this availability. But that's just a guess.
If it's an action tek router, sold to an importer exporter, and then to
another middleman, and then to a retailer, to whom do you go for the
source code? presumably, just action tek.
Dunno if that totally applies here, but seems reasonable.
-Thufir
proper authorization.
But, if you've just got a router sitting in your window which you
purchased on e-bay and are reselling, surely you, retailer, are not on
the hook? Just the manufacturer, I'd think.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu
, it's between the buyer and the
manufacturer. The manufacturer is distributing binaries, so must make
the source available to its customers.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu
customers.
That seems backwards in that, for example, the copyright holder might be
dead, and lets say has no heirs and no will.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:49:13 +, Rahul Dhesi wrote:
thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To my understanding, the buyer does have the right, under the GPL, to
the source. After, the GPL is targeted, you could say, at buyers to
protect copyright owners.
If no buyer has rights to the source
of winning an argument/making a point?
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I would say that making a
point is an example of a vested interest. Money often is a minor player
for things like this (motivations of people).
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss
to order
pc's (or whatever) and wait and see what happens.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
that every license is a contract? They're
similar, certainly, but, AFAIK, one isn't a subset of the other.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
?
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 07:57:51 -0400, Rjack wrote:
Where does he get this notion that every license is a contract?
They're similar, certainly, but, AFAIK, one isn't a subset of the
other.
-Thufir
Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by
ordinary principles
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 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
a device
with GPL software installed on it isn't necessarily distributing that
software.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
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
gnu
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
such egomaniacs, they could just ignore the
situation and be happy that someone else thought enough of their
creation to use it themselves.
You're advocating plagiarizing? Never mind the GPL for the moment.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu
to distribute GPL'd code without including the license. As
you're advocating that it's ok to distribute without including the
license, then you're conclusion is that source code doesn't have
copyright protection?
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu
in the GPL, I am
saying that, unless the code has been modified in some useful way, then
it is of no value to the community.
So you don't dispute the legality of the GPL? You're just find it
inconvenient? If so, then don't distribute GPL'd software and go about
your business.
-Thufir
at odds with copyright law
No shit, Dick Tracy. I simply say that is silly.
And if the source isn't available then where's the attribution? At a
minimum, sounds like plagiarism.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
a hold of Microsoft's source, you would be able to
use it, too.
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.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
to see software copyright revoked.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000_source_leak
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
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
FOSS a bad name. All that
anyone has been able to assert, yourself included, is that the GPL
demands that a user follow its exact rules to the letter.
FWIW, that's the point in contention in this thread.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu
then Verizon has no obligations is the argument.
The fact that there's a link on verizon.com which causes this binary to
download doesn't prove that the binary file is on a Verizon server.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss
be sued by the EC in europe? Of course, it's the
European company which is sued.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
, since it is
satisfied with having Actiontec provide the GPLed sources.
I don't think a copyrighted jpg could be distributed that way, though.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu
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 the Verizon site, downloads.Verizon.net. Have
you not tried it yourself? Are you afraid to do so?
Nothing you've written demonstrates that the files are stored on Verizon
hardware.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
be rather unusual at best. Why
would they do that in lieu of just storing a copy of the download file?
The point is that you've not demonstrated that the files are stored on a
verizon server yet proceed as if you have.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss
.
which imposes steep penalties per infraction. To avoid those steep
penalties a settlement will be agreed to. The settlement? Follow the
GPL.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu
the scenes to some server owned
by another company. Do you seriously believe that is the case? It
would be very unusual for Verizon to have back office direct connections
to Actiontec.
I don't know whether it's the case or not, and neither do you.
-Thufir
, namely freedom for their users.
Very well said.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
don't believe that the EULA
is under copyright law at all, but provides a way around copyright.
Failure to abide by the EULA might then prompt a lawsuit, for instance on
copyright infringement.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss
advantage.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
computer monopolist.
Well, asshole's like you never see the obvious: of course it would've
been in IBM's interests to have never released any source code at all.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
massive layoffs, and
fire sale of the company.
So you assert without establishing any sort of cause and effect.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
noncommercial individuals.
That link is about mp3's, apparently, and non-commercial piracy.
In the current suit Free Software Foundation Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.
the FSF is asking for monetary damages:
which is commercial, so the comparison fails there.
-Thufir
pay less for copyright
infringement, but they might help Grandma vs. RIAA. Why Rjack cannot
distinguish between the two is a curiosity.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc
copyrights of
programmers. Illegal is illegal. Savvy Kemo Sabe?
Just an empty assertion of yours. No, the FSF doesn't promote an illegal
copyright.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu
does accept the rationalization of piracy? Be specific with an
example.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
of
the GPL is completely voluntary. The theft occurs when code grabbers try
to steal GPLed code instead of paying for it by properly making the
sources available.
The topic is now completely different from where it started, this is
merely a complex setup for a strawman.
-Thufir
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
point? All EULA would be contracts,
yes? Not complying with an EULA opens up a can of worms.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
are, or are not, contracts
in your view.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
your point?
The point of an original newsgroup post seems to evolvs with the number
of posts to the thread. I think we were discussing legal enforcement of
the GPL.
If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in
your view?
-Thufir
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 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$et1.40...@newsfe20.iad...
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:58 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA,
in your
of law in most jurisdictions.
LOL, of course, but that wasn't my point.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
that
different.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
awarded.
Could the end user in receipt of the Verizon router end up owing
copyright fines? Well, only if the binary were illegitimate. So, if an
EU started distributing that binary, I think there would be consequences.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
EULA out there?
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:42:08 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
If it were legally enforceable, which it is not.
Oh, but it is.
Ain't neither.
Sure 'nuff is.
Ah, usenet at its finest.
-Thufir
___
gnu
I asked you for what was promised, I got no answer.
Rahul, implicit in a copyright license is the promise not to sue for
copyright infringement.
How is it not copyright infringement to distribute the work without
following the terms of the license?
-Thufir
is liable for copyright infringement.
Rjacks argument is that because the GPL is unenforceable there is no
liability, although I've not seen a clear explanation for the premise.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
of the
settlement. The underlying reason for the settlement can only be
speculated.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:34:29 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:3ijal.118624$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
practice socialism in software
licensing as a religion.
Why not extend that argument to the conclusion: don't use any license at
all. Sqlite is public domain. You're free to develop public domain
software on your own. However, you're not likely to ever see a penny for
your efforts.
-Thufir
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
arrangements for distribution.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
. Even you haven't got a mental overview over
your many hundred, possibly several thousand, posts on this worn out
topic.
Please put your arguments in a coherent form on a web site, somewhere.
Hear, hear.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
domain.
What, precisely, prevents the GPL code from using BSD code (copy/paste)?
The inverse is prevented, however.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
or interpret differently.
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?
-Thufir
of the understanding.
Technically, no, there's no requirement to do so, but effectively, yes,
that's what happens.
-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
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
73 matches
Mail list logo
