Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-16 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
What about permission to read my letters don't you understand? You are being singularly disingenuous. What part of `permission to access the CD' do _you_ not understand? ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-16 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] (And that citation is actually from Frank Zappa, not Confucius, parachutes didn't exist in 500BC, and the proper citation is `A mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work if it is not open'.) :-) Great Confucius also said: Man with an unchecked parachute will

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-16 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
In fact, the entries I quoted refute all the assertions made by Alfred and yourself: You have serious reading problems. 1. Users of a web-based program are not covered by the GPL (and you who like to extrapolate should have no problem in applying that to people in front of a glass

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Oh nonsense. If the original license permits usage in a context with different conditions, of course anybody can do so. That is the distinguishing feature of the BSD licenses as opposed to the GPL: the freedom to distribute under unfree conditions. Stop spouting

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote: [...] The GPL is entirely different TC, stupid. The BSD doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL TC. Only the BSD TC apply. There is nothing to indicate Only in the BSD license. You can obviously add your own terms. It is obvious only to GNU brainwashed population.

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] The GPL is entirely different TC, stupid. The BSD doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL TC. Only the BSD TC apply. There is nothing to

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Oh nonsense. If the original license permits usage in a context with different conditions, of course anybody can do so. That is the distinguishing feature of the BSD licenses as opposed to the GPL: the freedom to

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] The BSD is a contract that contains conditions and covenants for copying and preparation of derivative works (the language is a bit informal but that doesn't change anything). Of course. Those can be met while

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread Graham Murray
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Only in the very specific case of programs that normally read commands interactively, and if they have been modified (If the _modified_ program _normally reads commands interactively_). The beginning of the clause is very specific, so you're

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Moglen's underlings don't count. He needs not underlings as he is paid for teaching the law at a university. An interesting article about Eben Moglen: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1139911511108 Meet the DotCommunist regards, alexander.

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:09:08 + Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I doubt that the intention was to provide more rights to users of modified programs which read commands interactively than to users of any other software licensed under the GPL. Therefore by extrapolation it is saying

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
Each licensee is addressed as you. You in the GPL refers only to licensees. To be a licensee, you have to enter into interaction with a licensor. And since I have a copy of the program, I am the licensee. Simple, is it not? They don't say anything different. How comes you

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With the new one (without advertising clause), relicensing under the GPL is within the scope of the original license. Only the copyright holder has the legal right to _relicense_ the work. I.e. change the license of the

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread David Kastrup
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First, no third party (even the author of a GPLed work) can give you permission to copy anything from a computer or medium that is not your property. The owner of the computer/CD explcitly gave this permission by giving access to the

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
This very wide interpretation (giving copies to all who come into contact with the program) is not how the GPL has been interpreted by the FSF itself. Nobody claimed this, stop inventing lies. So it would seem you're out on a limb with your interpretation. He isn't, you are though.

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread Graham Murray
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This very wide interpretation (giving copies to all who come into contact with the program) is not how the GPL has been interpreted by the FSF itself. Do you not agree that section 2 states that the users of modified[0] programs which accept

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:51:56 + Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see nothing in the FAQ you quoted which states that this is not the case, but one part 'However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly private use, so it would be legitimate

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
First, no third party (even the author of a GPLed work) can give you permission to copy anything from a computer or medium that is not your property. The owner of the computer/CD explcitly gave this permission by giving access to the content. What part of the

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-14 Thread Bernd Jendrissek
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The employer cannot say that I am not allowed to do so, since that would violate the license. The employer may not legally redistribute *and* then also require the recipients to

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-14 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
I believe the OP must have had the following in mind software wants to be free). A GPLed work was modified by an employer to suit their business, but they don't intend to release it. The license applies to anyone who is in posession of the software, no matter who made the modifications.

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-14 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
Do you really believe that a copyright holder can give me permission to make copies of files on *your* computer, whatever the license? Nobody made such a claim, stop inventing things. Your right to make copies of your copy depends on the license, but your right to refuse anyone to

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-14 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
This is basic copyright law, one would assume that you had understood copyright law to participate in this discussion. Which has what to do with the rights that are applied to a work which does not have a copyright notice? None. Do you know what default copyright is? David, stop the

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-14 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
Of course they could be covered by the GPL if they were under the BSDL and are now re-licensed under the GPL. Hint: read up on licenses that are compatible with the GPL. [...] BSDL doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL. It doesn't have LGPL like clause that allows it. This is

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-14 Thread Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote: Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Of course they could be covered by the GPL if they were under the BSDL and are now re-licensed under the GPL. Hint: read up on licenses that are compatible with the GPL. [...] BSDL doesn't allow

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-14 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [... derived work (i.e. derivative work under GNU law) ...] I suppose that id lrosen belongs to http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm. Nice to see both Hollaar and Rosen commenting GNU legal nonsense version three. (Note that the GPLv2 contains the same GNU

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-14 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Graham Murray wrote: [...] Taking this in conjunction with clause 3b, even if the user is not allowed to copy the binary from the system on which it is being run then they are, under the terms of the GPL allowed to obtain the source code of the program (being as it has to be made available to

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-14 Thread David Kastrup
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are not a licensee, as you are not the owner of the copy. So the GPL language does not apply to you when it says you. Since I'm in the lawful posession of the copy, I'm am allowed to accept the GPL. Non sequitur. Section 0, section 1

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:25:51 -0600 Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:16:56 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:22:38 -0600 Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure whether I agree that you have to own a copy of GPL software

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread Bernd Jendrissek
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The GPL can only give the owner of a copy rights. What if I, as a homeless vagrant scouring the city dump for cool stuff, some across a three-year-old CD with a bunch of GNU packages

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread David Kastrup
Bernd Jendrissek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The GPL can only give the owner of a copy rights. What if I, as a homeless vagrant scouring the city dump for cool stuff, some across a three-year-old CD with a bunch of GNU

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread John Hasler
Stefaan writes: I believe that in both cases, the person or entity wishing to accept the GPL has to be in possession of a lawful copy. I believe that he must _own_ a copy. A bailee or agent can be in lawful possession of a lawful copy. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Bernd Jendrissek wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You seem to misunderstand. The resulting overall program containing independent works for all its components is indeed still just a

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:24:25 -0600 John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan writes: I believe that in both cases, the person or entity wishing to accept the GPL has to be in possession of a lawful copy. I believe that he must _own_ a copy. A bailee or agent can be in lawful

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread Bernd Jendrissek
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bernd Jendrissek wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You seem to misunderstand. The resulting overall program containing

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
But you have to be the legal owner to be entitled, under the current laws, make any copy. Thus, whatever the license, unless you're the lawful owner of the copy, you may not make a copy. You only have to be in legal _possesion_ of the copy, you do not have to be the owner of it.

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
Cleaning personnel is not permitted to read unclosed material, either. System administrators are not permitted to read mail that they have legal access to. And so on. Physical access to content does not imply permission to actually make use of the content in the same manner as

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Bernd Jendrissek wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bernd Jendrissek wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You seem to misunderstand. The resulting

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise the rights given in the GPL. If you are not the owner of the copy, the license --whatever it might be-- doesn't enter into it at all. The license does _not_ apply to the physical copy, it applies to the software.

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread David Kastrup
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise the rights given in the GPL. If you are not the owner of the copy, the license --whatever it might be-- doesn't enter into it at all. The license does _not_ apply to

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
The license does _not_ apply to the physical copy, it applies to the software. Please read the license, it even says so But you can't get the software without accessing the physical media, and what you are allowed to do with the media is its owner's decision. I don't have

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:27:23 +0100 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is netiquette. Group reply is common. It is not, and additionally it is customary to mention that you mailed and posted in your reply if you do so. If you have such a hard time figuring out who wrote what,

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:10:22 +0100 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was not what I asked. You have placed a lot of software (under the GPL and under more restrictive licenses) and on your disk, and for the sake of the argument, your disk needs to be recovered. You

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:17:17 +0100 Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely we're discussing how many angles can dance on a pinhead. Darn spellcheckers. It's angels of course :-) -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
| Intellectual property | | Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as intellectual | property---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other | more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and | differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread Graham Murray
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not entitled to make a copy of that software before returning the book and CD to

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise the rights given in the GPL. You have to be the owner, period. Not according to the GPL: 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:11:52 + Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your access is limited to what the owner of the copy allows you to do with it. The GPL grants rights to the owner of the copy, not to you. Since you have not bought or

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:35:30 +0100 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please refrain from removing attributions. If you quote, have the decency to include the name of the author. I said: No, he instructed you, as his agent, to do things with the CD. You are not accessing that CD as

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread David Kastrup
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not entitled to make a copy of that

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread John Hasler
Stefaan writes: Obviously, the simple expedient of asking the library to make a copy would give you both a lawful copy and the right to make further copies under the GPL, so to a degree the point is moot. The library could also direct you to make a copy as its agent and then give you the

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:36:44 + Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The assertion that the GPL gives you the right to make unlawful copies is obviously incorrect, as it is not a right the copyright holder can grant. GPL or otherwise,

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread Graham Murray
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The assertion that the GPL gives you the right to make unlawful copies is obviously incorrect, as it is not a right the copyright holder can grant. GPL or otherwise, is the copyright holder not the only person who *can* give permission to make

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread Isaac
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:30:45 +0100, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:18:22 +0100, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Graham Murray [EMAIL

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread Isaac
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:16:56 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:22:38 -0600 Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure whether I agree that you have to own a copy of GPL software to be a licensee You can indeed obtain a license from the copyright

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-11 Thread David Kastrup
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-11 Thread Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote: [... license not a contract ...] Only if it's a license to do something regulated by government. Like a permit to run a public lottery or become a gun dealer. Such permits from state are neither contracts nor property rights. Moglen and RMS managed to bullshit you into

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-11 Thread David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [... license not a contract ...] Only if it's a license to do something regulated by government. Like a permit to run a public lottery or become a gun dealer. Such permits from state are neither contracts nor property

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-11 Thread Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote: [...] As you can see, you are wrong. Again. Too bad. The meaning of license you refer to above does not exhaust the legal meanings of that term. Those are meanings 12, but meaning 34 are also valid uses. Legal dictionaries are not legal authorities to begin with. And

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-11 Thread Graham Murray
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired (become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that you have access to the copy (you hold

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-11 Thread David Kastrup
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why do you have to be the 'owner' of the copy? Consider, for a moment, a different scenario. You borrow from a library a book containing a work which has passed into the public domain. Although you have not become the 'owner' of the work, you are

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-11 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
Because the employeer gave me explicit access to the CD. See the above sentence. No, he instructed you, as his agent, to do things with the CD. You are not accessing that CD as AMS, but as the agent of your principal. You, as AMS, do not derive any rights from this action. ...

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-11 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired (become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that you have access to the

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-11 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
Well, this is where you got it wrong - it's called IP (Intellectual Property) because it is a form of property. Whenever you produce a work of authorship (and software is considered a work of authorship like a novel or a poem) you, the author, are the owner of that work. In the

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-11 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
Because the employeer gave me explicit access to the CD. See the above sentence. If I am giving cleaning personnel access to my rooms, that does not mean that they are free to read my letters and listen to my music collection. Access is not ownership. You don't get when

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-11 Thread David Kastrup
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Your access is limited to what the owner of the

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-11 Thread Graham Murray
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about licensee don't you understand? The part which (you claim) states that only the owner of the physical media on which the copy is 'fixed' can become a licensee. I can see nothing in the GPL which states that. On contrary the preamble states that

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-11 Thread David Kastrup
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about licensee don't you understand? The part which (you claim) states that only the owner of the physical media on which the copy is 'fixed' can become a licensee. Well, that is common law. You are only

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
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

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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;

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread Bernd Jendrissek
-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 =

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
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

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
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

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread David Kastrup
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

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
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.

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels
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

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
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

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread David Kastrup
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

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
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

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels
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

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread John Hasler
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 ยง 101. Definitions Copies are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-09 Thread Bernd Jendrissek
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, as far as I understand it, you would be the only person in trouble. The company might have a pre-release of David's GPLed software, but this does not give you, their

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-09 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] For example, just last week I needed a function which searches backwards a maximum of 3000 bytes from the end of file for Local Variables:, and then deletes any following lines containing mode: or eval:. I extracted the code which did the searching out of an

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-09 Thread Alan Mackenzie
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:59:54 +0100: Alan Mackenzie wrote: That is true. However, when you take two short stories, commingle paragraphs from one of them with paragraphs from the other, connecting them up with sentences of your own to give a new

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-09 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] The actual source of the function I'm talking about (which is available in SourceForge) is materially different from the above. The extracted code (what you've called .locate_backwards_from_end) has been extensively changed from the original, yet is recognisably

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-09 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Alan Mackenzie wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:59:54 +0100: Alan Mackenzie wrote: That is true. However, when you take two short stories, commingle paragraphs from one of them with paragraphs from the other, connecting them up with

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-09 Thread David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Why do you try to be disparaging about GNU? My hobby. To each his own. Yeah, right. The GNU is the best of breed, I know. Not really. It's just immortal, so it has all the time in the world to improve. And that's an

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-07 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [... FSF: the contract controls ... ] I don't think anything since I don't know not of what you're speaking. But the anecdotal evidence portrayed by your posts leave you very little credit as far as saying a truthful thing goes. Try

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-07 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 14:35 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Keep in mind that copyright law doesn't concern itself with distribution of AUTHORIZED copies and that the act of distribution doesn't turn AUTHORIZED copies into unauthorized copies. Here you

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-07 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
The license _does_ apply. It is you who don't get it. You are saying that all companies that have illegal copies of Windows, are not breaking the law, since they are `for internal use' and no rules apply. No one is saying that. Copying of windows software is illegal. So

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-07 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
In the case of our friend Backslash, I'm assuming that I am this Backslash person; if I'm not ignore the following: Have the decency to call me by my name, instead of calling me obscure names. where he's trying to argue he can copy GPLed software because his company gave him the CD (to

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-07 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
I am not. A company is a legal entity that enters into agreements as itself. Agents of the company are not party to these agreements. It is not because a work is released under the GPL that you can grab from whenever you please. I never claimed that. Please reread what my claim is:

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-07 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
In defending your position that combining GPL and some other software on my computer system was not allowed you cited some statements indicating that the GPL did not allow putting additional restrictions on users. How can you draw a conclusion that I can pop by your place, and copy

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-07 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:35:00 +0100 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the case of our friend Backslash, I'm assuming that I am this Backslash person; if I'm not ignore the following: Have the decency to call me by my name, instead of calling me obscure names. As you've

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-07 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
As you've noticed, it the backslash in your name. It stands out like a sore thumb. My apologies, I was frustrated with you and David. Noted, I am still abit frustrated with David; and it might have come over you. As for the backslash, I really have no idea how to fix that, sorry.

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-06 Thread Graham Murray
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that? No. Because copyright law would not allow

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-06 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Uber GNUtian Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: (to GNUtian dak) [...] No wonder why Alexander likes you enough to `unplonk' you. Erm. I've unplonked you both sometime around last Silvester. Then I've replonked you, ams. GNUtian dak didn't take my offer of free replonk, go ask mini-RMS (he volunteered to

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-06 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: [...] Of course they can. The copyright holder most definitely cannot control how the software is used (unless there is a contract stipulating such), because copyright law doesn't give such rights - it's the right to make and distribute copies that is granted to the

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-06 Thread Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 11:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [... legal scheme to escape copyleft ...] I resent the innuendo implicated by this cut, which could lead someone to think I wrote a legal scheme to escape copyleft. Another of your nice works of

  1   2   >