Alexander: thank you for contributing to my copyleft news post. I've
added your name to the copyright statement. Now everyone will be free to
use your ASCII art, subject to the terms of the GPL of course. ;-)
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Copyright (c) 2008 Pete Chown and Alexander Terekhov.
Hi Trolls,
I just realised, none of the GPL trolls dared to quote my GPL'd news
post! Are you afraid of having to license your own post under the GPL,
so starting the process of assimilation?
Well I've got news for you! The process of assimilation is proceeding
very nicely without your
Pete Chown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well I've got news for you! The process of assimilation is proceeding
very nicely without your help. Why do you think no one has heard from
Darl McBride recently? Is it because he resigned from SCO? Or is it
because he has been assimilated into the
Pete Chown wrote:
Hi Trolls,
[...]
Copyright (c) 2008 Pete Chown.
This post is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the
License, or (at your option)
It would be pleasent if those who try to advocate sofware freedom did
not drop to the levels of the trolls, and used the same nasty tactics.
Yes, the trolls are very nasty, be we are better than that, no?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Rjack wrote:
I know . . . the GPL grabs the wife , the kids, the family dog and your
SUV too. He. He.
You have realised! Already we have assimilated your newsreader. Soon we
will have your computer, and then we will have you!
You may not believe it now, but in five years time you will be
After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:43:33 +0200, Hadron wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rjack wrote:
My third party compiler is none of their damn business.
The GPL attempts to insure that users of a program can
run, read, change, and share it. In order for a user to
be able to make changes and run the resulting program,
he must be given
chrisv [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
I know . . . the GPL grabs the wife , the kids, the family dog and
your SUV too. He. He.
No. That would be copyright misuse.
Someone grabbed the troll's brain, and didn't give it back.
Not everybody keeps track of small
Moshe Goldfarb. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris is the group fluffer. He me toos to any one in need that he
sees as an advocate. Often from the kneeling position.
He used to have a brain of his own but I think it suffocated and
withered when he spent too long with his head up Roy's arse
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would be pleasent if those who try to advocate sofware freedom did
not drop to the levels of the trolls, and used the same nasty tactics.
Yes, the trolls are very nasty, be we are better than that, no?
Quality is a secondary consideration.
--
On Sep 25, 8:22 pm, Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rjack wrote:
You don't have to say anything at all about your compiler.
Do so!
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
begin excerpts
Section 1, Paragraph 3-5:
The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other
than
Rjack wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html
Witless is more like it, since the
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:22 pm, Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rjack wrote:
You don't have to say anything at all about your compiler.
Do so!
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
begin excerpts
The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means
all
First the GPL gobbled up your source code, the wife, kids, family
pets and your car. Now it gobbles up your compiler too. Alas! If
they want my compiler, they'll have to pry it from my cold lifeless
hands!
To wit:
A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance
Rjack wrote:
Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html
Witless is more like it, since the quoted passage explicitly
says that the GPL does *not* gobble up your compiler.
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html
Witless is more like it, since the quoted passage explicitly
says that the
Rjack wrote:
If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the
software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers.
Sigh. The antecedent of it is the compiler, not the program.
The document says that since you most likely cannot ship the
compiler, you should provide
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html
Witless is more like it, since the quoted passage
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Rjack wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html
Witless is more
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
Richard Tobin wrote:
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
Andrew Halliwell wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard Tobin wrote:
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
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
OK, I'm missing something here.
[2] GPL code + proprietary compiler = non-distributable binary
precisely *why* is this the case?
It's not the case. All that the document says is that since you
can't distribute a non-free compiler, you just say what compiler
you
Rjack wrote:
it's none of your damn business
I'm making it my business. You don't like it, don't use my code.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Andrew Halliwell wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is complete, 100% bullshit. You don't control commercial
compilers so how do know?
So... You're now claiming that you can re-distribute a commercial compiler?
Do you KNOW what software piracy is?
Do you know what a contract to
Rjack wrote:
Do you know what a contract to distribute is?
It's not the GPL, which is a license.
Do you what the first sale doctrine is?
Yes, it's completely orthogonal. If you own something which
you are permitted to sell under the first sale doctrine, then
you need no permission from the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
OK, I'm missing something here.
[2] GPL code + proprietary compiler = non-distributable binary
precisely *why* is this the case?
It's not the case. All that the document says is that since you
can't distribute a non-free compiler, you just
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Do you know what a contract to distribute is?
It's not the GPL, which is a license.
Do you what the first sale doctrine is?
Yes, it's completely orthogonal. If you own something which
you are permitted to sell under the first sale doctrine, then
you need no
Rjack wrote:
I know . . . the GPL grabs the wife , the kids, the family dog and
your SUV too. He. He.
No. That would be copyright misuse.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html
Witless is
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:22:08 -0500, Rjack wrote:
Don't insert your
Hey, moron, if you don't like the GPL, don't involve yourself with it.
Problem solved.
It sounds to me you want it both ways. You want to use free source code,
licensed under the GPL, and then you want to compile it and call
34 matches
Mail list logo
