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 Thu, 2006-02-09 at 19:18 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Wallace on predatory pricing:
---
Predatory pricing
The GPL establishes a predatory pricing scheme. Setting the maximum
price of intellectual property at “no charge” removes all motive to
compete.
Error no.1: it's not
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 01:36 -0500, D.C. Parris wrote:
I am curious to know what people think about Linus Torvalds' comments on the
anti-DRM clause in the GPLv3 draft. According to Linus, the GPLv3 (as is)
could cause problems, i.e., when needing to run
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Error no.1: it's not intellectual property but copyright that's being
discussed
Copyright is a form of property which, like physical property, can be
bought or sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise transferred, wholly or
in part. Accordingly, some or all
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:41 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Error no.1: it's not intellectual property but copyright that's being
discussed
Copyright is a form of property
No. It is an artificial government granted temporary monopoly over a
work.
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:34 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The clause says that IF a CERTAIN private KEY is REQUIRED, then you have
to PROVIDE that KEY.
This is for the case of Digital Restrictions Management enabled hardware
that will only load software signed with that KEY.
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
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:41 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Error no.1: it's not intellectual property but copyright that's being
discussed
Copyright is a form of property
No. It is an artificial government
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This are not good reasons. Hack resistance, safety critical stuff
and etc do not equate with DRM. In fact, DRM harms this features
since by design someone else controls the key. In the case of
computers there's a master DRM certificate root.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Copyright is a monopoly over the distribution of a work
All property rights imply some form of ownership (monopoly in GNU
speak) on enjoyment and exploitation of property. But distribution
right is severely limited by first sale (which is nonexistent in
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;
I wrote:
US copyright law does not allow installation on more than one computer at a
time without permission of the copyright owner.
Isaac writes:
What provision of US copyright law says this?
Title 17 Chapter 1 § 106 (1)
I don't see such a limit in 17 USC 117.
§ 117 is a limitation on
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 14:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Copyright is a monopoly over the distribution of a work
All property rights imply some form of ownership (monopoly in GNU
speak) on enjoyment and exploitation of property.
But copyright
-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 =
Rui writes:
Since Digital Restrictions Management doesn't affect only generic
computers but also the access to works (which can be revoked), I disagree
and maintain my generic view that DRM is theft.
DRM backed up by law is abusive, but DRM alone is a private matter.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 16:52 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[... monopoly ...]
William M. Landes and Richard Posner:
-
A property right is a legally enforceable power to exclude others
from using a resource, without need to contract with them. So if
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 10:21 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Rui writes:
Since Digital Restrictions Management doesn't affect only generic
computers but also the access to works (which can be revoked), I disagree
and maintain my generic view that DRM is theft.
DRM backed up by law is abusive,
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 16:52 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[... monopoly ...]
William M. Landes and Richard Posner:
-
A property right is a legally enforceable power to exclude others
from using a resource,
Rui writes:
Since Digital Restrictions Management doesn't affect only generic
computers but also the access to works (which can be revoked), I disagree
and maintain my generic view that DRM is theft.
I wrote:
DRM backed up by law is abusive, but DRM alone is a private matter.
Rui 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 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
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 10:21 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Rui writes:
Since Digital Restrictions Management doesn't affect only generic
computers but also the access to works (which can be revoked), I disagree
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 § 101. Definitions
Copies are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is
31 matches
Mail list logo
