Rjack wrote:
Only in your delusional mind Hyman... only in your mind.
It really is very simple. Observer what the real world does.
Then see with whose opinions that concurs.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Rjack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
No, it's copyright holders exercising their right to control how their
works may be copied and distributed.
cite to the statutes
17 USC 106
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
No, it's copyright holders exercising their right to control
how their works may be copied and distributed.
cite to the statutes
17 USC 106 § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject
to sections 107 through 122, the owner of
Rjack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
When someone creates a program which includes another's copyrighted
work, they are forbidden to make and distribute copies by 17 USC 106
(1), and so must obtain authorization from the rights holder to do so.
Section 1 of the GPL allows such copying:
1. You
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
When someone creates a program which includes another's copyrighted
work, they are forbidden to make and distribute copies by 17 USC 106
(1), and so must obtain authorization from the rights holder to do so.
Section 1 of the GPL
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
So a tarball with all the sources is somehow different from compiled and
linked binary resulting from the same sources
Of course. The former is a verbatim copy of the source code, readily
reconstructed from its transmitted form. The other is not. In any case,
the only
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
So a tarball with all the sources is somehow different from
compiled and linked binary resulting from the same sources
Of course. The former is a verbatim copy of the source code,
readily reconstructed from its transmitted form. The other is
not.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Think of the following
GPL.c (GPL'd computer program work in source code form)
NonGPL.c (NonGPL'd computer program work in source code form)
aggregated into one file (tarball, ISO image, or whatnot)
GPL.c is being copied and distributed as a verbatim copy.
Rjack wrote:
Use of an *unmodified* copy of source code by compiling and
executing on a computer is not restricted by the GPL
Yes, so?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Think of the following
GPL.c (GPL'd computer program work in source code form)
NonGPL.c (NonGPL'd computer program work in source code form)
aggregated into one file (tarball, ISO image, or whatnot)
GPL.c is being copied and
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It is the same mere aggregation (copying but not creating a
derivative work) as in the other two cases
Aggregation for the purpose of transmission is not the same thing
as use in a combined work. If your arguments have reduced down to
repeated claims of red is blue,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It is the same mere aggregation (copying but not creating a
derivative work) as in the other two cases
Aggregation for the purpose of transmission is not the same thing
as use in a combined work.
There you go again --
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
What you want to do is change a mere aggregation (for
the purpose of execution/running the code) into a derivative work.
No. The linked executable incorporating GPLed libraries is not a
derivative work of those libraries as understood by copyright law,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
What you want to do is change a mere aggregation (for
the purpose of execution/running the code) into a derivative work.
No. The linked executable incorporating GPLed libraries is not a
derivative work of those libraries as
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The term combined work is not used in
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
GPLv2 calls it a work based on the Program.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The term combined work is not used in
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
GPLv2 calls it a work based on the Program.
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law.
Stop being utter idiot Hyman.
What
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The term combined work is not used in
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
GPLv2 calls it a work based on the Program.
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law.
that is to
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The term combined work is not used in
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
GPLv2 calls it a work based on the Program.
means either the Program or any derivative work under
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
That is just incorrect paraphrase of the operative words
preceding that is to say.
In which case nothing at all grants permission to make small,
non-derivative work changes to the program and then distribute
the results, including incorporating the program into a
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
GPLv3 has cleaned up the language:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html
GPLv3 is clear as mud.
Outside the Definitions section it purports to define an is called
term aggregate
A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
GPLv3 is clear as mud.
Outside the Definitions section it purports to define an is called
term aggregate
It seems clear enough to me. The distinction is between putting a
bunch of unrelated code together on one disk and linking libraries
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
GPLv3 is clear as mud. ...
It seems clear enough to me
A program which is written to use a library is not a derivative
work of that library...
I did not find the phrase derivative work in the GPL v3
Rjack wrote:
The FSF like Hyman, usually wants to redefine terms to fit their
conception of what things should mean.
I agree that the FSF wants to redefine derivative work to fit
their conception of what things should mean.
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
GPLv3 is clear as mud. ...
It seems clear enough to me
A program which is written to use a library is not a derivative work
of that library...
I did not find the phrase derivative work in the GPL v3 text. I found
it in v2,
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
I did not find the phrase derivative work in the GPL v3 text. I found
it in v2, but you are discussing v3, are you not? If so, it would be
better to stick to the language in GPL v3.
...
That term, derivative work, comes from copyright
On Mar 21, 8:38 am, JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote:
On 2009-03-21, Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote:
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,
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 2009-03-21, Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote:
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
JEDIDIAH wrote:
[...]
Sun's problem is being less able to sell overpriced hardware
for people trying to avoid running Windows in their datacenter.
From http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/JAVA
-
[AP, San Francisco Reuters 9928IU9]
San Francisco, California::: Today, Sun Microsystems
dr_nikolaus_klepp wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
It means source code nonexclusively licensed to the public
without copyright scope of use restrictions.
Which is why the FSF and the GPL reject the term.
you forgot to add Idiot
Well, we already have some extremely patient people
Rjack wrote:
The GPL is not compatible with *anything* since it's legally
unenforceable under US law.
The judge in the MysQL/NuSphere case read it and did not write
that she found anything objectionable. She indicated that there
were issues as to whether the license had been obeyed, not that
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
They are merely quoting the FSF's FAQ to ease the mind of brainwashed
people like you, Hyman.
They are quoting the FSF's FAQ because they don't want to be offering
opinions on other people's licenses. But the presence in the FAQ means
that they do not themselves
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The GPL is not compatible with *anything* since it's legally
unenforceable under US law.
The judge in the MysQL/NuSphere case read it and did not write
that she found anything objectionable. She indicated that there
were issues as to whether the license had
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
They are merely quoting the FSF's FAQ to ease the mind of brainwashed
people like you, Hyman.
They are quoting the FSF's FAQ because they don't want to be offering
opinions on other people's licenses. But the presence in the FAQ means
that
Rjack wrote:
Only in your delusional mind Hyman... only in your mind.
And in the minds of all enforcement defendants who settled
and complied rather than attempt to deny the GPL, and in
the minds of all industry who complies with or avoids the
GPL.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The Apache License says that any distribution of such combined work
must include a copy the Apache License because it (the Apache License,
not the GPL) governs employed preexisting material licensed under the
Apache License.
Combined works that include GPLed code must
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The Apache License says that any distribution of such combined work
must include a copy the Apache License because it (the Apache License,
not the GPL) governs employed preexisting material licensed under the
Apache License.
Combined
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
This is utter legal nonsense
No, it's copyright holders exercising their right to control how
their works may be copied and distributed. You may not like it,
but it works just fine.
Go to doctor
Such cogent replies.
___
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Only in your delusional mind Hyman... only in your mind.
And in the minds of all enforcement defendants who settled and
complied rather than attempt to deny the GPL, and in the minds of
all industry who complies with or avoids the GPL.
Only in your delusional
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The Apache License says that any distribution of such combined work
must include a copy the Apache License because it (the Apache License,
not the GPL) governs employed preexisting material licensed under the
Apache License.
Combined works that
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
This is utter legal nonsense
No, it's copyright holders exercising their right to control how
their works may be copied and distributed.
Just cite to the statutes Hymen. Not your imagination.
You may not like it, but it works just fine.
Go
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
Thufir Hawat wrote:
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
Rjack wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
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
Thufir Hawat wrote:
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
Rjack wrote:
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
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
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
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
Terry Porter wrote:
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Rjack wrote:
snip
You Freetards never learn. For Christ's sake, IBM was the
World's first viscous computer monopolist. How soon Freetards
forget! IBM likes anything that enhances their bottom line.
Freetards are Micro$oft's enemy. IBM like Al
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:21:14 -0400, Rjack wrote:
You have it backwards. When *sun* licenses software, IBM likes apache/
BSD type licenses. When *IBM* licenses software, ie gnu/linux, IBM
likes the gpl.
You Freetards never learn. For Christ's sake, IBM was the World's first
viscous
Rjack wrote:
the FSF propaganda campaign is falling flat on its ass
On the contrary, the campaign successfully led to Sun
releasing Java under the GPL, where it will now reside
in perpetuity, available to be used by those who don't
like the idea of users being deprived of their freedoms
by
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It is no secret that IBM treats [L]GPL'd code like a kind of toxic
waste, so to speak. The general rule is seek for alternative.
That is all the more reason to increase the amount of Free Software
available. It helps extinguish the alternatives, so that companies
who
Rjack wrote:
If you think IBM didn't learn the meaning of embrace, extend and
extinguish from Micro$oft then you're a bigger Freetard moron than
I thought. Ever since Linux latched on to IBM's teat with Sequent's
SMP code contributions the extinguish handwriting has been on the
wall. IBM will
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Rjack wrote:
snip
You Freetards never learn. For Christ's sake, IBM was the World's
first viscous computer monopolist. How soon Freetards forget! IBM
likes anything that enhances their bottom line. Freetards are
Micro$oft's enemy. IBM like Al Quaeda, believes My
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
If you think IBM didn't learn the meaning of embrace, extend and
extinguish from Micro$oft then you're a bigger Freetard moron than
I thought. Ever since Linux latched on to IBM's teat with Sequent's
SMP code contributions the extinguish handwriting has been on
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And how did that help SUN?
Sun tries to get Java widely used, and this increased the number
of places in which it might be used. (Not by much, of course -
Java was already used on most GNU/Linux systems.)
Being on the FSF's list of licenses compatible with the GPL
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
It means that one can build a program which combines GPLed code and
code under the other license and distribute it to users under the GPL
as a whole.
Subsuming other non-GPL works (licensed without permission to sublicense
under the GPL) and pretending that a whole
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Subsuming other non-GPL works (licensed without permission to sublicense
under the GPL) and pretending that a whole is under the GPL is utter
legal nonsense.
Fortunately, such permission is given:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
2. Grant of
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Anyway, the fork won't be called Java and won't have a chance
to keep pace with IBM/SUN controlled open sourced Java project.
Do you understand what open source means, idiot?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
chrisv wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
If IBM acquires SUN you can be assured that open sourced version of Java
will end up as either eclipse or apache project with its license changed
away from the GPL pretty soon.
It would be forked.
By whom? Anyway, the fork won't be called Java
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Subsuming other non-GPL works (licensed without permission to sublicense
under the GPL) and pretending that a whole is under the GPL is utter
legal nonsense.
Fortunately, such permission is given:
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
JEDIDIAH wrote:
The whole reason that the GPL exists is that we all know that we
can't trust corporations to play nice without some big club
being held over their heads. It's very much like Law Order in
general.
The whole reason that the GPL exists is because of the legal
delusions of a
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And how did that help SUN?
Sun tries to get Java widely used, and this increased the number
of places in which it might be used. (Not by much, of course -
Java was already used on most GNU/Linux systems.)
Being on the FSF's list of licenses
chrisv wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Anyway, the fork won't be called Java and won't have a chance
to keep pace with IBM/SUN controlled open sourced Java project.
Do you understand what open source means, idiot?
Sure. It means source code nonexclusively licensed to the public
without
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:25:13 +0100, Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
chrisv wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
If IBM acquires SUN you can be assured that open sourced version of Java
will end up as either eclipse or apache project with its license changed
away from
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include
works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to
the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof.
However, a linked executable which
Rjack wrote:
a fact which leaves the suits without jurisdiction to be heard in
federal court
And yet, each defendant chose to settle and comply with the terms
of the GPL rather than contest the issue.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Rjack wrote:
The whole reason that the GPL exists is because of the legal
delusions of a wild eyed fanatic named Richard Stallman.
The GPL exists in order to provide users of code licensed under
it with the freedom to run, read, modify, and share the code,
and to prevent anyone from supplying
Rjack wrote:
*never* wrong
No, I am on occasion wrong, just as you are on occasion right.
Neither happens very often.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rjack wrote:
It means source code nonexclusively licensed to the public
without copyright scope of use restrictions.
Which is why the FSF and the GPL reject the term.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Subsuming other non-GPL works (licensed without permission to
sublicense under the GPL) and pretending that a whole is
under the GPL is utter legal nonsense.
Fortunately, such permission is given:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The process of static linking DOESN'T CREATE AN ORIGINAL WORK OF
AUTHORSHIP (same as with dynamic linking).
You might wish to read the license before you begin shouting.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Derivative Works shall mean any work, whether
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The process of static linking DOESN'T CREATE AN ORIGINAL WORK
OF AUTHORSHIP (same as with dynamic linking).
You might wish to read the license before you begin shouting.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Derivative Works
shall mean any
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote in message
news:49c257e3.daf22...@web.de...
And how did that help SUN?
The intent was to get the world's application developers creating all of
their work in java so that it could be written once and run everywhere in
an attempt to break the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
It means source code nonexclusively licensed to the public
without copyright scope of use restrictions.
Which is why the FSF and the GPL reject the term.
you forgot to add Idiot
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Rjack wrote:
17 USC sec. 103(b)
Of what relevance is this? The GPL requires that a combined
work containing GPLed code must be licensed as a whole under
the GPL. This does not mean that the distributor of the work
claims copyright over the pieces he does not own. It just means
that the
Rjack wrote:
Hyman, have your ears heard what your mouth has just spoken?
Yes, why?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
17 USC sec. 103(b)
Of what relevance is this? The GPL requires that a combined work
containing GPLed code must be licensed as a whole under the GPL.
This does not mean that the distributor of the work claims
copyright over the pieces he does not own. It just
Rjack wrote:
17 USC 103(b) means that a derivative work may be distributed as
a whole only by contractual agreement of both copyright holders
in privity. That means that the right to distribute the derivative
work is a personal in personam right created by contract.
What nonsense. What you
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The process of static linking DOESN'T CREATE AN ORIGINAL WORK OF
AUTHORSHIP (same as with dynamic linking).
You might wish to read the license before you begin shouting.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Derivative Works
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
17 USC 103(b) means that a derivative work may be distributed as
a whole only by contractual agreement of both copyright holders
in privity. That means that the right to distribute the derivative
work is a personal in personam right created by contract.
Hey Hyman, quiz!
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The process of static linking DOESN'T CREATE AN ORIGINAL WORK OF
AUTHORSHIP (same as with dynamic linking).
You might wish to read the license before you begin shouting.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
First off, a program which links with Apache-licensed code is NOT based
on Apache-licensed code (in a derivative work sense) as long as it
doesn't contain any protected material taken from Apache-licensed code.
No. Such a program is not a derivative work in the sense
Rjack wrote:
You has have moooved into total denial.
Total denial is the proper response to total error.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hey Hyman, quiz! Which statement is the correct one?
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Derivative Works shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object
form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the
editorial revisions,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
The license grants permission to sublicense a covered work itself as well
as works based on the covered work. Therefore a work covered by the Apache
license and a work based on it may both be distributed under the GPL.
Go to doctor, Hyman. A psychiatrist will have a
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Go to doctor, Hyman.
Instead, we will go once more to the involved parties:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#GPL
Is the Apache license compatible with the GPL (GNU Public License)?
From the Free Software Foundation website:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Apache and the FSF both agree that the licenses are compatible,
and you (apparently) do not. You are, as usual, wrong.
The GPL is not compatible with *anything* since it's legally
unenforceable under US law.
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Rjack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Apache and the FSF both agree that the licenses are compatible,
and you (apparently) do not. You are, as usual, wrong.
The GPL is not compatible with *anything* since it's legally
unenforceable under US law.
Fine, fine
Now tell us something even mildly
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Go to doctor, Hyman.
Instead, we will go once more to the involved parties:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#GPL
Is the Apache license compatible with the GPL (GNU Public License)?
From the Free Software
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:25:13 +0100, Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
chrisv wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
If IBM acquires SUN you can be assured that open sourced version of Java
will end up as either eclipse or apache project with its license changed
away from the GPL pretty
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
92 matches
Mail list logo
