Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

> http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html


Because the deterrent effect of denying the right to have and use and
distribute free software is not enough in and of itself to break most
patent aggression schemes. Where we have satisfied ourself that narrow
targeted patent retaliation may have true deterrent affect, we have
however incorporated it into the license as part of a general attempt to
do everything we can about the patent problem. Here we believe that one
narrow form of retaliation may actually have meaningful effect, so this
license gives unlimited permission to privately modify and run the
program provided that you do not bring suit for patent infringement
against anyone for making, using, or distributing, their works based on
the program. And as Richard has already told you, we believe the
operative effect of this clause would be to deny continued opportunity
to maintain privately modified versions on the part of any party who
seeks to use its patent claims to prevent similar or equivalent
modifications from being made by others. In this very narrow field we
think retaliation may actually deter aggression and we wish therefore to
include it.

Please note also the way in which the next paragraph makes use of our
copyright-culture-free notation scheme.

"Propagation of covered works is permitted without limitation provided
it does not enable parties other than you to make or receive copies.
Propagation which does enable them to do so is permitted, as
'distribution', under the conditions of sections 4-6 below."

So let us, just for a moment, attend to the question of non-US statutory
copyright schemes under the new license.
-

Hey GNUtians (folk at gnu.misc.discuss), would you please buy your crazy
Prof. a new glasses and let him take a brief look at Sections 109 and
117 in the US statutory copyright scheme.

Thank you in advance. 

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html
> 
> --
> This would not be a presentation about the GPL by me if emphasis was not
> placed on what you see before you now. This license is
> 
> "Not a Contract.
> 
> You are not required to accept this License in order to receive a copy
> of the Program."
> 
> We have not argued now, nor will we, nor can anyone argue, who reads the
> text of the language, that the receipt of the code is some quid-pro-quo
> for the acceptance of some terms. If you are existing in a legal system
> in which that wasn't what made it a contract, then ...go with God, but
> arguments based on the contractual exchange of the code for promises of
> compliance have nothing to do with us. We give permissions here and the
> enforcement weight of our license lies in the fact that you have no
> permission to propagate, that is, you have no permission to do what
> copyright law requires permission to do, but through this license.
> That's our legal theory and we are sticking to it.
> --

On another forum, I've posted a link to 

emoglen.law.columbia.edu/research-agenda.html

as an example of Moglen's talent in bullshit rap:


Current research proceeds by facilitating 
high-energy collisions between widely-dispersed 
non-homogeneous randomly-motivated incremental 
acts of individual creativity and large masses 
of ill-gotten wealth. 


I've also asked if anyone ever saw a computer program written by Eben


I am a historian and a computer programmer,


(nodody replied thus far).

Finally, I suggested that someone must tell Eben that he got a broken 
link to Manifesto of the Communist Party. 


See Moglen, The DotCommunist Manifesto[link] (2003). See and hear 
Moglen, The DotCommunist Manifesto: How Culture Became Property and 
What We're Going to Do About It[link] (University of North Carolina, 
Chapel Hill, November 8, 2001). See also Crane Brinton, The Anatomy 
of Revolution (New York, Prentice-Hall: 1952) (mult. repr.) (unfree); 
Barrington Moore, Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy; 
Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston, Beacon 
Press: 1966) (mult. repr.) (unfree); Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, 
Manifesto of the Communist Party[BROKEN link], (English ed. London, 
1888) (Engels ed.) (mult. repr.) (mult. trans.).


daydone commented:


Now Alex let's not rag on Eben's qualities. It is well known that 
Eben has impeccable credentials and legal judgement. His wisdom is 
spread far and wide. Ever free software advocate in the United 
States accepts what Eben says as gospel truth:

"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain 
within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily 
promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all 
except as the license permits."

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

Even Groklaw's PJ knows this to be a fact:

"The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't 
Falling"

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851

Only a small, irrelevent segment of the U.S. population doesn't 
know this. . . the entire federal judiciary and the professional 
lawyers hired to defend the F.S.F.

Perhaps with Eben's charm they'll come to see things his way. . . 
I guess one can always hope.


regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> http://gplv3.fsf.org/av

Transcripts:

http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html

--
This would not be a presentation about the GPL by me if emphasis was not
placed on what you see before you now. This license is

"Not a Contract.

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive a copy
of the Program."

We have not argued now, nor will we, nor can anyone argue, who reads the
text of the language, that the receipt of the code is some quid-pro-quo
for the acceptance of some terms. If you are existing in a legal system
in which that wasn't what made it a contract, then ...go with God, but
arguments based on the contractual exchange of the code for promises of
compliance have nothing to do with us. We give permissions here and the
enforcement weight of our license lies in the fact that you have no
permission to propagate, that is, you have no permission to do what
copyright law requires permission to do, but through this license.
That's our legal theory and we are sticking to it. 
--

Got it? 

ROFL.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Then it does not make sense that you just throw in a quote as your
> sole contribution.

Yet another malfunction of dak's sense barometer. NAD. WAD.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Uh, you are being confused.
>> >
>> > Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is
>> > the author.
>> 
>> So you disagree with him and still quote him?
>
> I partly agree with him.

Then it does not make sense that you just throw in a quote as your
sole contribution.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Uh, you are being confused.
> >
> > Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is
> > the author.
> 
> So you disagree with him and still quite him?

I partly agree with him. I mean the part that highlights the anti-
competive nature of the GPL when used by a cartel of competitors
against some "closed source" (or even BSD based Apple OS X like 
business but without hardware bundle muscle) competitor attacking 
him by a pooled and cross-licensed predatory price-fixed viral 
competition-killing IP under the GPL.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Uh, you are being confused.  
>
> Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is
> the author.

So you disagree with him and still quite him?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/12/linux_gpl30_letters/

Regarding

-
Since when has he felt like that. Last time I remembered, the kernel 
people (including Linus) were real big on being the superior software
Gods. Isn't that why we can't have binary modules loaded into the 
kernel to support hardware? One recent example would be the following:

http://www.smcc.demon.nl/webcam/

And that whole fiasco.
-

< Forward Inline >

To: Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Moglen's "all good faith"
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

One more nail in EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL coffin...

On 1/30/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/29/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >Development of proprietary kernel modules is tolerated, see
> > >EXPORT_SYMBOL vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. AFAICS, this special exception
> > >to the GPL has never been formalized, but at least overe here the mere
> > While proprietary kernel modules are tolerated, there is no special
> > exception to the GPL, EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is just a technological measure
> > used to make GPL violations more evident and subject to the DMCA.
>
> What violations? And what does DMCA has to do with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
> and "tainting" idiocy which has the only purpose to impede
> interoperability with non-GPL'd code?
>
> Anyone can patch the kernel to get rid of that silliness completely or
> reexport what's required in a non-GPL<->GPL support module.
>
> That's not to mention straight "GPL\0sucks" workaround.
>
> The GNUtians among kernel developers simply never heard of Sega v
> Accolade. "Genesis III searches the game program for four bytes of
> data consisting of the letters "S-E-G-A" (the "TMSS initialization
> code")..."

And more recent Lexmark v. Static Control.

"In view of our conclusion regarding the Printer Engine Program, we
can dispose quickly of
Lexmark's DMCA claim regarding the Toner Loading Program."

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Uh, you are being confused.  

Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is the
author.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> The thing is, apart from the obvious weaknesses about making a lot
> of ballyhoo about a clanking Unix clone, it's a complete work of
> hypocrisy.  Lots of huge corporations pour fortunes into OSS
> development like Oracle and HP into software like Apache and
> Linux. They get their development done at bargain basement prices
> and OSS gets a fat subsidy from select sugar daddies. Together your
> moral foundations are being built on quicksand. You can't fight your
> number one enemy (Microsoft as has been clearly stated) without
> making its competitors fatter in the process.

Uh, you are being confused.  If you want to talk about the GNU
project, RMS has never been much interested in Microsoft in particular
and has stated repeatedly that the business practices of Microsoft and
its competitors are to be judged by the same standards.  The
proprietary business practices are the enemy, and free software does
not suffer when those who support it gain by doing so.

> [...]
>
> I think I also get a sense of impending failure: as Linux matures
> there is really a creeping sense of failure around the project. It
> hasn't blew Windows off the desktop, has made modest gains into
> servers

Uh, as compared to Windows?  Modest?

> and commercially has only really blossomed where cheapest is
> key.

Like in the list of the top 500 supercomputers where it is the major
player.

> Much of its surrounding software is either poor quality, arcane in
> design and administration, outdated or a weak imitation of something
> commercial.

Well, that pretty accurately describes the status of most proprietary
software, too.  That's not particular to free software.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

(I've been quoting http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/87land1.html)

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 18:39 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >  The dynamic benefit of a property
> > right is the incentive that the right imparts to invest in the
> > creation or improvement of a resource .
> > 
> > .. For example, a firm is less
> > likely to expend resources on developing a new product if competing
> > firms that have not borne the expense of development can duplicate
> > the product and produce it at the same marginal cost as the
> > innovator; competition will drive price down to marginal cost, and
> > the sunk costs of invention will not be recouped.
> 
> Nicely put piece of non-sequitor FUD :)
> 
> If the history of Free Software proves anything, it's the opposite of
> this "theory".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/12/linux_gpl30_letters/

-
The thing is, apart from the obvious weaknesses about making a lot of 
ballyhoo about a clanking Unix clone, it's a complete work of hypocrisy. 
Lots of huge corporations pour fortunes into OSS development like Oracle 
and HP into software like Apache and Linux. They get their development 
done at bargain basement prices and OSS gets a fat subsidy from select 
sugar daddies. Together your moral foundations are being built on 
quicksand. You can't fight your number one enemy (Microsoft as has been 
clearly stated) without making its competitors fatter in the process.

[...]

I think I also get a sense of impending failure: as Linux matures there 
is really a creeping sense of failure around the project. It hasn't 
blew Windows off the desktop, has made modest gains into servers and 
commercially has only really blossomed where cheapest is key. Much of 
its surrounding software is either poor quality, arcane in design and 
administration, outdated or a weak imitation of something commercial.
-

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

day5done commented...

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> Just to stress...
> 
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> [...]
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/
> >
> > LWN: A while back, you said something about getting an answer from
> > Linus on the Linux kernel license. Since there is a COPYING file
> > that makes it clear that the kernel is governed under the GPL,
> > where's the uncertainty?
> >
> > Eben: If the kernel is pure GPL, then I think we would all agree
> > that non-GPL, non-free loadable kernel modules represent GPL
> > violations.
> 
> -
> LWN: So, if the kernel is covered solely by the GPL, you would see
> proprietary modules as an infringement?
> 
> Eben: Yes. I think we would all accept that. I think that the
> degree of interpenetration between kernel modules and the remainder
> of the kernel is very great, I think it's clear that a kernel with
> some modules loaded is a "a work" and because any module that is
> dynamically loaded could be statically linked into the kernel, and
> because I'm sure that the mere method of linkage is not what
> determines what violates the GPL, I think it would be very clear
> analytically that non-GPL loadable kernel modules would violate the
> license if it's pure GPL.
> -

"Analytically, the above would be true only if the first Nth 
 hyperbolic cosines of the address registers are congruent (in a 
 Hilbert Space) to the metric tenor of the hard drive space when 
 mapped one to one onto (or is it into?) a finite but unbounded 
 timelike manifold.

 Eben's got more bullshit rap than Snoop Dogg. "

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Isaac]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:27:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> 
> Isaac wrote:
> [...]
>> It's not a mistake.  Preaching the gospel of first sale according to 
>> Alexander
>> appears to be a life mission.
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/e123816845315e68
> 
>
> 
>>What about the first sale doctrine? Indeed, if users own their own
>>copies, including binary copies, of the software, than those users can
>>transfer those copies without complying with the GPL's requirements as
>>to source code access.
> 
> Interesting. I really hadn't thought about that and my attempts
> to digest the implications on the fly are making my head hurt.
> I can't resolve the problems introduced by first sale without
> either making the user of GPL'd code a non owner or deciding
> that users really can transfer their copies, no matter what the
> GPL says.
> 
> Gotta think about this.  Kinda makes my whole argument moot
> if GPL users are really licensees.  
> 
> Isaac

The implications you draw from first sale go way beyond this Alexander.

In any event, we've discussed ways of resolving this particular conundrum
in misc.int-property.  Your pretense that the quoted statement is my last word
on the topic is quite disingenuous.  I have not found you that way in the
past.

Isaac

> 
> 
> 
> regards,
> alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:39:25 +0100:
> > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I know GPL-bashing is a hobby of yours, but most hobbyists develop
> > some skills after a time.  You do the same mistakes all over again.
> 
> David, a small linguistic point:  In English, mistakes are _made_, not
> done.  Genauso wie auf Deutsch : man _macht_ Fehler, man tut sie nicht,
> oder?

How GNU man tut bullshiting: (Is it linguistically OK, Mackenzie?)

http://gplv3.fsf.org/av

My, such a circus. Entertainment pur. Enjoy.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alan Mackenzie]

David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:39:25 +0100:
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I know GPL-bashing is a hobby of yours, but most hobbyists develop
> some skills after a time.  You do the same mistakes all over again.

David, a small linguistic point:  In English, mistakes are _made_, not
done.  Genauso wie auf Deutsch : man _macht_ Fehler, man tut sie nicht,
oder?

> Maybe you should look for another hobby.

Hobby.  Hmm.  I think maybe he should write some free software.

> -- 
> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").

___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Nonsense.  No contract has been formed.  The only claim you can make
> is for violation of copyright.  And that's exactly what has been done
> in all cases of pursued GPL violations.

Why don't you quote those cases? Preferably the judges. But feel free 
to quote plaintiffs as well. Moglen's bullshiting doesn't count.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Conditional authorization does not magically turn into
>> unconditional authorization.
>
> A promise on my part to forbear from distribution right under first 
> sale and instead do what you decree is a covenant, not a condition.

But no such promise is demanded.  You don't need to promise anything.
You can choose to heed the conditions or not.  If you choose to heed
the conditions, you get the additional rights over copyright.  If you
choose not to heed the conditions, you get only the default rights
from copyright.

> And it has really nothing to do with copyright. Breach of contract
> is the only nonfrivolous claim you can make (provided that I have
> fulfilled the real conditions and created authorized copies).

Nonsense.  No contract has been formed.  The only claim you can make
is for violation of copyright.  And that's exactly what has been done
in all cases of pursued GPL violations.

> -
> Adobe asserts that its license defines the relationship between 
> Adobe and any third-party such that a breach of the license 
> constitutes copyright infringement. This assertion is not accurate 
> because copyright law in fact provides certain rights to owners of 
> a particular copy. This grant of rights is independent from any 
> purported grant of rights from Adobe. The Adobe license compels 
> third-parties to relinquish rights that the third-parties enjoy 
> under copyright law. 
> -
>
> s/Adobe/FSF

Too bad that the GPL license does not compel third-parties to
relinquish rights that the third-parties enjoy under copyright law.

So, like most of your quotations, it does not apply.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Isaac wrote:
[...]
> It's not a mistake.  Preaching the gospel of first sale according to Alexander
> appears to be a life mission.

http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/e123816845315e68



>What about the first sale doctrine? Indeed, if users own their own
>copies, including binary copies, of the software, than those users can
>transfer those copies without complying with the GPL's requirements as
>to source code access.

Interesting. I really hadn't thought about that and my attempts
to digest the implications on the fly are making my head hurt.
I can't resolve the problems introduced by first sale without
either making the user of GPL'd code a non owner or deciding
that users really can transfer their copies, no matter what the
GPL says.

Gotta think about this.  Kinda makes my whole argument moot
if GPL users are really licensees.  

Isaac

 

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Conditional authorization does not magically turn into unconditional
> authorization.

A promise on my part to forbear from distribution right under first 
sale and instead do what you decree is a covenant, not a condition. 
And it has really nothing to do with copyright. Breach of contract 
is the only nonfrivolous claim you can make (provided that I have 
fulfilled the real conditions and created authorized copies). 

-
Adobe asserts that its license defines the relationship between 
Adobe and any third-party such that a breach of the license 
constitutes copyright infringement. This assertion is not accurate 
because copyright law in fact provides certain rights to owners of 
a particular copy. This grant of rights is independent from any 
purported grant of rights from Adobe. The Adobe license compels 
third-parties to relinquish rights that the third-parties enjoy 
under copyright law. 
-

s/Adobe/FSF

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Isaac]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:03:02 +0100, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>> [...]
>>> > What breach?  Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
>>> > sale.
>>> 
>>> Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization.  So we are
>>> talking about distribution of unauthorized copies.
>>
>> The act of distribution doesn't turn authorized copies into 
>> unauthorized copies. The act of distribution is totally irrelevant 
>> RE determination whether a copy is authorized or not. So once again,
>> what breach?
> 
> Conditional authorization does not magically turn into unconditional
> authorization.
> 
> It's one of your favorite mistakes.

It's not a mistake.  Preaching the gospel of first sale according to Alexander
appears to be a life mission.

Isaac
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > What breach?  Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
>> > sale.
>> 
>> Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization.  So we are
>> talking about distribution of unauthorized copies.
>
> The act of distribution doesn't turn authorized copies into 
> unauthorized copies. The act of distribution is totally irrelevant 
> RE determination whether a copy is authorized or not. So once again,
> what breach?

Conditional authorization does not magically turn into unconditional
authorization.

It's one of your favorite mistakes.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > What breach?  Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
> > sale.
> 
> Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization.  So we are
> talking about distribution of unauthorized copies.

The act of distribution doesn't turn authorized copies into 
unauthorized copies. The act of distribution is totally irrelevant 
RE determination whether a copy is authorized or not. So once again,
what breach?

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Quite so.  You can merely recoup damages for the breach of copyright,
>
> What breach?  Distribution of authorized copies fall under first 
> sale.

Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization.  So we are
talking about distribution of unauthorized copies.

I know GPL-bashing is a hobby of yours, but most hobbyists develop
some skills after a time.  You do the same mistakes all over again.
Maybe you should look for another hobby.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Quite so.  You can merely recoup damages for the breach of copyright,

What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first 
sale.

Oh, BTW, be advised that if Wallace won't succeed in US, I'll 
invite him to Germany.

http://www.allenovery.com/asp/pdf/gercomplaw.pdf

--
Rules on distribution

Basics

Vertical relationships between market participants operating on 
different market levels enjoy a more liberal set of rules under 
German law since they are generally considered to promote inter-
brand competition. Only narrowly circumscribed conduct is 
directly prohibited by Sections 14, 15, 17, 18 and 21 to 23 ARC. 
Per se prohibitions first and foremost focuses on resale price 
maintenance (including commercial agreements producing the same 
effect): prices and other terms of business in agreements with 
third parties must be freely determinable (Section 14 ARC).
--

And I suppose you do known that SCO was silenced in Germany on 
the grounds of German competition laws. Keep in mind that FSF 
is also a blatant violator (dubious claims of "GPL 
Incompatibility") just like SCO Germany. That's apart from FSF's 
price-fixing GPL antitrust conspiracy.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Nope.  It gives you additional rights depending on conditions.  You
> can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave
> it be.  No contract.  There is no obligation to accept the conditions.
  ^^^

Your ignorance works against you, dak. The court will look at your 
"conditions" and separate them into real conditions that define the 
scope of the license for copying (which distinguishes authorized
copies from unauthorized copies) and covenants that define
licensee performance obligations. You won't be able to enforce (or 
recoup damages for breach of) the later.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Nope.  It gives you additional rights depending on conditions.  You
>> can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave
>> it be.  No contract.  There is no obligation to accept the conditions.
>   ^^^
>
> Your ignorance works against you, dak. The court will look at your 
> "conditions" and separate them into real conditions that define the 
> scope of the license for copying (which distinguishes authorized
> copies from unauthorized copies) and covenants that define
> licensee performance obligations. You won't be able to enforce (or 
> recoup damages for breach of) the later.

Quite so.  You can merely recoup damages for the breach of copyright,
not for the "breach" of the conditions under which you granted
additional rights.

The "breach" merely implies that the licensee can't make use of the
additional rights he had been conditionally granted.

You can't sue in order to make him heed the conditions.  But you can
sue to make him heed copyright.  He is not exempted from it, because
he did not meet the conditions under which you granted a limited
exemption.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally
>> > OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on
>> > another computer at my dacha. The key is that I can't legaly run it
>> > simultaneously on multiple computers if I own only one copy. As long
>> > as I don't do that, it's all fine and dandy.
>> 
>> Depends on whether the typical "I agree" "license" is of the same
>> opinion.  
>
> A contract may impose restrictions and obligations, true.
>
> [... GPL ...]
>
>> so running copies in parallel is ok when you accept the license.  
>
> Accept? So now it's a contract... right, dak?

Nope.  It gives you additional rights depending on conditions.  You
can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave
it be.  No contract.  There is no obligation to accept the conditions.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally
> > OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on
> > another computer at my dacha. The key is that I can't legaly run it
> > simultaneously on multiple computers if I own only one copy. As long
> > as I don't do that, it's all fine and dandy.
> 
> Depends on whether the typical "I agree" "license" is of the same
> opinion.  

A contract may impose restrictions and obligations, true.

[... GPL ...]

> so running copies in parallel is ok when you accept the license.  

Accept? So now it's a contract... right, dak?

> The problem I see is that the GPL explains the conditions for 
> copying for the sake of distribution to third parties.  

Some of GPL T&C are conditions for copying. Like "keep intact all the 
notices". Failure to fulfill those conditions results in infringing 
copies (outside the scope of the license). But obligation to provide
access to source code is a covenant, not a condition.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Isaac wrote:
[...]
> While it's true that some courts have decided that, the majority position
> seems to be otherwise.  I'm not sure which court decision that line is
> from, but I suspect we can find decisions from other district courts
> in CA contrary to this one.

Regarding 17 USC 117, take also this:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf

My reading of it is that even under contractual restrictions, 17 USC 
117 bars cause of action for copyright infringement when "the party 
exercises sufficient incidents of ownership over a copy of the 
program to be sensibly considered the owner of the copy for purposes 
of § 117(a)." 

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally
> OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on
> another computer at my dacha. The key is that I can't legaly run it
> simultaneously on multiple computers if I own only one copy. As long
> as I don't do that, it's all fine and dandy.

Depends on whether the typical "I agree" "license" is of the same
opinion.  This "ok if run only on one CPU maximum" is part of some
such agreements, but it is not inherent in copyright law.  "Fair use"
would typically entail making a copy for a friend of yours even if
those copies would run in parallel.  It would not entail making copies
for a customer, and not for a fee, and not for a dozen machines.  So
massive parallel internal use is something not covered by copyright:
you need specific permission.

The GPL contains:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act
of running the Program is not restricted,
[...]

so running copies in parallel is ok when you accept the license.  The
problem I see is that the GPL explains the conditions for copying for
the sake of distribution to third parties.  It does not explain
conditions for copying for the sake of running the stuff, and
copyright law does not provide default permission for an unlimited
number of copies for that purpose.

Maybe that is an omission.  You can, of course, pro forma _distribute_
the required number of copies to yourself when heeding the GPL, but
that sounds a bit contorted.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Isaac]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:10:17 +0100, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> 
> Isaac wrote:
> [...]
>> I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy
>> of software rather than having license it.  Courts in the US don't
>> seem to recognize such a thing.
> 
>  "Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold
>  and not licensed."
>-- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
>   CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
> 
> As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally 
> OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on 
> another computer at my dacha. The key is that I can't legaly run 
> it simultaneously on multiple computers if I own only one copy. As 
> long as I don't do that, it's all fine and dandy.

While it's true that some courts have decided that, the majority position
seems to be otherwise.  I'm not sure which court decision that line is
from, but I suspect we can find decisions from other district courts
in CA contrary to this one.

Isaac
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Isaac wrote:
[...]
> I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy
> of software rather than having license it.  Courts in the US don't
> seem to recognize such a thing.

 "Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold
 and not licensed."
   -- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally 
OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on 
another computer at my dacha. The key is that I can't legaly run 
it simultaneously on multiple computers if I own only one copy. As 
long as I don't do that, it's all fine and dandy.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Isaac]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:00:56 -0600, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isaac writes:
>> 17 USC 117 is a limitation on the copyright holders rights that allows an
>> owner of a copy of software to make copies necessary to install and run
>> software without having any permission from the copyright holder.
> 
> Not "copies".  _"Copy"_.  And one installation.  Note the wording:
> ..."Additional Copy" ... "another copy" ... "a new copy" ... "a machine"...
> 
> TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 § 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
> 
> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.
> Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
> infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or
> authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer
> program provided:
> 
> (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step
>   in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a
>   machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
> 
> (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
>   that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
>   possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
> 
>> My reading of 117 is that there is no limit to one installation per owned
>> copy.
> 
> Surely you do not believe that you can purchase one copy of a piece of
> software and legally install it on a thousand computers.

I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy
of software rather than having license it.  Courts in the US don't
seem to recognize such a thing. 

If you are familiar with something in the legislative history that
speaks to this issue, please point to it.  Otherwise I'm going to assume 
that you are going with your gut feeling. 

Isaac
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[John Hasler]

Isaac writes:
> 17 USC 117 is a limitation on the copyright holders rights that allows an
> owner of a copy of software to make copies necessary to install and run
> software without having any permission from the copyright holder.

Not "copies".  _"Copy"_.  And one installation.  Note the wording:
..."Additional Copy" ... "another copy" ... "a new copy" ... "a machine"...

TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 § 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or
authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer
program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step
  in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a
  machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
  that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
  possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

> My reading of 117 is that there is no limit to one installation per owned
> copy.

Surely you do not believe that you can purchase one copy of a piece of
software and legally install it on a thousand computers.

It's quite obvious to me that the intent of § 117 is to make it clear that
the owner of a copy of a piece of software has the right to make those
incidental copies required to install it on one computer.  I'm sure that
the legislative history would support me in that.
-- 
John Hasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Isaac]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:18:06 -0600, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 the exclusive rights.

I don't follow your reasoning.  Without 117, 106 would not allow installing
software on even one computer without permission.  17 USC 117 is a limitation
on the copyright holders rights that allows an owner of a copy of software
to make copies necessary to install and run software without having any
permission from the copyright holder.  My reading of 117 is that there is
no limit to one installation per owned copy.

Isaac
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 18:39 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>  The dynamic benefit of a property 
> right is the incentive that the right imparts to invest in the 
> creation or improvement of a resource .
> 
> .. For example, a firm is less 
> likely to expend resources on developing a new product if competing 
> firms that have not borne the expense of development can duplicate 
> the product and produce it at the same marginal cost as the 
> innovator; competition will drive price down to marginal cost, and 
> the sunk costs of invention will not be recouped.

Nicely put piece of non-sequitor FUD :)

If the history of Free Software proves anything, it's the opposite of
this "theory".

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

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, without need to contract with them. So if A
> > owns a pasture, he can forbid others to graze their cattle on it
> 
> Yes, we all know that. But contrary to grass & cows, people can copy
> digital content ad aeternum without loss of the source.

-
 The dynamic benefit of a property 
right is the incentive that the right imparts to invest in the 
creation or improvement of a resource .

.. For example, a firm is less 
likely to expend resources on developing a new product if competing 
firms that have not borne the expense of development can duplicate 
the product and produce it at the same marginal cost as the 
innovator; competition will drive price down to marginal cost, and 
the sunk costs of invention will not be recouped.
-

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

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 A 
> owns a pasture, he can forbid others to graze their cattle on it 

Yes, we all know that. But contrary to grass & cows, people can copy
digital content ad aeternum without loss of the source.

This fundamental difference establishes quite good boundaries.
Like why copyright isn't property.

In property, if I equally share a land with you, each of us has half a
land.

In idea expressions, if I share an idea with you, each of us has an
idea.

Its like the christian miracle of bread & fish.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

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 A 
owns a pasture, he can forbid others to graze their cattle on it 
without having to negotiate an agreement for exclusive use. A 
property right confers two types of economic benefit, static and 
dynamic. The former is illustrated by a natural (that is, 
uncultivated) pasture. If the owner cannot exclude others from using 
his pasture, there will be overgrazing because users of the pasture 
will ignore the costs they impose on each other in reducing the 
cattle's weight by making the cattle expend more energy in grazing 
in order to find enough to eat. The dynamic benefit of a property 
right is the incentive that the right imparts to invest in the 
creation or improvement of a resource in period 1 (for example, 
planting a crop), given that no one else can appropriate the 
resource in period 2 (harvest time). For example, a firm is less 
likely to expend resources on developing a new product if competing 
firms that have not borne the expense of development can duplicate 
the product and produce it at the same marginal cost as the 
innovator; competition will drive price down to marginal cost, and 
the sunk costs of invention will not be recouped.
-

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

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 isn't a form of ownership (property), but a government
granted temporary monopoly.

>  But distribution 
> right is severely limited by first sale

We're talking about distributing copies of a copy, sorry for
misdirecting you with my abuse of language.

>  (which is nonexistent in the 
> GNU Republic).

Wrong, first sale, fair use and all are not covered by the GNU GPL but
by copyright law. The GNU GPL doesn't affect this rights of the user.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[John Hasler]

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 the exclusive rights.
-- 
John Hasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

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 the 
GNU Republic).

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 12:57 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11969361.htm
> (Governments can seize private land, high court rules)

There are certain extreme situations where a Government can *seize*
(which is an extreme and unexpected case, not the result of a quite
known and expected pre-defined time-limit).

Copyright is a monopoly over the distribution of a work in order to
provide an economic advantage to the artist.

Copyright is temporary because the good of the society can not be held
hostage to the good of "one" (and usually only one) single person for an
indefinite amount of time.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

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 granted temporary monopoly over a
> work. This right can be bought or sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise
> transferred. But it is not property.

Oh dear. Your Oberfuhrer Moglen (darn that RMS lives in a cubbyhole on 
MIT campus) has "an artificial government granted temporary monopoly" 
over his house and land as well. Same (almost) as with copyright. It's 
all about balancing, you know.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11969361.htm
(Governments can seize private land, high court rules)

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

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. This right can be bought or sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise
transferred. But it is not property.

If it was property it would not be temporary, and the government would
have no right to define an expiry date, or else we would be talking of a
totalitarian government.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

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 of the rights may subsequently belong 
to someone other than the first owner and may be shared.

> Error no.2: even Microsoft says licensing costs amount to about 4% or 6%
> of the total cost of a solution, so there's 94% to 95% of motive to
> compete.

What?

> 
> Ah the idiots...

Are you looking in the mirror, mini-RMS?

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

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 "intellectual property" but copyright that's being
discussed
Error no.2: even Microsoft says licensing costs amount to about 4% or 6%
of the total cost of a solution, so there's 94% to 95% of motive to
compete.

Ah the idiots...

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Wallace on injury and standing:
 
---
III. Accompanying Injury

Plaintiff Daniel Wallace has alleged market foreclosure and denial of
opportunity to enter into competition with his own operating system
product:
“The Defendant's pooling and cross licensing of intellectual property
with the described predatory price fixing scheme is foreclosing
competition in the market for computer operating systems. Said predatory
price fixing scheme prevents Plaintiff Daniel Wallace from marketing his
own computer operating system as a competitor.”; Plaintiff’s Fourth
Amended Complaint
Plaintiff has alleged a threat of market foreclosure - a type of
antitrust injury the Supreme Court has described as "facially
anticompetitive".
"The alleged conduct - higher service prices and market foreclosure - is
facially anticompetitive and exactly the harm that antitrust laws aim to
prevent."; EASTMAN KODAK CO. v. IMAGE TECH. SVCS., 504 U.S. 451 (1992)

The Supreme Court has explicitly held that predatory pricing harms both
competitors and competition:
"Predatory pricing may be defined as pricing below an appropriate
measure of cost for the purpose of eliminating competitors in the short
run and reducing competition in the long run. 12 It is a practice [479
U.S. 104, 118] that harms both competitors and competition. In contrast
to price cutting aimed simply at increasing market share, predatory
pricing has as its aim the elimination of competition. Predatory pricing
is thus a practice "inimical to the purposes of [the antitrust] laws,"
Brunswick, 429 U.S., at 488, and one capable of inflicting antitrust
injury."; CARGILL, INC. v. MONFORT OF COLORADO, INC., 479 U.S. 104
(1986) [emphasis added].

The Supreme Court’s ruling in 1990 in ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO., supra,
re-affirms the principle that both competition and competitors may
suffer antitrust injury from predatory pricing.

Plaintiff has alleged (1) threatened future loss or damage of the type
the antitrust laws were designed to prevent -- market foreclosure and
(2) threatened future personal injury which flows from the defendant’s
unlawful acts -- the plaintiff will be substantially deterred from
vending in the market with his own operating system product.

"To seek an injunction under § 16 of the Clayton Act, a private
plaintiff must allege "threatened loss or damage 'of the type the
antitrust laws were designed to prevent and that flows from that which
makes defendants' acts unlawful.'" Cargill Inc., supra..

The antitrust injury to competition by a diminished market and the
resultant personal injury to the Plaintiff by his reduced opportunity as
a competitor in the relevant market are inextricably linked.
---

---
Standing

Although plaintiff would be entitled to standing for recovery under even
a § 4 action (treble damages), the defendant confuses the standing
threshold in the present § 16 action with that of the heightened
standard in § 4 cases to which the defendant erroneously cites: “Section
16 of the Clayton Act provides in part that "[a]ny person, firm,
corporation, or association shall be entitled to sue for and have
injunctive relief . . . against threatened loss [479 U.S. 104, 111] or
damage by a violation of the antitrust laws . . . ." 15 U.S.C. 26. It is
plain that 16 and 4 do differ in various ways. For example, 4 requires a
plaintiff to show actual injury, but 16 requires a showing only of
"threatened" loss or damage; similarly, 4 requires a showing of injury
to "business or property," cf. Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251
(1972), while 16 contains no such limitation. 6 Although these
differences do affect the nature of the injury cognizable under each
section, the lower courts, including the courts below, have found that
under both 16 and 4 the plaintiff must still allege an injury of the
type the antitrust laws were designed to prevent. 7 We agree.”; CARGILL,
INC. v. MONFORT OF COLORADO, INC., supra.

See also Judge Posner:

“But all that this implies, so far as equitable relief is concerned, is
that a plaintiff has to prove that he is likely to be harmed by the
defendant's wrongful conduct unless that conduct is enjoined.”; BLUE
CROSS, ET AL. v MARSHFIELD CLINIC, ET AL. No. 94-C-0137 (7th Cir 1998).

Whether viewed as a result of a per se pooling agreement as in New
Wrinkle Inc, supra, or as a result of a vertical agreement analyzed
under a rule of reason as in State Oil Co. v. Khan, supra, predatory
pricing results in antitrust injury -- it is "inimical to the purposes
of [the antitrust] laws," see Brunswick, 429 U.S., at 488, and ”harms
both competitors and competition”, CARGILL, INC, 479 U.S., at 118.

The plaintiff has alleged future personal injury because of elimination
of market opportunity -- an injury that flows directly from the
threatened market foreclosure:
“… Said predatory price fixing scheme prevents Plaintiff Daniel Wallace
from marketing his own computer operating system as a competitor.”;
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Wallace concludes:

---
Conclusion

The plaintiff Daniel Wallace in his Complaint has directly or
inferentially alleged that the defendants have:
(1) used an express contractual agreement to conspire with named
co-conspirators and;
(2) engaged in an unreasonable restraint of trade by pooling
intellectual property that is price fixed and distributed at predatory
levels and;
(3) defendants threaten injury to competition as well as causally linked
personal injury to the plaintiff.

Wherefore plaintiff Daniel Wallace moves the Court deny the present
REASSERTED MOTION TO DISMISS filed by defendants RED HAT INC. and NOVELL
INC., and enter judgment for plaintiff Daniel Wallace.
---

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

John Hasler wrote:
> 
> > Portuguese Judges wouldn't show such a high level of tolerance 
> > against people who make fun of the Judicial system as Wallace is 
> > doing.
> 
> There are rules for dealing with frivolous litigants.
> 
> I think Wallace is quite serious (though loony), and I think that 
> the judge thinks he is serious, too.  US courts go to considerable 
> lengths to accomodate pro se litigants as access to the courts is 
> an important right.
> 
> It is possible (though unlikely, I think) that Wallace will have 
> attorney's fees assessed against him.

Well, well, well. Wallace filed reply to "DEFENDANTS’ RED HAT INC. AND
NOVELL INC., REASSERTED MOTION TO DISMISS." To me, it doesn't look like
Red Hat and Novell will get Wallace's case dismissed under 12(b)(6).

Wallace on Contract, Combination or Conspiracy:

--
I. Contract, Combination or Conspiracy

The plaintiff has alleged:
“The Defendants INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, RED HAT
INC. and NOVELL INC. have conspired with the FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION
INC. and others to pool and cross license their copyrighted intellectual
property in computer programs that are collectively known as the Linux
(or GNU/Linux) operating system.

The Defendants have used a predatory price-fixing agreement known as the
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE to pool and cross license their intellectual
property to develop, distribute and leverage the Linux operating system
to provide computing services for consumers”.; SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

This case concerns the pooling and cross-licensing of intellectual
property in computer programs. The defendant cites a Supreme Court
decision, Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc.,
441 U.S. 1, concerning a “blanket licensing” case. The defendant
attempts to equate the use of the blanket license in Broadcast Music
with the use of the GNU General Public License (GPL) in the present
alleged pooling of computer source code. There is no relevant
comparison. The holding in Broadcast Music was narrowly tailored and
focused exclusively on the vending of copyrighted works under 17 USC
sec. 106(5) involving the public performance of musical compositions:
“This litigation and other cases involving ASCAP and its licensing
practices have arisen out of the efforts of the creators of copyrighted
musical compositions to collect for the public performance of their
works, as they are entitled to do under the Copyright Act”; Broadcast
Music at 10.

The present case concerns a pooling agreement among individual copyright
holders for naked price fixing of computer programs involving rights
under 17 USC 106(1), 106(2) and 106(3). The subject GPL license
explicitly states:
“0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a
notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under
the terms of this General Public License . . . Activities other than
copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License;
they are outside its scope.” [Emphasis added]

Thus Broadcast Music contains nothing relevant to the present analysis. 
--

--
GNU General Public License (GPL)

The GPL [exh. 2] is a copyrighted, standardized form license intended
for use by the general public. It is a contract of adhesion designed to
be applied recursively.

The GPL is a contract to require a contract. That is to say, a licensee
accepting source code for a computer program that is offered for
modification under the GPL license must re-license the resultant
derivative or collective work under the identical contractual terms of
the original GPL license. The contract’s intent is to publicly control a
continuous sequence of modifications to a derivative or collective work
(computer program). It is a scheme to publicly regulate rights under 17
USC 106(1), 106(2) and 106(3) (hence the license title “General Public
License”).

The GPL purports to defeat the requirements of contractual privity and
thus evade the prohibition under 17 USC sec. 301 concerning the
contractual regulation of copyrights.

The GPL’s recursive term 2(b) states:
“2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of
it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute
such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided
that you also meet all of these conditions:
. . .
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof,
to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the
terms of this License.” [emphasis added]

The GPL explicitly declares its regulatory intent:

“Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.”; GPL sec. 2 [emphasis added].

Any licensee who accepts source

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

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. The Supreme Court has analyzed predatory pricing in a Sherman
Act § 1 civil action:
“…[T]his is a Sherman Act 1 case. For purposes of this case, it is
enough to note that respondents have not suffered an antitrust injury
unless petitioners conspired to drive respondents out of the relevant
markets by (i) pricing below the level necessary to sell their products,
or (ii) pricing below some appropriate measure of cost.” MATSUSHITA
ELEC. INDUSTRIAL CO. v. ZENITH RADIO, 475 U.S. 574 (1986) [fn8].

If we exam case (i) “pricing below the level necessary to sell their
products” the obvious result of the GPL is the destruction of interbrand
competition (see State Oil Co. v. Khan, supra) when the maximum price of
intellectual property is set at zero (“no charge”). New developers and
vendors of intellectual property cannot enter a market for which there
is no reward or incentive.
Not only competitors are harmed by the GPL scheme. Consumers lose
because a lack of competition removes not just product choice but
without competitive reward the incentive to improve product quality
disappears.

When we analyze case (ii) “pricing below some appropriate measure of
cost” we see that a maximum price of zero for the intellectual property
in computer programs leads to an absurd result. In addition to the
intrinsic value ordained by Art. I, §8, cl. 8 of the Constitution, the
cost of creation of intellectual property in computer programs entails
the development costs of skilled programmers, new computer hardware,
communications costs and administrative overhead. Commercial computer
programs are not developed in a zero cost vacuum -- that is an absurd
proposition. A maximum price of zero is below any reasonable definition
of “appropriate measure of cost” concerning development and innovation
of intellectual property assets.
The only economic motive for using GPL licensed intellectual property in
a competitive market for computer operating systems is to destroy a
competitor who is striving to create positive value based in
intellectual property. The Supreme Court has addressed the practical
evidentiary burden for a predatory pricing claim:
“As a practical matter, it may be that only direct evidence of
below-cost pricing is sufficient to overcome the strong inference that
rational businesses would not enter into conspiracies such as this one”;
MATSUSHITA ELEC. INDUSTRIAL CO. v. ZENITH RADIO, 475 U.S. 574
(1986)[fn9].

The GPL’s term 2(b) is without question direct evidence of a below-cost
pricing scheme. Commercial distributors of GPL licensed products
conspire to give away their assets in intellectual property and then
recoup losses by leveraging ancillary markets such as computer hardware
sales (computer hardware obviously requires an operating system),
software consulting fees, employee training programs and computer
maintenance services. (One uncharged co-conspirator, INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, is the World’s largest computer hardware
and computing services corporation.)

The effect of the GPL license is to create a Marxist-Leninist model for
computer programs, where a vast pool of intellectual property is
collectively price fixed at “no charge” and thus removed from commercial
exploitation. In time, due to its recursive nature, the GPL’s pool of
price fixed intellectual property can grow to utterly destroy a targeted
market.

It is not consumers that the GPL intends to benefit -- the goal is the
destruction of competition in the free market. The GPL license renders
U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8 meaningless in the context of computer
programs containing copyrights and patents.

The defendants assert:

“The GPL expressly allows Defendants, and any other licensee, to charge
a fee to recover the variable or incremental costs associated with
distributing software licensed under the GPL: You may charge a fee for
the physical act of transferring a copy..”
Defendants Brief at 5.

Here, the defendants attempt to conflate the definition of intangible
copyright assets with the physical media in which a work is embodied:
“Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a
copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which
the work is embodied. ..”;17 USC sec. 202.
The present claim is for price fixing in the relevant market of
intangible intellectual property assets in computer programs (the Linux
operating system) and not an action concerning tangible media or
“physical acts” involving the distribution of tangible media in which a
copyrighted work may be fixed.
The plaintiff’s complaint has certainly met the pleading requirements
expressed in PEGRAM. ET AL., and Denny's Marina, supra, by directly or
inferentially alleging the element of “an resultant unreasonable
restraint of trade in 

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Isaac]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:50:56 -0600, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rui writes:
>> That's almost all you get as far as your money is concerned.  Then
>> there's this license, that restricts your rights even more by forbidding
>> private copying (install on no more than one computer at a time)
> 
> US copyright law does not allow installation on more than one computer at a
> time without permission of the copyright owner.

What provision of US copyright law says this?  I don't see such a limit
in 17 USC 117. 

Isaac
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hey dak, have some fun. The gang at ifross in action.

http://www.heise.de/ct/06/04/046/

For English-only readers:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=de_en&trurl=http://www.heise.de/ct/06/04/046/

-
GPLv3 - Legislation in contract form

[...]

Penetration in danger?

More serious the planned change of number 4 could affect itself. The 
present regulation in the GPL 2 plans that with an injury of the 
license obligations automatically all granted rights by the GPL are 
omitted, so that the GPL violator stands there as usual robbery 
copiers. This strict regulation, which worked already several times 
in Germany for the penetration of the GPL, is to be replaced by a 
right to give notice, which presupposes a previous notification of 
the violator. With the fact one would like to prevent that a user 
loses rights to use immediately with unintentional license injuries 
its.

Background of this change is the view of the FSF that under US right 
of the changes to a GPL conformal use the GPL injury cannot heal, but 
the fact that each holder of a right must grant explicitly a new 
license to the violator - which with a multiplicity of authors is 
hardly feasible[6]. Under German right this opinion will not 
represent, so that a in this country attenuation of the license 
threatens. 
-

Alarm! Alarm! Alarm!

regards,
alexander.

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> German GNUtian dak didn't answer "yes or no" question regarding
> Welte attorneys (the gang at ifross) wild fantasies that the GPL
> is a contract coupled with AGB based on German concept of
> conditions subsequent.
> 
> David Kastrup wrote:
> >
> > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > David Kastrup wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >> If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it
> > >
> > > Sitecom didn't bothered. So what?
> >
> > If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded
> > without waiting for an injunction, wouldn't they?
> 
> http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL2_20040903.pdf
> 
> -
> The defendant argued: The temporary injunction should be lifted
> because the defendant is not liable to be sued. The plaintiff has
> no right to sue him.. The defendant is not concerned with the
> distribution and/or duplication and/or making public the software
> !netfilter/iptables. He, the defendant, is a pure support company,
> and is not concerned with selling, reproducing, or making available
> the software. He has never undertaken these activities and will
> not do so. It has previously been pointed out to the plaintiff that
> selling, reproducing and making available software are not
> undertaken by the defendant but by the company S[itecom] Europe BV.
> Furthermore, there was a notification that the web site had already
> been amended. It is obvious that the company [Sitecom] Europe BV
> was to clarify the matter and the matter would be clarified by it.
> There is therefore no reason to grant preliminary
> remedies.
> -
> 
> regards,
> alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

oaky wrote:
[...]
> A protocol exchange would qualify (in Moglen's world) as an example 
> of "exchanging complex internal data structures", like a GPL'd 
> daemon talking with a proprietary client app or vice-a-versa.

Exactly.

http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?bw.022702/220582261

-
BW2261  FEB 27,2002   7:10 PACIFIC  10:10 EASTERN

( BW)(MA-NUSPHERE) Preliminary Hearing Between NuSphere and MySQL AB
Begins Today; NuSphere Responds to False Claims by the Free Software
Foundation

Business/Technology Editors

BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 27, 2002--The Free Software Foundation
(FSF) issued a press release yesterday inaccurately stating that
NuSphere Corporation, an independent operating company of Progress
Software Corporation, "lost the right to distribute MySQL software due
to a violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL)." According to
Lorne Cooper, president of NuSphere Corporation, these statements are
inaccurate and inappropriate, as the case has yet to be presented in
court.

"The Free Software Foundation had no basis on which to issue this
statement," said Cooper. "The dispute between NuSphere and MySQL AB
originated from a trademark dispute. The initial court hearing takes
place today in Boston Federal Court. We believe actions such as this
press release by the FSF violate basic ethics regarding due process of
law and can only harm the open source community by alarming commercial
users of open software."

The FSF contends that NuSphere violated the GPL by simply linking
proprietary software to the MySQL system using a public API. MySQL AB is
interpreting the GPL so broadly that any commercial software that comes
into contact with free software must also become free, according to
Cooper. By that standard, a commercial email program would violate the
GPL if it downloaded mail from a GPL-compliant mail server, he says.
NuSphere regards this as an extreme interpretation of the GPL and
believes that MySQL AB's injunction against NuSphere is an inappropriate
case by which to test the GPL in a court of law.

The legal dispute between NuSphere Corporation and MySQL AB, which
is a VC-backed organization that also develops, supports and markets
MySQL, is about trademark rights that NuSphere purchased. MySQL AB
raised GPL issues in its counter-suit.

"Businesses may, in good faith, have disagreements over
interpretation of contracts and in this case all that we seek is to have
MySQL AB honor its contracts," said Cooper. "MySQL AB, however, decided
to broaden our contractual dispute into a legal test case for the GPL.
We disagree with that decision because there is no infringement of the
GPL, and because this is counter to how the open source community
operates."

Visit the NuSphere website (www.nusphere.com) to view a letter that
Cooper wrote to customers and the open source community and a PDF file
of the original contract signed with MySQL AB in June 2000.

For more information or comment from Lorne Cooper, please contact
Sarah Johnson or Laura Ackerman at 781-684-0770 or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note, Cooper will not be available
during the hearing, which runs from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. EST. More
information on NuSphere also is available at www.nusphere.com.

--30--kc/bos*

CONTACT: Sarah Johnson or Laura Ackerman
 Schwartz Communications, Inc.
 781-684-0770
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

KEYWORD: MASSACHUSETTS
INDUSTRY KEYWORD: COMPUTERS/ELECTRONICS SOFTWARE 
SOURCE: NuSphere
-

See also

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf

and

http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/07/12/2142237
(NuSphere: MySQL.org needed because MySQL AB won't accept code) 

-
Johnston says at the heart of the issue is a pending lawsuit in
which the two companies are suing each other over their changing
relationship and trademark issues.

Neither side would talk in great detail about the pending lawsuits,
but Johnston says NuSphere hasn't been allowed to participate
in the existing community at MySQL AB's MySQL.com.

"We tried to submit changes [to the MySQL code] under the GPL to
that site, and they were refused on a commercial basis, not on a
technical basis," Johnston adds. "The code works fine, and we
ship it as part of our GPL version of MySQL ... but they are not
available from MySQL.com, because they won't accept anything they
don't own the copyright to."

[...]

MySQL AB's Mickos, on the phone from Finland, says the MySQL code,
while being Open Source, has always been created almost entirely by
project founders Michael "Monty" Widenius and David Axmark.

"It has never been a 'bazaar' product like in The Cathedral and
the Bazaar," Mickos says. "It's not a product everybody has
contributed to, and that never was the intention.

"Monty has never accepted code contributions from other people,"
Mickos adds. "If he has gotten something [from someone else], they
have been 

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

German GNUtian dak didn't answer "yes or no" question regarding 
Welte attorneys (the gang at ifross) wild fantasies that the GPL 
is a contract coupled with AGB based on German concept of 
conditions subsequent.

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it
> >
> > Sitecom didn't bothered. So what?
> 
> If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded
> without waiting for an injunction, wouldn't they?

http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL2_20040903.pdf

-
The defendant argued: The temporary injunction should be lifted 
because the defendant is not liable to be sued. The plaintiff has 
no right to sue him.. The defendant is not concerned with the 
distribution and/or duplication and/or making public the software 
!netfilter/iptables. He, the defendant, is a pure support company, 
and is not concerned with selling, reproducing, or making available 
the software. He has never undertaken these activities and will 
not do so. It has previously been pointed out to the plaintiff that 
selling, reproducing and making available software are not 
undertaken by the defendant but by the company S[itecom] Europe BV. 
Furthermore, there was a notification that the web site had already 
been amended. It is obvious that the company [Sitecom] Europe BV 
was to clarify the matter and the matter would be clarified by it. 
There is therefore no reason to grant preliminary 
remedies.
-

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[oaky]

-
As to the definition of "derivative work," the uncertainty is
experienced by those who would like to make proprietary uses of
GPL'd code, and are unsure whether a particular way of making a
proprietary enhancement to a free work will certainly or only
arguably infringe the free developer's copyright.


Nah... the uncertainty is experienced by those who read the FSF FAQ.

What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal
question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper
criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes,
rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the
semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are
interchanged).

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are
definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run
linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means
combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are
communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs.
So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are
separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are
intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too
could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger
program.
-

A protocol exchange would qualify (in Moglen's world) as an example of
"exchanging complex internal data structures", like a GPL'd daemon
talking with a proprietary client app or vice-a-versa.

___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it
>
> Sitecom didn't bothered. So what? 

If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded
without waiting for an injunction, wouldn't they?

If the case were as cut&dried in the manner you claim, Sitecom would
have gotten back the legal costs associated with the injunction, once
the stuff would have gone through court properly.

So Sitecom would have been a fool _not_ to bother _unless_ their
chances in court would have been less than favorable.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it

Sitecom didn't bothered. So what? 

> would seem like it would have to be printed on _very_ expensive paper
> in order to be worth less than that.

Oh dear. I take it that you agree that the GPL is a contract coupled 
with AGB based on .

Yes or no, dak?

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> 
>Recent court decisions in Germany?
> 
>http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf
> 
> You are confusing a `critique' of a court decision, and the actual
> court decision.  

That utterly defective "judgement" (keep in mind that the context is 
Einstweilige Verfuegung -- ex parte action) based solely on Welte 
attorneys (the gang at ifross) wild fantasies regarding the GPL being 
a contract coupled with AGB based on German concept of condition 
subsequent*** isn't worth the paper it was printed on. But anyway it 
doesn't seem to match Moglen's alternative reality where the GPL is
a lisense-not-a-contract.

regards,
alexander.

***) Beispiele: Beim Eigentumsvorbehalt, bei dem der Käufer sich das 
Eigentum an der Verkaufssache bis zur vollständigen Kaufpreiszahlung 
vorbehält, handelt es sich um eine aufschiebende Bedingung (§§ 929 
S. 1, 158 Abs. 1 BGB). Im Rahmen der Sicherungsübereignung, bei der 
eine Sache bis zur vollständige Tilgung der Raten an den Verkäufer 
übereignet wird (z.B. beim Raten-Kaufvertrag), handelt es sich um 
eine auflösende Bedingung.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[John Hasler]

> Portuguese Judges wouldn't show such a high level of tolerance against
> people who make fun of the Judicial system as Wallace is doing.

There are rules for dealing with frivolous litigants.

I think Wallace is quite serious (though loony), and I think that the judge
thinks he is serious, too.  US courts go to considerable lengths to
accomodate pro se litigants as access to the courts is an important right.

It is possible (though unlikely, I think) that Wallace will have attorney's
fees assessed against him.
-- 
John Hasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alfred M\. Szmidt]

   Recent court decisions in Germany?

   http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf

You are confusing a `critique' of a court decision, and the actual
court decision.  The courts decision was in favour of the GPL.

In short, what Moglen says is perfectly correct, and what you say is
bunk.


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Just to stress...

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/
> 
> LWN: A while back, you said something about getting an answer from
> Linus on the Linux kernel license. Since there is a COPYING file
> that makes it clear that the kernel is governed under the GPL,
> where's the uncertainty?
> 
> Eben: If the kernel is pure GPL, then I think we would all agree
> that non-GPL, non-free loadable kernel modules represent GPL
> violations. 

-
LWN: So, if the kernel is covered solely by the GPL, you would see 
proprietary modules as an infringement?

Eben: Yes. I think we would all accept that. I think that the 
degree of interpenetration between kernel modules and the remainder 
of the kernel is very great, I think it's clear that a kernel with 
some modules loaded is a "a work" and because any module that is 
dynamically loaded could be statically linked into the kernel, and 
because I'm sure that the mere method of linkage is not what 
determines what violates the GPL, I think it would be very clear 
analytically that non-GPL loadable kernel modules would violate the 
license if it's pure GPL.
-

And (from another Moglen's piece regarding GNU legal system)

-
After many years of securing compliance with copyright law as it 
applies to GPL'd work, and in view of recent court decisions in 
Germany, to say nothing of SCO, I think there should be no remaining 
doubt in any well-informed mind about the legal soundness of GPL.
-

Recent court decisions in Germany?

http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf

Note that that Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute is no
stranger.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hoeren

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/panel/profiles/hoeren.pdf

MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL BODIES

Member/Vice President, German Association for Law and Informatics (DGRI);
Member, Society for Computers and Law, U.K.;
Member, German-Japanese Law Association, Hamburg and Tokyo;
Co-editor "Computer und Recht", Computer and Law, Cologne;
Member, Institute for European Media law, Saarbrücken;
Member, Editorial Board, Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence,
BNA's Electronic
Information Policy and Law Report and EDI Law Review;
Legal Advisor, European Commission/DG XIII, Legal Advisory Board on
Information Technology;
Co-editor, Multimedia und Recht, Munich;
Member, Task Force Group on Intellectual Property Rights of the
European Commission;
Legal expert in several research projects commissioned by the European
Commission/DG III
(COPEARMS), DG XIII (MULTISOLUTION, EDIBOL, EDIPAY) and the DG XV;
Member, Legal Advisory Board, DENIC, Frankfurt.

AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION

Intellectual Property law;
Internet Regulation;
Information Law;
Unfair Competition Law;
International Business Law.

EXPERIENCE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Judge at the Court of Appeal in Düsseldorf within the Trademark &
Copyright Senate;
Professor in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Muenster;
Member, Task Force Group on Intellectual Property Law, European
Commission/DG XIII. 

Now the most charming part of that Moglen's piece regarding GNU legal 
system:

-
As to the definition of "derivative work," the uncertainty is 
experienced by those who would like to make proprietary uses of 
GPL'd code, and are unsure whether a particular way of making a 
proprietary enhancement to a free work will certainly or only 
arguably infringe the free developer's copyright. The correct 
answer, of course, is that those who want to take advantage of the 
enormous quantity of freely distributable "best of breed" 
software now available should do so in a fashion that respects the 
principle of freedom in which it was created. All doubt can be 
eliminated, for Mr. Michaelson and all other seekers after wisdom, 
if they remember what they learned in kindergarten: share and share 
alike. IBM, HP, Novell, and other very large and very profit-minded 
businesses have no problem with this, nor should Mr. Michaelson's 
readers.
-

Well, "HP, Novell, and other very large and very profit-minded" 
aside for a moment,

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/linux390/october2005_recommended.html#RETocos20051014
(OCO modules for the "October 2005 stream")

It doesn't seem to match with Moglen's alternative reality.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 23:59 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sources.d/msg/3c633bf50d950b8c
> > > 
> > > (early Rahul Dhesi, before he was brainwashed by GNU)
> >
> > You mean that people can't know better and learn in almost 20 years?
> 
> Know better what? The FSF hired lawyers are telling to the judge in 
> Indiana that "the contract controls". So once again, what contract 
> are they talking about? The judge in Indiana is gonna be real pissed 
> when he finds out that Ice Miller and the FSF were just joking about 
> the GPL being a contract so they could get Wallace's case dismissed. 

Portuguese Judges wouldn't show such a high level of tolerance against
people who make fun of the Judicial system as Wallace is doing.

They might act slower, though. Way slower. But maybe he'd have only two
attempts to rewrite.

In any case, they're not talking about the GNU GPL, so nice try Tereky.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sources.d/msg/3c633bf50d950b8c
> > 
> > (early Rahul Dhesi, before he was brainwashed by GNU)
>
> You mean that people can't know better and learn in almost 20 years?

Know better what? The FSF hired lawyers are telling to the judge in 
Indiana that "the contract controls". So once again, what contract 
are they talking about? The judge in Indiana is gonna be real pissed 
when he finds out that Ice Miller and the FSF were just joking about 
the GPL being a contract so they could get Wallace's case dismissed. 

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[John Hasler]

Rui writes:
> That's almost all you get as far as your money is concerned.  Then
> there's this license, that restricts your rights even more by forbidding
> private copying (install on no more than one computer at a time)

US copyright law does not allow installation on more than one computer at a
time without permission of the copyright owner.

> Since not agreeing means you don't have even a single license, all you
> get is a worthless piece of plastic.

That piece of plastic is a copy.  Not agreeing means either you have not
completed the transaction and so can get your money back or you have
purchased a copy and have all the rights to it permitted by copyright.
-- 
John Hasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 21:21 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> [...]
> > Over and out.  Let the Terekhov quote-script have the last word.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sources.d/msg/3c633bf50d950b8c
> 
> (early Rahul Dhesi, before he was brainwashed by GNU)

You mean that people can't know better and learn in almost 20 years?

Geez... I guess that explains you...

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rahul Dhesi]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is at it again:
>> 
>> [ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ]
>> [ 2 meaningless lines of original content ]

And he follows up with 48 more lines of quoted content!

Does anybody remember the zumabot?   We seem to have a reincarnation of
it here.  It was apparently an awk script, but today I assume it would
more likely be in perl or python.  Try a Google search -- it's
interesting history.

Over and out.  Let the Terekhov quote-script have the last word.
-- 
Rahul

___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 18:28 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> - When you get GNU software by anonymous ftp, *there is no contract*
>   and you have no legal right to use it.  You are granted rights by the
>   GPL that you did not have, but these are not legal rights, because
>   you cannot enter into a binding contract without consideration.  So
>   although you are permitted to use the software, you have no
>   enforceable legal right to do so.

This is bullshit. Usage is not covered by copyright law[1], only
distribution of copies of the work outside fair use.

> - When you order a tape from the FSF, the situation is unclear.
>   If your payment is clearly only a handling free, then any contract
>   that exists is solely for the purpose of the tape being shipped to
>   you, and it does not govern the contents of the tape.  If the payment
>   is actually for the software itself, then there is a contract that
>   affects how you use it.

When you pay for a CD of Microsoft Windows, you only have warranties on
the _CD_ itself, not on the data it contains.

That's almost all you get as far as your money is concerned.
Then there's this license, that restricts your rights even more by
forbidding private copying (install on no more than one computer at a
time), and since it restricts beyond default copyright, you have to
"agree" to its terms.

Since not agreeing means you don't have even a single license, all you
get is a worthless piece of plastic.

With Free Software you get default copyright + extra rights.
In the case of the GNU GPL, distributing new copies is allowed under
certain unilateral restrictions. Nothing else gives you the right to do
that.

This is just plain copyright.

Rui

[1] except in what relates to DMCA and equivalent horror laws.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is at it again:
> 
> [ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ]
> [ 2 meaningless lines of original content ]

Hey Rahul, but the most charming piece regarding GNUtian legal system 
from you is this:

http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/ca73c9fd532841b5

-
Appended below is a copy of what I posted previously.  (Sometimes
discussions stray so far nobody remembers what the original question
was :-)

I am essentially making the claim that by placing software under the
GNU license, you are not losing any rights over it.  You are granting
others certain rights.  Corollaries:

- You can violate the GNU license for your software without violating
  copyright law.  Why?  Because you cannot unilaterally give up your
  rights.  So you are not bound by the GNU license even though you
  have placed your software under it.

- You can later revoke the rights that you granted to others
  when you placed the software under the GNU license.  Why?  Because
  you did not grant any rights to any specific person.  What would be
  the grounds of a lawsuit?  That you violated a contract?  There was
  none.  Fraud?  Maybe.  Some sort of general tort for damages?
  Perhaps.  Even if a court rules that you can't revoke your decision,
  that ruling will likely only be given to protect a specific defendant
  who suffered actual damages as a consequence of your revoking your
  decision.  I doubt very much that a court will rule that you can't
  revoke your decision at all, only that you must compensate *this*
  specific defendant with *proven* damages, or let him keep using your
  software.

  I don't know of any enabling legislation that allows a
  person to place software under the GNU license and be unable to
  revoke this decision later.

I am not claiming that my claim is provably correct, only that it's a
claim!  Sometimes such claims are proven wrong, not because they were
wrong when they were made, but because judges make new law all the
time.  Free software lies near the periphery of tried and trusted legal
precedents.  Who knows what the next judge will decide?

Most judges who use computers at home use Macintoshes.  Need I say
more? 
-

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rahul Dhesi]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is at it again:

[ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ]
[ 2 meaningless lines of original content ]

Do we see a pattern here?  We have here a person who pokes around
apparently all day, every day, on Google, finds stuff and repeatedly
reposts it into misc.int-property and gnu.misc.discuss.

At the risk of repeating myself: How about writing something useful
yourself, instead of merely posting repeated citations of what others
have written?  Your mission, should choose to accept it, is to post 5
articles in which you provide 80% content that is original and useful
enough that multiple people will consider it profound enough to quote
you in multiple other fora.
-- 
Rahul

___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> [ 26 lines of quoted text ]
> [ 4 lines of erroneous original content ]
> [ 49 lines of quoted text ]
> [ 4 lines of signature ]

I gather that GNUtians have sometimes problems with simple counting. Oh 
BTW, Rahul, y'know I'm your fan.

http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/50a4db89a34ff5ce

-
>Several times I've copied software and only discovered that it's under the
>GPL once I've unpacked it and found the license agreement inside.  In fact, I
>can't think of a single occasion where I've been asked to agree to the GPL
>before being allowed to copy some GNU software.  So it seems to me that the
>GPL is exactly like a SWL on this point -- maybe not in theory, but in
>practice, which is what's important.

No, no, you all have it wrong.  Here is the critical difference between
the GPL and the typical shrink-wrapped license, based on US law.

- When you buy software from a store, you pay $x and get back software
  product y.  You have *entered into a contract* and for the price you
  paid, you now *own* a copy of product y, which you may use as allowed
  by US copyright law.  Any license statement inside a shrink-wrap (or
  even one readable before you buy the package) is totally, utterly,
  irrelevant (unless it grants you rights that you don't already have
  under copyright law, and this is a rare case that I have never
  encountered).

- When you get GNU software by anonymous ftp, *there is no contract*
  and you have no legal right to use it.  You are granted rights by the
  GPL that you did not have, but these are not legal rights, because
  you cannot enter into a binding contract without consideration.  So
  although you are permitted to use the software, you have no
  enforceable legal right to do so.

- When you order a tape from the FSF, the situation is unclear.
  If your payment is clearly only a handling free, then any contract
  that exists is solely for the purpose of the tape being shipped to
  you, and it does not govern the contents of the tape.  If the payment
  is actually for the software itself, then there is a contract that
  affects how you use it.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
also: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rahul Dhesi]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

[ 26 lines of quoted text ]
[ 4 lines of erroneous original content ]
[ 49 lines of quoted text ]
[ 4 lines of signature ]

How about writing something useful yourself, instead of merely posting
repeated citations of what others have written?  Your mission, should
choose to accept it, is to post 5 articles in which you provide 80%
content that is original and useful enough that multiple people will
consider it profound enough to quote you in multiple other fora.
-- 
Rahul

___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were
> pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't
> link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or
> statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary in
> their license terms.
> 
> 
> 
> I just wonder under what "impure" GPL license terms do you think
> Moglen thinks ("in all good faith") the Linux kernel is developed
> currently (note that the context is kernel drivers which has
> nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception for user space).
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Even if you have any, then how does that play out regarding what
> the FSF is telling to the judge in Iniana...
> 
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2005061934277
> 
> "The GNU/Linux operating system is probably the best known example
>  of a computer program that has been developed using the free
>  software model, and is licensed pursuant to the GPL."
>  ^^^

Here's more evidence that notwithstanding what the FSF says to the 
judge in Indiana, the FSF's own director and lead counsel in fact
doesn't really understand the licensing terms relevant to the use 
of Linux.

http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/

LWN: A while back, you said something about getting an answer from 
Linus on the Linux kernel license. Since there is a COPYING file 
that makes it clear that the kernel is governed under the GPL, 
where's the uncertainty?

Eben: If the kernel is pure GPL, then I think we would all agree 
that non-GPL, non-free loadable kernel modules represent GPL 
violations. Nonetheless, we all know that there are a large number 
of such modules and their existence is tolerated or even to some 
degree encouraged by the kernel maintainers, and I take that to 
mean that as an indication that there is some exception for those 
modules.

The kernel also maintains a technical mechanism, namely the 
GPL-only symbols and tainting structure, which seems to suggest an 
API for the connection of non-GPL'ed code to the kernel, which also 
seems to me a strong indication of the presence of an exception. 
The difficulty as a lawyer, even a lawyer that is reasonably 
knowledgeable about these matters, is that I don't understand what 
the terms of that exception are.

So, say I want to audit a system, say an embedded product, in which 
I find non-GPL loadable kernel modules present, how do I know 
whether that fits within an exception which is legitimately 
available to third parties and when it is not?

[...]

So then there are parties in the world who think they are in legal 
trouble on one side with the regulators if they do release source 
code for loadable kernel modules that drive their software-
controlled radios, and they don't know if they're in legal trouble 
on the other side if they don't release source code. For those 
parties, in particular, it would be very helpful if the kernel 
developers had decided to formalize the nature of their exceptions, 
and the Free Software Foundation and I have made a few attempts to 
discuss that matter with kernel developers. I had conversations 
with Ted Ts'o, I talked to Linus about it and I understood there 
were some reluctances to clarify, in a full and complete way, what 
was going on. There may have even been disagreements among kernel 
developers about that, I wouldn't know. But I continue to think 
that it would be useful, for a whole variety of people who are 
trying in good faith to do the very best they can, and who may be 
navigating some dodgy legal territory, for them to be able to 
refer to something beyond the COPYING file which -- with all due 
respect -- I think probably doesn't contain all the terms that are 
relevant to the use of the kernel.
-

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[oaky]

Where in the GPL does it permit for charging a fee for the binary
distribution of a GPL'd work?  For example:

Section 1:
1.  You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
code as you receive it You may charge a fee for the physical act of
transferring a copy  and you may at your option offer warranty
protection in exchange for a fee.

As I read section 1, it permits distribution of Program's source code.
It does not permit distribution of Program (which would include object
form).  So this is a grant of right related only to distribution of
source code.


2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of
it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute
such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided
that you also meet all of these conditions:

(section 1 permits distribution of Program's source code).  Is this
section 2 grant of right limited to "copy and distribute such
modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above" talking about
the modifications or work in source code format, since that is all that
section 1 permits?

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:


When you look at the "you also do one of the following" the phrase
"under the terms of Sections 1 and 2" relate to the one of the items
that you must do.

This section is what grants the right to distribute object code or
executable form.  There is nothing in this section about being able to
charge a fee, nor does it say you can't charge a fee.  Would that imply
that you have the right to charge a fee for the binary distribution, or
not?   If the binary distribution includes copyright work owned by
somebody else, where in the GPL did they authorize me to charge a fee
for their work?

___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[oaky]

When ICE Miller stated in Wallace V FSF that "contract terms apply"  it
made me go back and see what are the contract terms.  The following,
like all GPL things, is quite complicated, and raises some interesting
questions.

Remember, though, the plain language of the contract applies now, so
this is literal.  With that, I look only at section 1 of the GPL for
literal interpretation.

Section 1 of the GPL applies to distribution of source code (not object
code nor executable).  Each licensee is addressed as "you".

We will start with a simple premise. Joe puts his original source code
on sourceforget.net under the GPL and I want to copy and distribute
verbatim copies of  the Program's source code.  For simplicity, I
modified GPL section 1 (below) to replace "You" with "I" meaning me.
It just makes it easier to read the paragraph.

1. I may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
code as I receive it, in any medium, provided that I conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and
disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this
License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other
recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the
Program.

First, note that I must "keep intact all the notices that refer to this
License and to the absence of any warranty".  So, when I distribute a
verbatim copy to Jane, I have already provided her with the License as
part of the verbatim copy I sent her (after all, I got the code with a
copy of the License).

Next, note the part that states "and give any other recipients of the
Program".
a) It does not state "my recipients" or my licensees, it clearly and
unambiguously uses the phrase "and give any other recipients of the
Program."
b) it does not state recipient's of the "Program source code".  It
clearly and unambiguously uses the phrase "Program".

Thus it is not limited to recipients of source code, but to object code
representations (as permitted by section 3 of the GPL which I will
describe in a subsequent posting) as well as derived representations
(see GPL defines Program).

It is not limited to recipients from me.  It also includes "any other
recipients of the Program"  which would now include those who receive
the Program from me (distributed by me) and anybody who gets it upsteam
or downstream from any other distributor, in any form, and any version
(described below)

So, simply because I want to distribute the verbatim copy of Joe's
work, I am now obligated (by contract terms) to give something to
anybody who receives the Program (including any derivative) from
anybody else upstream and/or downstream from me.  But what do I have to
give them, and how do I know who they are?

What is the purpose of my having to give any other recipient the
Program a copy of the License?  I have not changed the source code in
anyway.  I am merely distributing Joe's original copy.

This obligation is not limited to giving  "any other recipients of the
Program a copy of this License"  It also places a burden that I must
give "a copy of this License along with the Program".

The phrase "along with the Program" is really interesting.  What does
this mean?

Does this mean that I have to give "a copy of this License" as part of
the distribution from which the recipient received the Program? For
example, I distributed the source code to Jane, and she created a
binary distribution (allowed under section 3 of the GPL) which she
distributed to Dick.  Does this mean that I have to provide a copy of
this license to Dick as part of Jane's distribution?  Or do I have to
give a copy to Dick directly?  How do I do that?  Is Jane obligated to
include my copy of the license (as distinguished from any other copy,
such as Jane's copy, and all the other copies in the case of a
modification)?   How do I impose this requirement on Jane, or will Jane
provide me with her distribution list so that I can fullill this
obligation?  What if Jane is providing a binary distribution over the
Internet where anybody can download a copy?  Note that it does not
state I have to do this on demand from Jane's licensees.  So to
fullfill my obligation there must be some way for me (not Jane) to
provide a copy of this License to Jane's recipients as it is my
obligation.

Does it mean that I literally have to give "a copy of the Program" as
well?For example, do I have to give a copy of the License along
with a copy of the Program, or just a copy of the License along with
the Program that Dick received from Jane?   If it means that I have to
give a copy of the program, then what version do I have to provide, in
what format, and how do I do this?  The definition of "Program"
includes "any such program or work".  Does this mean the copy of the
Program must include "any such program or work" as in "any one of" or
does it mean any as in "any and all"?

The GPL describes: "This License applies to any program or other work
whic

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Lee Hollaar wrote:
> 
> In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain
> >within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised,
> >but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the
> >license permits." [quoting Eben Moglen]
> 
> That might be true IF "she doesn't have any right to act at all except
> as the license permits."  But as I have pointed out here and in my
> comments to the FSF regarding the new GPLv3, that is not the case.
> United States copyright law provides a number of exceptions to the
> exclusive rights of the copyright owner, including "first sale" as
> covered in 17 U.S.C. 109 and the right in 17 U.S.C. 117 of the owner
> of a copy of a computer to reproduce or adapt it if necessary to use
> it.
> 
> The convenient redefinition of things in the GPL reminds me of a
> quote from Abraham Lincoln:
>  How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
>  Four.  Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/02/20/1544245.shtml?tid=117?tid=123
(Professor Eben Moglen Replies)

-
5) PHB opinions
by Eric Seppanen 

My boss' boss (who is quite sharp technically as well as an attorney) 
thinks that the GPL is stupid because it doesn't read like it was 
written by a lawyer. He doesn't object to the principles and methods 
involved-- he's just disgusted by the unlawyerly writing. He says it 
was written by an amateur, not a lawyer, giving the impression that 
everyone using it is an amateur, and not serious about their work. 
What would you say to that? 

Eben: 

With all due respect to your boss' boss, he may not have appreciated 
the context in which the GPL is drafted. Most distributors of 
copyrighted material use a different copyright license for each 
country in which their work is distributed. That's not feasible for 
the free software movement: we have no control over the international 
path that any given piece of code may take, as it is copied and 
redistributed by its users, and we must therefore do business all 
over the world on a single license. What would seem good lawyerly 
drafting to a lawyer in one country might seem like officious or
loquacious nonsense to a lawyer in another. Moreover, unlike the 
licenses written by the legal departments of proprietary
content companies, our licenses are meant to be read by individual 
programmers, who we hope will choose to use those licenses to 
distribute their own programs. So the GPL is not addressed to 
lawyers in a single legal system, but to developers in every legal 
system around the world. Doing optimal drafting for that rather 
unusual set of needs is plenty serious business, I will say. It 
isn't work for amateurs. Whether we have been successful in 
achieving our intentions can only be judged by the results. 
--

Got it now? It was written for GNUtians and only GNUtians. And
the only legal system where that license-not-a-contract fiction
is not a fiction is the legal system of the GNU Republic.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> > You're a brainwashed GNUtian. Of course it doesn't make sense to you.
> 
> Geez, I guess I must be... I don't remember the brainwashing sessions,

Of course you don't remember.

> so there's your proof :)

A whole bunch of proofs can be found in the archives of this newsgroup 
on google.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> The only real difference is that the later make sense...

You're a brainwashed GNUtian. Of course it doesn't make sense to you.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 20:46 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > The only real difference is that the later make sense...
> 
> You're a brainwashed GNUtian. Of course it doesn't make sense to you.

Geez, I guess I must be... I don't remember the brainwashing sessions,
so there's your proof :)

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 10:31 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Alex,

Your mental diarrhea very closely touches the boundaries of of all those
"buy cialis" spam mails.

The only real difference is that the later make sense...

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

FSF's brief #37 in Wallace v FSF:

> In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software
> copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the
> GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed
> under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based
> on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on
> a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
> work under the scope of this License."

[... walter_oak_night's FSF GPL FAQ ... FAQ as Fact ...]

Here's more. FSF's director and legal counsel Moglen speaks.

http://news.com.com/Defender+of+the+GPL+-+page+2/2008-1082_3-6028495-2.html



One of the questions with the GPL is about how tightly you may link 
GPL code with non-GPL code, for example, when you compile a GPL program 
and it uses other code in a software library. Have you done anything 
to define how tightly GPL code may be linked with non-GPL code? Under 
what circumstances is that permitted and not permitted?

Moglen: We have made one clarification, as we see it, of what we 
believe was always the rule. We reasserted that code dynamically linked 
to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely 
optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work under 
the GPL and must be released.



So much about "the GPL rejects any automatic aggregation of software
copyrights". To quote day5done,



The GPLv3 states:

"2. Basic Permissions.

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the Program. The output from running it is
covered by this License only if the output, given its content,
constitutes a work based on the Program. This License
acknowledges your rights of "fair use" or other equivalent, as
provided by copyright law."

Anyone see the words "This License explicitly affirms your
*unlimited permission* to run the Program"?

When you link dynamically to GPL'd code you are "running"
(executing) the GPL'd Program in every sense of the word. The
linked code is object code that is executed in memory.

Moglen states: "We reasserted that code dynamically linked to
GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely
optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work
under the GPL and must be released."

Since when does "unlimited permission" mean "--is part of the
source code of the work under the GPL and must be released."?

I thought "unlimited permission" meant "unlimited permission".
Hm.

Perhaps Eben Moglen is drooling down his Gerber bib again...

Somehow your proprietary object code being executed in memory
is magically transformed into GPL'd source code. -- Sounds somewhat
like SCO claiming "all your code is mine".

Do you suppose the wife and kids also get GPL'd?



Now, back to quoting the Defender of the GPL:



One specific area where the linking question arises is in the 
Linux kernel, where proprietary video drivers loaded are loaded 
as modules. Another one might be the use of a network driver 
that relies on proprietary firmware that is loaded from an 
operating system. (Such firmware, sometimes called "blobs," are 
strings of hexadecimal digits loaded from the operating system 
kernel into the hardware device to enable it to run.)

Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were 
pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't 
link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or 
statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary in 
their license terms.



I just wonder under what "impure" GPL license terms do you think 
Moglen thinks ("in all good faith") the Linux kernel is developed 
currently (note that the context is kernel drivers which has 
nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception for user space).

Any thoughts?

Even if you have any, then how does that play out regarding what
the FSF is telling to the judge in Iniana...

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2005061934277

"The GNU/Linux operating system is probably the best known example 
 of a computer program that has been developed using the free 
 software model, and is licensed pursuant to the GPL."
 ^^^



regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

:-)

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

I'm sorry for spam, it was due to misusage of an agent.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 22:49 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: 
>http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf
> 
> Terekhov likes to quote material without having actually read it
> himself.  Wallace more or less claims that the GNU GPL allows for
> price fixing, more exactly, that it requires all parties to distribute
> copies of GPLed software for no fee.  This is obviously false.
(...) 
> I'm not a lawyer, but I am atleast capable of weilding a very powerful
> sword called "Reading", which Wallace and Terekhov are unable to.

One could almost argue that they're the same person, the similarities
being so strong.

Well, I guess they could be string-puppets under the same manipulative
hands...

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 22:49 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf
> 
> Terekhov likes to quote material without having actually read it
> himself.  Wallace more or less claims that the GNU GPL allows for
> price fixing, more exactly, that it requires all parties to distribute
> copies of GPLed software for no fee.  This is obviously false.
(...)
> I'm not a lawyer, but I am atleast capable of weilding a very powerful
> sword called "Reading", which Wallace and Terekhov are unable to.

One could almost argue that they're the same person, the similarities
being so strong.

Well, I guess they could be string-puppets under the same manipulative
hands...

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 22:49 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: 
>http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf
> 
> Terekhov likes to quote material without having actually read it
> himself.  Wallace more or less claims that the GNU GPL allows for
> price fixing, more exactly, that it requires all parties to distribute
> copies of GPLed software for no fee.  This is obviously false.
(...) 
> I'm not a lawyer, but I am atleast capable of weilding a very powerful
> sword called "Reading", which Wallace and Terekhov are unable to.

One could almost argue that they're the same person, the similarities
being so strong.

Well, I guess they could be string-puppets under the same manipulative
hands...

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alfred M\. Szmidt]

   http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf

Terekhov likes to quote material without having actually read it
himself.  Wallace more or less claims that the GNU GPL allows for
price fixing, more exactly, that it requires all parties to distribute
copies of GPLed software for no fee.  This is obviously false.

Wallace bases his claim on Sectin 2(b), which states:

  2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
 of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
 distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section
 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

...

   b. You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that
  in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program
  or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge
  to all third parties under the terms of this License.

What does this mean exactly?  It means that you cannot impose any
extra restrictions on the work that would make it impossible for third
parties to redistribute the work ("You are not allowed to redistribute
this program to other people unless you pay me 100 USD in license
fees" or similar extra restrictions).

It has nothing to do with charging for the act of distribution, which
is stated in section 1:

 You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
 and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange
 for a fee.

Which allows me, as the author of the Program, to charge a fee, and it
allows people who bought the CD's containing the Program, to do the
same thing; if they choose too.

I'm not a lawyer, but I am atleast capable of weilding a very powerful
sword called "Reading", which Wallace and Terekhov are unable to.


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: ...

My, you're dense.

http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 20:25 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Marketing to begin with. You should read and try to understand the 
> complaint, really.

Yes, really.

Basis of complaint: Wallace seems to think anti-trust law is there to
protect a business model instead of protecting consumers.

His case only makes sense if you think of Free Software as a monopoly.

Laudable effort of waste of time.

Rui


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alfred M\. Szmidt]

   Just to count two immediate possibilities. There are hundreds more.

Two possibilities on two ends of the spectrum, the usual cost is
around 45 USD from my brief check (GNU Source CD's, and OpenBSD CD's).
Thogh, if you have 5000 USD (~4000 EUR), getting the GNU Deuluxe
Distribution package is a good idea.


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
>RHEL: over 1500 EUR for subscription

They charge for per seat "services" (mostly bug fixes delivery), not 
GPL'd software as IP. That monetization model fails with stable high 
quality software (vendor lock-in through certification of other stuff 
for not-quite-so-free-as-in-speech-or-beer binaries under trademark 
and per seat service contract protection "as a whole" aside for a 
moment), and it isn't suitable for ethical software providers who 
offer bug fixing for free-as-in-beer until at least Withdrawal from 
Marketing to begin with. You should read and try to understand the 
complaint, really.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 17:01 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>Since recently, tuxrocks.com's coverage of "Wallace v. GPL" got
>pretty selective (the motto is "we won't let Wallace troll the
>community", I suppose; interestingly enough, the pro-GPL stance
>seems to impact publication of some FSF's briefs as well)...
> 
> Or it might simply be because Wallace, like you, are actually
> trolling.

And I also wonder how much rope the Judges plan to let Wallace hang
himself into before dismissing him with contempt.

I mean... price fixing? Let me see:
   Ubunto: zero EUR (+ network traffic costs)
   RHEL: over 1500 EUR for subscription

Just to count two immediate possibilities. There are hundreds more.

Rui


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> 
>Since recently, tuxrocks.com's coverage of "Wallace v. GPL" got
>pretty selective (the motto is "we won't let Wallace troll the
>community", I suppose; interestingly enough, the pro-GPL stance
>seems to impact publication of some FSF's briefs as well)...
> 
> Or it might simply be because Wallace, like you, are actually
> trolling.

You've been replonked, ams. See you in 2007.

Oh. Ah. Is dak still hanging around? Hey dak, how are you?

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alfred M\. Szmidt]

   Since recently, tuxrocks.com's coverage of "Wallace v. GPL" got
   pretty selective (the motto is "we won't let Wallace troll the
   community", I suppose; interestingly enough, the pro-GPL stance
   seems to impact publication of some FSF's briefs as well)...

Or it might simply be because Wallace, like you, are actually
trolling.


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> I offer EURO 20 (through PayPal) for #35 plus #36 above (I need one
> copy of each brief). Anyone?

Erledigt.

http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=333225
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=333224
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=333218

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> BTW, FSF's reply to Wallace's fourth amended complaint is due today,
> IIRC. I'd appreciate of someone with Pacer account can post it here,
> TIA.

Since recently, tuxrocks.com's coverage of "Wallace v. GPL" got pretty 
selective (the motto is "we won't let Wallace troll the community", I 
suppose; interestingly enough, the pro-GPL stance seems to impact 
publication of some FSF's briefs as well)...

http://sco.tuxrocks.com/?Case=Wallace

---
# [info] 34 - FSF's Motion [Wallace v. FSF 34] to Dismiss Wallace's 
 Fourth Amended Complaint (2005-12-29)
# [info] 35 - FSF's Memorandum [Wallace v. FSF 35] in Support of [34] 
 Motion to Dismiss Wallace's Fourth Amended Complaint 
 (2005-12-29)
# [info] 36 - Wallace's Memorandum [Wallace v. FSF 36] in Opposition 
 to [34] FSF's Motion to Dismiss Wallace's Fourth Amended 
 Complaint (2006-01-03)
---

I offer EURO 20 (through PayPal) for #35 plus #36 above (I need one 
copy of each brief). Anyone?

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss