:
I believe that in both cases, the person or entity wishing to accept the
GPL has to be in possession of a lawful copy.
I believe that he must _own_ a copy. A bailee or agent can be in lawful
possession of a lawful copy.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to misunderstand. The resulting overall program containing
independent works for all its components is indeed still just a
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:24:25 -0600
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan writes:
I believe that in both cases, the person or entity wishing to
accept the GPL has to be in possession of a lawful copy.
I believe that he must _own_ a copy. A bailee or agent can be in
lawful
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to misunderstand. The resulting overall program containing
But you have to be the legal owner to be entitled, under the
current laws, make any copy. Thus, whatever the license, unless
you're the lawful owner of the copy, you may not make a copy.
You only have to be in legal _possesion_ of the copy, you do not have
to be the owner of it.
Cleaning personnel is not permitted to read unclosed material,
either. System administrators are not permitted to read mail that
they have legal access to. And so on. Physical access to content
does not imply permission to actually make use of the content in
the same manner as
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to misunderstand. The resulting
You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise
the rights given in the GPL.
If you are not the owner of the copy, the license --whatever it
might be-- doesn't enter into it at all.
The license does _not_ apply to the physical copy, it applies to the
software.
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise
the rights given in the GPL.
If you are not the owner of the copy, the license --whatever it
might be-- doesn't enter into it at all.
The license does _not_ apply to
The license does _not_ apply to the physical copy, it applies to
the software. Please read the license, it even says so
But you can't get the software without accessing the physical
media, and what you are allowed to do with the media is its owner's
decision.
I don't have
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:27:23 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is netiquette. Group reply is common.
It is not, and additionally it is customary to mention that you mailed
and posted in your reply if you do so.
If you have such a hard
time figuring out who wrote what,
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:10:22 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That was not what I asked. You have placed a lot of software (under
the GPL and under more restrictive licenses) and on your disk, and
for the sake of the argument, your disk needs to be recovered. You
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:17:17 +0100
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely we're discussing how many angles can dance on a pinhead.
Darn spellcheckers. It's angels of course :-)
--
Stefaan
--
As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning,
and meaningful statements lose
| Intellectual property
|
| Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as intellectual
| property---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other
| more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and
| differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD
containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not
entitled to make a copy of that software before returning the book
and CD to
You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise
the rights given in the GPL.
You have to be the owner, period.
Not according to the GPL: 0. This License applies to any program or
other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder
saying it may be
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:11:52 +
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your access is limited to what the owner of the copy allows you to
do with it. The GPL grants rights to the owner of the copy, not to
you. Since you have not bought or
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:35:30 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please refrain from removing attributions. If you quote, have the
decency to include the name of the author.
I said:
No, he instructed you, as his agent, to do things with the CD.
You are not accessing that CD as
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD
containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not
entitled to make a copy of that
Stefaan writes:
Obviously, the simple expedient of asking the library to make a copy
would give you both a lawful copy and the right to make further copies
under the GPL, so to a degree the point is moot.
The library could also direct you to make a copy as its agent and then give
you the
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:36:44 +
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The assertion that the GPL gives you the right to make unlawful
copies is obviously incorrect, as it is not a right the copyright
holder can grant.
GPL or otherwise,
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:30:45 +0100, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:18:22 +0100, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Graham Murray [EMAIL
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:16:56 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:22:38 -0600
Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure whether I agree that you have to own a copy of GPL
software to be a licensee
You can indeed obtain a license from the copyright
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred, can you please try and maintain proper attributions and
follow quoting conventions?
I'm already doing that.
It depends on the license. The GPL gives an explicity right for
this, some other licenses may not. If I'm in
David Kastrup wrote:
[... license not a contract ...]
Only if it's a license to do something regulated by government. Like
a permit to run a public lottery or become a gun dealer. Such permits
from state are neither contracts nor property rights. Moglen and RMS
managed to bullshit you into
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... license not a contract ...]
Only if it's a license to do something regulated by
government. Like a permit to run a public lottery or become a gun
dealer. Such permits from state are neither contracts nor property
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
As you can see, you are wrong. Again. Too bad. The meaning of
license you refer to above does not exhaust the legal meanings of
that term. Those are meanings 12, but meaning 34 are also valid
uses.
Legal dictionaries are not legal authorities to begin with. And
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the
software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired
(become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that
you have access to the copy (you hold
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why do you have to be the 'owner' of the copy? Consider, for a
moment, a different scenario. You borrow from a library a book
containing a work which has passed into the public domain. Although
you have not become the 'owner' of the work, you are
Because the employeer gave me explicit access to the CD. See the
above sentence.
No, he instructed you, as his agent, to do things with the CD. You
are not accessing that CD as AMS, but as the agent of your
principal. You, as AMS, do not derive any rights from this action.
...
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the
software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired
(become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that
you have access to the
Well, this is where you got it wrong - it's called IP (Intellectual
Property) because it is a form of property. Whenever you produce a
work of authorship (and software is considered a work of authorship
like a novel or a poem) you, the author, are the owner of that
work.
In the
Because the employeer gave me explicit access to the CD. See the
above sentence.
If I am giving cleaning personnel access to my rooms, that does not
mean that they are free to read my letters and listen to my music
collection.
Access is not ownership. You don't get when
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The content does not magically jump off the copy. Accessing the
content of the copy is the sole right of the copy's owner.
And since I can leaglly access the content, the GPL jumps into play.
Your access is limited to what the owner of the
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about licensee don't you understand?
The part which (you claim) states that only the owner of the physical
media on which the copy is 'fixed' can become a licensee. I can see
nothing in the GPL which states that. On contrary the preamble states
that
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about licensee don't you understand?
The part which (you claim) states that only the owner of the physical
media on which the copy is 'fixed' can become a licensee.
Well, that is common law. You are only
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Yeah, right. The GNU is the best of breed, I know.
Not really. It's just immortal,
Oh how charming and pluralistic. Mere mortal GNUtian dak is in mild
disagreemnt with GPL-ober-nazi Herr Dr. Prof. Moglen The Idiologist,
GNU Law Maker, and Admiral in Command of
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:10:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Copying at any level of abstraction as black box without any
modifications or transformations of protected expression in original
literary work (or part thereof) modulo the AFC test, and assembling
multiple works
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:10:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Copying at any level of abstraction as black box without any
modifications or transformations of protected expression in original
literary work (or part thereof) modulo the
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 13:38 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Original:
unsigned explosive_power = 0;
while (still_not_eliminated(FSF))
send_a_bomb(FSF, explosive_power += 10/*kiloton*/);
Derivative:
unsigned explosive_power = 0;
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Original:
unsigned explosive_power = 0;
while (still_not_eliminated(FSF))
send_a_bomb(FSF, explosive_power += 10/*kiloton*/);
Derivative:
unsigned explosive_power =
Remember that the point Alfred was making is that because the
software is licensed under the GPL, he is allowed to make a copy
_even_ if the CD is not his property and he was acting as an agent
of licensee/owner of the copy. To him, the license is a magical
property attached to the
Remember that the point Alfred was making is that because the
software is licensed under the GPL, he is allowed to make a copy
_even_ if the CD is not his property and he was acting as an
agent of licensee/owner of the copy. To him, the license is a
magical property
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remember that the point Alfred was making is that because the
software is licensed under the GPL, he is allowed to make a copy
_even_ if the CD is not his property and he was acting as an agent
of licensee/owner of the copy. To him, the
Nonsense. The GPL can't dictate that people may access my physical
copies of software.
Sighs, I am not talking about _physical_ copies. Got that? Not the
CD, but the content.
You really don't get internal use.
And you don't get what the heck is being discussed.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:35:38 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nonsense. The GPL can't dictate that people may access my physical
copies of software.
Sighs, I am not talking about _physical_ copies. Got that? Not the
CD, but the content.
The content does not exist
Alfred, can you please try and maintain proper attributions and
follow quoting conventions?
I'm already doing that.
It depends on the license. The GPL gives an explicity right for
this, some other licenses may not. If I'm in the legal possession of
GPLed software, maybe
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nonsense. The GPL can't dictate that people may access my physical
copies of software.
Sighs, I am not talking about _physical_ copies. Got that? Not the
CD, but the content.
The content does not magically jump off the copy. Accessing
The content does not magically jump off the copy. Accessing the
content of the copy is the sole right of the copy's owner.
And since I can leaglly access the content, the GPL jumps into play.
And I'm allowed to redistribute it, if I so choose; and the employeer
cannot stop me (other than
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 02:11:23 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm having a hard time following your message, you speak of property
and ownership of software, neither of which are applicable to
software. You cannot own software; since you cannot own software, it
cannot be
Stefaan A Eeckels writes:
[The license] is attached to the copy of the work that resides on the
physical medium.
According to US copyright law the physical medium _is_ the copy:
TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 ยง 101. Definitions
Copies are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stefaan A Eeckels
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, as far as I understand it, you would be the only person in
trouble. The company might have a pre-release of David's GPLed
software, but this does not give you, their
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
For example, just last week I needed a function which searches backwards
a maximum of 3000 bytes from the end of file for Local Variables:, and
then deletes any following lines containing mode: or eval:. I
extracted the code which did the searching out of an
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:59:54 +0100:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
That is true. However, when you take two short stories, commingle
paragraphs from one of them with paragraphs from the other, connecting
them up with sentences of your own to give a new
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
The actual source of the function I'm talking about (which is available
in SourceForge) is materially different from the above. The extracted
code (what you've called .locate_backwards_from_end) has been
extensively changed from the original, yet is recognisably
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:59:54
+0100:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
That is true. However, when you take two short stories, commingle
paragraphs from one of them with paragraphs from the other, connecting
them up with
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Why do you try to be disparaging about GNU?
My hobby.
To each his own.
Yeah, right. The GNU is the best of breed, I know.
Not really. It's just immortal, so it has all the time in the world
to improve. And that's an
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[... FSF: the contract controls ... ]
I don't think anything since I don't know not of what you're speaking.
But the anecdotal evidence portrayed by your posts leave you very little
credit as far as saying a truthful thing goes.
Try
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 14:35 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Keep in mind that copyright law doesn't concern itself with
distribution of AUTHORIZED copies and that the act of distribution
doesn't turn AUTHORIZED copies into unauthorized copies.
Here you
The license _does_ apply. It is you who don't get it. You are
saying that all companies that have illegal copies of Windows,
are not breaking the law, since they are `for internal use' and
no rules apply.
No one is saying that. Copying of windows software is illegal. So
In the case of our friend Backslash,
I'm assuming that I am this Backslash person; if I'm not ignore the
following: Have the decency to call me by my name, instead of calling
me obscure names.
where he's trying to argue he can copy GPLed software because his
company gave him the CD (to
I am not. A company is a legal entity that enters into agreements
as itself. Agents of the company are not party to these
agreements. It is not because a work is released under the GPL that
you can grab from whenever you please.
I never claimed that. Please reread what my claim is:
In defending your position that combining GPL and some other
software on my computer system was not allowed you cited some
statements indicating that the GPL did not allow putting additional
restrictions on users.
How can you draw a conclusion that I can pop by your place, and copy
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:35:00 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the case of our friend Backslash,
I'm assuming that I am this Backslash person; if I'm not ignore the
following: Have the decency to call me by my name, instead of calling
me obscure names.
As you've
As you've noticed, it the backslash in your name. It stands out
like a sore thumb. My apologies, I was frustrated with you and
David.
Noted, I am still abit frustrated with David; and it might have come
over you. As for the backslash, I really have no idea how to fix
that, sorry.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft
explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they
were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that?
No. Because copyright law would not allow
Uber GNUtian Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: (to GNUtian dak)
[...]
No wonder why Alexander likes you enough to `unplonk' you.
Erm. I've unplonked you both sometime around last Silvester. Then I've
replonked you, ams. GNUtian dak didn't take my offer of free replonk,
go ask mini-RMS (he volunteered to
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
Of course they can. The copyright holder most definitely cannot control
how the software is used (unless there is a contract stipulating
such), because copyright law doesn't give such rights - it's the right
to make and distribute copies that is granted to the
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 11:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[... legal scheme to escape copyleft ...]
I resent the innuendo implicated by this cut, which could lead someone
to think I wrote a legal scheme to escape copyleft.
Another of your nice works of
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 11:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[... legal scheme to escape copyleft ...]
I resent the innuendo implicated by this cut, which could lead someone
to think I wrote a legal scheme to escape
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft
explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they
were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that?
What they are stating is this: (MS EULA)
*
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 14:35 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Keep in mind that copyright law doesn't concern itself with
distribution of AUTHORIZED copies and that the act of distribution
doesn't turn AUTHORIZED copies into unauthorized copies.
Here you go again, confusing _your_copy_ with
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 17:46 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft
explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they
were only stating copyright law, would they have to
Sad, but not recognized as distribution. That's why you have to
agree with the common proprietary licenses. They add restrictions
like you can only install on one computer, or else no license.
But according to David (and yourself?) the license does not apply in
On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 11:06 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Sad, but not recognized as distribution. That's why you have to
agree with the common proprietary licenses. They add restrictions
like you can only install on one computer, or else no license.
But
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
