Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-26 Thread David Kastrup
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions. Your choice. In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the first place. Ah, but note that in my

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-25 Thread Tim Smith
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Smith wrote: If you are distributing your copies What gave you the right to make copies? GPL. For example, suppose I run a small business. I have 20 computers. I want to install some GPL software on them Monday.

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-25 Thread David Kastrup
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Smith wrote: If you are distributing your copies What gave you the right to make copies? GPL. For example, suppose I run a small business. I have 20 computers. I want to

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-25 Thread Hyman Rosen
Tim Smith wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission? Well, maybe. I think it would be a pretty close reading if challenged.

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-25 Thread John Hasler
Tim Smith wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission? Because you agreed not to sell them without source when you accepted the GPL

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-25 Thread Alexander Terekhov
John Hasler wrote: Tim Smith wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission? Because you agreed not to sell them without source

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-25 Thread David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Hasler wrote: Tim Smith wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission?

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-25 Thread Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Hasler wrote: Tim Smith wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-25 Thread David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Hasler wrote: Tim Smith wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-25 Thread David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Agreement is precedent to making copies. No. The act of making copies (other than by downloading from online distributor without I agree manifestation of assent prior to getting copies, fair use, etc.) makes me

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-25 Thread Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Agreement is precedent to making copies. ^ No. The act of making copies (other than by downloading from online distributor without I agree manifestation of assent prior to

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-25 Thread Tim Smith
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission? Because you

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-25 Thread David Kastrup
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-25 Thread Tim Smith
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions. Your choice. In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the first place. Ah, but note that in my hypothetical, when I made the copies, I

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-24 Thread Hyman Rosen
Tim Smith wrote: When I'm done watching, can I sell the recording? The copy was lawfully made. I own the copy. Seems like first sale says I can. You won't be able to. The Supreme Court decision which affirmed the legality of time-shifting refers to earlier similar laws about audio

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-24 Thread John Hasler
Hyman writes: Authors can give up some exclusive rights. Yes, copyright owners can give up some rights: the one in your example has done so. In the scenario I propose, the author has completely honored the GPL - with every copy he sells, he includes the source, and has no further obligation.

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-24 Thread Hyman Rosen
John Hasler wrote: Yes, copyright owners can give up some rights: the one in your example has done so. He has not. He has also sold his right to distribute source to the buyer of the copies. He has not. He no longer can distribute source: he sold that right. He did not. The person

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-24 Thread Tim Smith
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Smith wrote: 1. Acquire a lawful copy of a GPL binary. Doesn't matter how--download it from somewhere, compile it from source, whatever. 2. Make copies of the binary. GPL says this is OK. 3. Sell or give away those

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-24 Thread John Hasler
Hyman writes: The manufacturer sells copies of software to a reseller, in full compliance with the GPL, shipping binaries and source. He has not sold any rights. The reseller has not bought any rights. You wrote that the manufacturer had been paid by the reseller for agreeing not to make

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-24 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Tim Smith wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Smith wrote: 1. Acquire a lawful copy of a GPL binary. Doesn't matter how--download it from somewhere, compile it from source, whatever. 2. Make copies of the binary. GPL says this is OK.

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-24 Thread Hyman Rosen
Tim Smith wrote: If you are distributing your copies What gave you the right to make copies? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-24 Thread Hyman Rosen
John Hasler wrote: That is the sale of a right by the manufacturer to the reseller. ... He owns part of the copyright (the right to distribute source). I do not believe that either of these statements is correct. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-24 Thread Hyman Rosen
Alexander Terekhov wrote: and apparently his comments were simply dismissed http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments system: With respect to propagate, it is likely a tautology because of the defintion of propagate covering only things that require permission under applicable copyright law. But for

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread David Kastrup
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: You don't need to become the owner. It is enough if you become _responsible_. Enough for what? I just don't understand what you're saying. Remember, the GPL is just a copyright license. It has no notion of responsibility. But the

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: The courts should simply not enforce invalid contracts. LAW 101. To date, the courts did NOT enforce the GPL. And violations flourish. What a strange notion! The courts vigorously enforce copyright on songs and movies. And violations

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Hyman Rosen
David Kastrup wrote: But the courts have. What the courts have done is to uphold first sale, despite the vehement objections of the software developers who argued that EULAs disallowed it. This was recently decided in Softman v. Adobe. See http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5628.

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: What does that have to do with the GPL Hyman? You seemed to claim that violations of the GPL flourish because courts have not enforced it. I pointed out that violations of copyright in songs and movies flourish even though courts do

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Rjack
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I see you have [...] What I've done is I've applied Richard Feynman's simple rule about theories: if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. You proposed a controversial, completely unproven idea of copyright law that would have

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Hyman Rosen
Alexander Terekhov wrote: And I pointed out that at least in Germany of late violations of copyright in songs and movies by sharers are on decline without any court enforcement. Alexander Terekhov wrote: Or go to court and lose even more. Umm, right.

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread rjack
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is controversial or unproven about 17 USC sec. 301 of the Copyright Act? Exactly. It exists, and no one in a position to act is claiming that it makes the GPL invalid or not work like FSF claims it works. The SFLC is in a

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Hyman Rosen
rjack wrote: all they have to to do is refrain from voluntarily dismissing one of their silly lawsuits and let a judge review their claims on the merits. Judges are not in the business of reviewing claims. If the parties to a dispute have agreed on a settlement then there is no case to

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] After each of these voluntary dismissals, the source code for the GPLed product is available from the distributor. That's verifiably not true. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Hyman Rosen
Alexander Terekhov wrote: That's verifiably not true. It's certainly verifiable. Go to each SFLC filing, find the website of the company they sued, and see if there is a place from which to obtain sources (substituting ActionTec for Verizon, before you say anything). I don't have a burning

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Hyman Rosen wrote: [... substituting ...] a = pi*r^2 let's substitute pi with c a = c*r^2 now e = m*c^2 let's subsitute c for m and r for c e = c*r^2 it follows a = e it follows pi = c it follows 3.14159 = 299792458 Hyman science. regards, alexander. --

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Hyman Rosen
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [... substituting ...] 3.14159 = 299792458 Hyman science. For most of 2007, Actiontec FIOS routers were being shipped with GPLed software and without complying with the GPL. After the lawsuit ended, Actiontec FIOS routers are being shipped with

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [... substituting ...] 3.14159 = 299792458 Hyman science. For most of 2007, Actiontec FIOS routers were being shipped Verizon's FiOS router firmware download page says (in BOLD red text):

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Tim Smith
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It occurs to me that in the U.S. there is a relatively easy way to circumvent the requirement of giving away source code for GPLed software. Not just the US. Pretty much every place with copyright law has an equivalent

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Tim Smith
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Kastrup wrote: Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you unable to do copies yourself? That way Company A gets to

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Tim Smith
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In order to be a first sale under the intent of the law. First sale clearly contemplates a transaction such as walking into a bookstore, grabbing a book, plunking down $20, and walking out. You propose a A sale is not

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Tim Smith
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Company A prepares a work derived from GPL-licensed code. Company B purchases copies of this work from Company A. For each copy purchased, Company A sends Company B two disks, one with the binaries and one with the sources.

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Hyman Rosen
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Now imagine that Actiontec ships Verizon's FiOS router boxes to Verizon and only Verizon (fully fulfilling the GPL obligations by providing the source code to its customer Verizon)... not end users. Who is supposed to provide the source code to you? No one. This is

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Tim Smith wrote: [... first sale ...] I'm glad to see people are finally taking some interest in this area. I've been expecting it to show up since at least as far back as 2005: 2005? http://groups.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Here's the ruling) 2004! :-) regards, alexander. --

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Alexander Terekhov
http://warmcat.com/_wp/2008/05/23/exhaustion-and-the-gpl/ - Exhaustion and the GPL Some years ago I came across a guy Alexander Terekhov who worked then for IBM and had outspoken views about the viability of the GPL. If I understood it, his opinion was that the license terms of the GPL

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread Tim Smith
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://warmcat.com/_wp/2008/05/23/exhaustion-and-the-gpl/ - Exhaustion and the GPL That reminds me of a question my professor asked us in copyright law class when I was in law school, when we were discussing the

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-23 Thread rjack
Tim Smith wrote: (I believe I read somewhere...Larry Rosen's book, perhaps...that many jurisdictions do not recognize bare licenses, and GPL *would* be seen as a contract on those jurisdictions. Maybe that provides a saving throw--if someone tries to blatantly circumvent by making copies

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread John Hasler
Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that company B contract with company A to do this? If so company A is company B's agent and the GPL is violated, not circumvented. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread rjack
Hyman Rosen wrote: It occurs to me that in the U.S. there is a relatively easy way to circumvent the requirement of giving away source code for GPLed software. You assume the GPL is enforceable and then scheme to circumvent it, but the license is preempted by 17 USC sec 301. You can't

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread Hyman Rosen
John Hasler wrote: Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that company B contract with company A to do this? If so company A is company B's agent and the GPL is violated, not circumvented. I don't see

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread David Kastrup
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It occurs to me that in the U.S. there is a relatively easy way to circumvent the requirement of giving away source code for GPLed software. Company A prepares a work derived from GPL-licensed code. Company B purchases copies of this work from Company

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread Alexander Terekhov
John Hasler wrote: Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that company B contract with company A to do this? If so company A is company B's agent and the GPL is violated, not circumvented. An agent

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread David Kastrup
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Hasler wrote: Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that company B contract with company A to do this? If so company A is company B's agent and the GPL is

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread Hyman Rosen
David Kastrup wrote: Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you unable to do copies yourself? That way Company A gets to have its cake and eat it to. It leverages available GPLed software so that

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread Hyman Rosen
David Kastrup wrote: You mean if I pay somebody to drop a brick from a window when I signal him, I am not accountable for murder? If I hire a company to develop a program for me, that company is not me. I pay money, I provide a specification, they deliver the software to me, and that's that.

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread David Kastrup
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: You mean if I pay somebody to drop a brick from a window when I signal him, I am not accountable for murder? If I hire a company to develop a program for me, that company is not me. I pay money, I provide a specification, they

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread David Kastrup
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you unable to do copies yourself? That way Company A gets to have its cake and eat it to. I was

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread Hyman Rosen
David Kastrup wrote: I was asking where the point was for B. B gets handsomely paid by A. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread Hyman Rosen
David Kastrup wrote: That's the same if I pay somebody to drop a brick when I signal him. It's not illegal to hire a company to develop software to your specifications, allow them to retain all rights to that software, and just buy copies from them. Any software vendor who accepts suggestions

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread Hyman Rosen
David Kastrup wrote: B gets _paid_ by A and yet receives the disks by first _sale_ rather than acting as an agent of A? You'll have a _really_ hard time selling that to a judge. A gives specifications to B. B develops the software. A buys a bunch of copies of the software from B and resells

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread David Kastrup
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: I recommend that you reread the thread and decide on who you call A and who B. It will make it easier for the judge to figure out things. Oops, I did mix them up. But in any case, there is no law of copyright that says that if I

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread Hyman Rosen
David Kastrup wrote: I recommend that you reread the thread and decide on who you call A and who B. It will make it easier for the judge to figure out things. Oops, I did mix them up. But in any case, there is no law of copyright that says that if I ask someone to develop software, even if I

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread Hyman Rosen
David Kastrup wrote: You don't need to become the owner. It is enough if you become _responsible_. Enough for what? I just don't understand what you're saying. Remember, the GPL is just a copyright license. It has no notion of responsibility. It states only whether and how covered software

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread Hyman Rosen
Alexander Terekhov wrote: The courts should simply not enforce invalid contracts. LAW 101. To date, the courts did NOT enforce the GPL. And violations flourish. What a strange notion! The courts vigorously enforce copyright on songs and movies. And violations flourish.

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread rjack
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...]the license is preempted by 17 USC sec 301.[...] And since invalidating the GPL would be worth billions to some companies, how do you explain that your discovery (and that of Alexander Terekhov) are ignored by everyone in a

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread Hyman Rosen
John Hasler wrote: It also means that B is free to sell or give the software, source and all, to anyone, including A's customers. But A and B can enter into an arrangement where B will agree not to do this, perhaps with A paying B for this. ___

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread Ciaran O'Riordan
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I see you have [...] What I've done is I've applied Richard Feynman's simple rule about theories: if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. You proposed a controversial, completely unproven idea of copyright law that would have certain consequences. I

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread Hyman Rosen
John Hasler wrote: The sale is then no longer an arms-length transaction. A US Federal judge will see right through the subterfuge and tell A that it is a distributor. Why does it have to be arms-length? Where is the subterfuge? A software developer is perfectly free to enter an arrangement

Re: Circumventing the GPL

2008-07-22 Thread John Hasler
I wrote: The sale is then no longer an arms-length transaction. A US Federal judge will see right through the subterfuge and tell A that it is a distributor. Hyman writes: Why does it have to be arms-length? In order to be a first sale under the intent of the law. First sale clearly

Re: Circumventing the GPL ...

2006-05-31 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Unruh wrote: [...] Why do I have to? You came up with the AFC test. The OP suggested a path of influence, which gave a possibly suggestive link suggesting that copyright ROFL. Uh. A path of influence? A possibly suggestive link suggesting something? ROFL. regards, alexander.

Re: Circumventing the GPL ...

2006-05-30 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
The copyright holder(s) can always relicense a work under whatever license they want. One doesn't circumventing anything by doing so. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL ...

2006-05-30 Thread John Hasler
Nick Kew writes: The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari. Which is in turn based on khtml/konqueror. First I've heard that. Are you sure you don't mean that it uses QT? Which is KDE, which is GPL. khtml is LGPL. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill

Re: Circumventing the GPL ...

2006-05-30 Thread David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nick Kew wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/30/nokia_goes_open_source/ Nokia is to open its browser engine under a BSD license. The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari. Which is in turn based on

Re: Circumventing the GPL ...

2006-05-30 Thread Alexander Terekhov
You too, dak, please kindly piss off. With your idiotic communication through non-standardized interface derivative theory, to begin with. And read up something on software compilations (see 17 USC 101; software is protected as literary works) vs software derivatives (modified protected

Re: Circumventing the GPL ...

2006-05-30 Thread David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You too, dak, please kindly piss off. Why should a GNU maintainer not discuss miscellaneous things on gnu.misc.discuss? Just because you are a spoilt brat craving undivided attention for your wild theories (isn't he adorable when he mimics a

Re: Circumventing the GPL ...

2006-05-30 Thread Unruh
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nick Kew wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/30/nokia_goes_open_source/ Nokia is to open its browser engine under a BSD license. The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari. Which is in turn based on

Re: Circumventing the GPL ...

2006-05-30 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Unruh wrote: [...] And exactly how does the AFC (I assume you mean Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison test) Yes. apply here? It used to determine if there is copyright infringement in alleged derivative computer program work. GNUish/SCOish based on derivative

Re: Circumventing the GPL ...

2006-05-30 Thread Unruh
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unruh wrote: [...] And exactly how does the AFC (I assume you mean Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison test) Yes. apply here? It used to determine if there is copyright infringement in alleged derivative computer program work.

Re: Circumventing the GPL ...

2006-05-30 Thread Unruh
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unruh wrote: [...] Yes, and you have made the comparison? Am I claiming that that's a derivative of GPL software appearing under a BSD license? You're suffering typical GNUish/SCOish syndrome. ??? The AFC test is a test to see whether or not there

Re: Circumventing the GPL ...

2006-05-30 Thread Unruh
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unruh wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unruh wrote: [...] Yes, and you have made the comparison? Am I claiming that that's a derivative of GPL software appearing under a BSD license? You're suffering typical