Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org writes:
Note that even as you continue to bombard GNU with continually
repeated insults (yes, insults), there is no call to censor you,
and I can guarantee to you that Richard Stallman would not
countenance any such censoring, were he to express a
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org writes:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:27:34AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
You know,
There's only so much skill fine tuning you can do when you
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:27:34AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote:
ok, how do you propose to protect legitimate users from the constant
harassing of either crazy or paid people? I'd like to know.
That's what the folks
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 01:15:36PM -0400, Rjack wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:27:34AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote:
ok, how do you propose to protect legitimate users from the constant
harassing of either crazy or
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 04:29:29PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Any particular reason you say that?
I just can't believe a crazy person would be able to so relentelessly
bother people in such elaborate ways for such a long time.
You've never been to school? In pretty much every larger
Good Morning, RJack!
Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Please also get out a bit, socialise with people other than
RMS and go for a reality check on what GNU is.
I
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:27:34AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
You know,
There's only so much skill fine tuning you can do when you fight dolls.
Rjack, Therekov, amicus
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:27:34AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote:
ok, how do you propose to protect legitimate users from the
constant harassing of either crazy or paid people? I'd like to
know.
Yeh. . . legitimate
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
You know,
There's only so much skill fine tuning you can do when you fight dolls.
Rjack, Therekov, amicus something, and all those trolls will NEVER see
this or that. Their sole
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:15:32 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
The GPL isn't a contract. It's a license which lays out the conditions
under which someone has permission to copy and distribute a covered
work. If someone copies and distributes a covered work without adhering
to the conditions, he is
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack, Therekov, amicus something, and all those trolls will
NEVER see this or that. Their sole purpose is to make people
loose time answering them and to polute
Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack, Therekov, amicus something, and all those trolls will
NEVER see this or that. Their sole purpose is to make people
loose
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
If you want to continue attacking GNU and the FSF, and you've any sense
of decency in you, you'll go and do it somewhere where you won't be
abusing the FSF's resources.
Alan, I couldn't care less about the GNU/FSF's resource. As far as I'm
concerned, the FSF/GNU
Note that even as you continue to bombard GNU with continually
repeated insults (yes, insults), there is no call to censor you,
and I can guarantee to you that Richard Stallman would not
countenance any such censoring, were he to express a view.
Well, he would, he has expressed such
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Note that even as you continue to bombard GNU with continually
repeated insults (yes, insults), there is no call to censor you,
and I can guarantee to you that Richard Stallman would not
countenance any such censoring, were he to express a view.
Well,
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen
wrote:
Rjack, Therekov, amicus something, and all those trolls
will NEVER see this or that. Their sole purpose is to
Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen
wrote:
Rjack, Therekov, amicus something, and all those trolls
will NEVER see this
Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
sigh Please think about the dictum don't be a dick. Please
also get out a bit, socialise with people other than RMS and go
for a reality check on what GNU is.
Sigh...
Now you that
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
sigh Please think about the dictum don't be a dick.
Big dick or little dick? I like the big ones myself.
Please also get out a bit, socialise with people other
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Given, in the context of the GPL:
(a) permissions
(b) requirements
Question:
How can one possibly fulfill (b) without first taking
advantage of (a)?
Your answer:
One of the GPL's requirements for copying and distributing a
covered work is that it must be
Rjack wrote:
Uhm. No 17 USC 103(b)?
17 USC 103(b) is irrelevant to the GPL. That section of the law
refers to the copyrights that the creator of a combined work gets
on the part of the work that is his alone, and that this added
copyright does not affect the duration of the copyright of
amicus_curious wrote:
If Verizon was deficient and unable to properly convey the license, the
GPL assigns it to the end user automatically anyway. The end user has a
license regardless.
That is not true. How can the GPL assign anything to anyone who has not
received software under its
amicus_curious wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote
And I pointed out that in fact, how an end user gets his copy can matter.
Not if the copy is under the GPL.
But the copy is only under the GPL if the end user was given
the copy under the GPL! A random binary without a license can't
Rjack wrote:
Thank God Hyman finally admitted there are rights holders --
that's *PLURAL* (see the 's' in 'holders'?) as in bilateral
parties. Maybe there's hope for Hyman after all.
I was actually referring to the many people who release under the
GPL, but of course combined works have many
Rjack wrote:
The goalposts have mrely moved.
No. The goals are and have always been the same - that software users
should have the right to run, read, modify, and share the programs that
they receive. You are being distracted by your dislike of the GPL and
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Given, in the context of the GPL: (a) permissions (b)
requirements Question: How can one possibly fulfill (b) without
first taking advantage of (a)? Your answer:
One of the GPL's requirements for copying and distributing a
covered work is that
Rjack wrote:
The GPL is not embedded in the copyrighted source code file
therefore that requirement is a contractual covenant and not a
scope-of-use restriction or a condition precedent.
What nonsense. Accompanying the copy of the covered code with
the GPL is a condition of being permitted to
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Uhm. No 17 USC 103(b)?
17 USC 103(b) is irrelevant to the GPL. That section of the law
refers to the copyrights that the creator of a combined work gets
on the part of the work that is his alone, and that this added
copyright does not affect the duration
Rjack wrote:
What do you think authorizes the making and distribution of copies
is called in legal terms? It is called waiving their exclusive rights.
If you mean in exactly the same sense that an author waives
his exclusive rights when he allows a publisher to print and
sell his books, fine.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
What do you think authorizes the making and distribution of copies
is called in legal terms? It is called waiving their exclusive rights.
If you mean in exactly the same sense that an author waives
his exclusive rights when he allows a publisher to print
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Mah oh man, you're really dense. Before a copy can be made, it (i.e.
future copy) must first be accompanied by a copy of the GPL? Do you have
a Time Machine, Hyman?
What in the world are you talking about? In order to make and
distribute copies of GPLed works, you
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
He is using waive as in implicit in a copyright license is the
promise not to sue for copyright infringement.
And that happens when the author grants his nonexclusive license
to the copier. That grant happens as long as the copier complies
with the conditions of the
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:uf4zl.173520$xk6.65...@newsfe12.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
If Verizon was deficient and unable to properly convey the license, the
GPL assigns it to the end user automatically anyway. The end user has a
license regardless.
That is not
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Mah oh man, you're really dense. Before a copy can be made, it (i.e.
future copy) must first be accompanied by a copy of the GPL? Do you have
a Time Machine, Hyman?
What in the world are you talking about? In order to make and
distribute
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
He is using waive as in implicit in a copyright license is the
promise not to sue for copyright infringement.
And that happens when the author grants his nonexclusive license
to the copier. That grant happens as long as the copier complies
amicus_curious wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote
news:uf4zl.173520$xk6.65...@newsfe12.iad...
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
What do you think authorizes the making and distribution of
copies is called in legal terms? It is called waiving their
exclusive rights.
If you mean in exactly the same sense that an author waives his
exclusive rights when he allows a publisher to print and
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Mah oh man, you're really dense. Before a copy can be made, it
(i.e. future copy) must first be accompanied by a copy of the
GPL? Do you have a Time Machine, Hyman?
What in the world are you talking about? In order to make and
distribute copies
Rjack wrote:
ARTICLE 224
Condition Defined:
A condition is an event, not certain to occur, which must
occur, unless its non-occurrence is excused, before performance
under a contract becomes due.;Restatement (Second) of Contracts
I know you can't understand this concept (linear ordering of
Rjack wrote:
[...]
Hyman you are like a child who is first shown a picture of a dog
and then calls anything with four legs (i.e. a cat or a deer) a dog.
(From the test to become GNUtian)
Given:
One dog (Doggy) and one cat (Catty).
Question:
How many dogs do we have if you
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Forget about and distribute for a moment.
No, I can't do that. The GPL tells you what you need to do
in order to be authorized to make copies for distribution.
Simply because the process of making and distributing those
copies may have a manufacturing step in which
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Alexander is trying to explain to you that a requirement qualifies
as a condition precedent to a copyright grant if and only if the
requirement *must* occur *before* the grant of rights becomes
effective (contract performance). Obviously, the requirement
cannot
Rjack wrote:
The authors are relenquishing their rights within contractual
privity a concept which I know totally evades your understanding.
Wikipedia to the rescue!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity
The doctrine of privity in contract law provides that a contract
cannot confer
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
The GPL isn't a contract.
Hyman, please go to http://www.ibm.com/ibm/sjp/, click on Send
e-mail, and let Sam know that his lawyers are a bunch of retards
failing to grok that the GPL isn't a contract.
http://groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-881.pdf
--
SCO's GPL violations
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-881.pdf
Oh, goody! I love when your postings militate against your own thesis.
Read the footnote on page 24:
a fair and equitable result will be preferred over a harsh and
unreasonable one, and an interpretation that will produce an
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
[...]
If this still bothers you, consider the condition as a condition
concurrent and not a condition precedent. Look it up.
Example: Bryan promises to buy Stevie's guitar for $1000 and Stevie
promises to give Bryan the guitar when Bryan gives Stevie $1000.
What does this
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Alexander is trying to explain to you that a requirement
qualifies as a condition precedent to a copyright grant if and
only if the requirement *must* occur *before* the grant of
rights becomes effective (contract performance). Obviously, the
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Rahul, do you really believe that you can cause source code to to
be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the
terms of this License *before* you ever distribute a copy of the
source code to be licensed to those third parties?
If you really
Rjack wrote:
[...]
This is not a case where payment of JMI's costs and public
recognition of authorship were made conditions precedent to the
granted right to play. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 225
(1981). In such a case, absent performance of the conditions, the
license would not
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The authors are relenquishing their rights within contractual
privity a concept which I know totally evades your understanding.
Wikipedia to the rescue!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity
The doctrine of
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The authors are relenquishing their rights within contractual
privity a concept which I know totally evades your
understanding.
Wikipedia to the rescue!
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:04:54 -0400, Rjack wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote:
All EULA would be contracts, yes? Not complying with an EULA opens
up a can of worms.
Depends on whether the EULA is ultimately found by the courts to be
enforceable or
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:32:52 -0400, Rjack wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote:
IF A COPYRIGHT LICENSE EXISTS, ITS LANGUAGE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS A
CONTRACT IN DETERMINING ITS COVENANTS FOR PURPOSES OF BREACH AND
THEN EXAMINED FOR LANGUAGE DETERMINING
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:55:46 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bgwyl.50925$et1.40...@newsfe20.iad...
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:58 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA,
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:41:15 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:bgwyl.50925$et1.40...@newsfe20.iad...
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:58 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA,
in your
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote:
All EULA would be contracts, yes? Not complying with an EULA opens
up a can of worms.
Depends on whether the EULA is ultimately found by the courts to be
enforceable or not.
Do
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote:
All EULA would be contracts, yes? Not complying with an EULA opens
up a can of worms.
Depends on whether the EULA is ultimately found by the courts to be
enforceable or not.
Do
Keith Thompson wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes: [...]
Is the license:
Open Source License
***
You may copy, make derivative works, and distribute those works
that are based on the covered source code provided that you
first murder your
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:04:54 -0400, Rjack wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote:
All EULA would be contracts, yes? Not complying with an
EULA opens up a can of worms.
Depends on whether the EULA is ultimately found by the
courts to
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:41:15 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:bgwyl.50925$et1.40...@newsfe20.iad...
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:58 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:02gyl.80776$zp.25...@newsfe21.iad...
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:41:15 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:bgwyl.50925$et1.40...@newsfe20.iad...
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:58 -0400,
Rjack wrote:
So the CAFC found the Artistic License contains enforceable conditions. So what.
1) The CAFC case is meaningless to *any* other copyright infringement case
*anywhere*:
It is meaningful because it shows a straightforward line of thinking
and approach to licenses of this sort that
Rjack wrote:
The GPL contains unenforceable terms.
No, the GPL terms are all enforceable. (Although the interpretation
that termination requires non-automatic reinstatement is probably
wrong.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Rjack wrote:
The CAFC sets no precedent in copyright cases.
It applies a very reasonable and straightforward line of thinking
that other courts faced with similar issues will adopt.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:7_fyl.80775$zp.76...@newsfe21.iad...
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:55:46 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bgwyl.50925$et1.40...@newsfe20.iad...
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:58
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:gxfyl.80774$zp.65...@newsfe21.iad...
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:32:52 -0400, Rjack wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote:
IF A COPYRIGHT LICENSE EXISTS, ITS LANGUAGE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS A
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
So the CAFC found the Artistic License contains enforceable
conditions. So what. 1) The CAFC case is meaningless to *any*
other copyright infringement case *anywhere*:
It is meaningful because it shows a straightforward line of
thinking and approach to
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The GPL contains unenforceable terms.
No, the GPL terms are all enforceable. (Although the interpretation
that termination requires non-automatic reinstatement is probably
wrong.)
The GPL contains unenforceable terms.
Rjack wrote:
How many times do you have to be told that the Copyright Act
does not grant an *EXCLUSIVE RIGHT* to control the distribution
of a derivative work as a whole?
The copyright acts grants the exclusive right to authorize the copying
and distribution of a specific work. Inherent in
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The CAFC sets no precedent in copyright cases.
It applies a very reasonable and straightforward line of thinking
that other courts faced with similar issues will adopt.
Fact: The CAFC sets no precedent in copyright cases.
Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
Consider a license that says:
You may copy, make derivative works, and distribute those works
that are based on the covered source code provided that you first
compute to the last decimal place the value of pi.
The condition is not illegal, merely
Rjack wrote:
The GPL can't set scope-of-use restrictions on distribution of a
derivative work as a whole because no such exclusive right exists.
That's fine, because it does no such thing. The GPL sets requirements
for obtaining authorization to copy and distribute the covered work.
Such
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
How many times do you have to be told that the Copyright Act
does not grant an *EXCLUSIVE RIGHT* to control the distribution
of a derivative work as a whole?
The copyright acts grants the exclusive right to authorize the
copying and distribution of a
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote: [...]
Consider a license that says:
You may copy, make derivative works, and distribute those works
that are based on the covered source code provided that you
first compute to the last decimal place the value of pi.
The condition is not
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The GPL can't set scope-of-use restrictions on distribution of
a derivative work as a whole because no such exclusive right
exists.
That's fine, because it does no such thing.
CORRECT !! It only attempts to...
The GPL sets requirements for obtaining
Rjack wrote:
Utterly false.
No, utterly true. The obligations of the GPL are between
the copyright holder and the distributor. The distributees acquire
rights when the distributor tells them that the distribution is
covered by the GPL, because he has then promised them certain things.
(There's
Rjack wrote:
Truer words were never spoken.
No, those words are false. The obligations of the GPL are between
the copyright holder and the distributor. The distributees acquire
rights when the distributor tells them that the distribution is
covered by the GPL, because he has then promised them
Rjack wrote:
To repeat: Your repeated assertion is utterly false.
No, it's utterly true. The obligations of the GPL are between
the copyright holder and the distributor. The distributees acquire
rights when the distributor tells them that the distribution is
covered by the GPL, because he has
Rjack wrote:
Truer words were never spoken.
No, those words are false. The obligations of the GPL are between
the copyright holder and the distributor. The distributees acquire
rights when the distributor tells them that the distribution is
covered by the GPL, because he has then promised them
Rjack wrote:
Violation of 17 USC 301.
This makes even less sense than usual. 17 USC 301 is the federal
preemption of copyright law. It cannot be violated. And it has no
relevance to the GPL.
The GPL also violates contractual privity requirements for enforceability.
The GPL violates
Rjack wrote:
That leaves the GPL open to the different common law contract
interpretation rules of the fifty different states (plus Guam
and Puerto Rico).
This is not a problem because of 17 USC 301.
If it were legally enforceable, which it is not.
The GPL is legal and enforceable (in
Rjack wrote:
The CAFC case is meaningless to *any* other copyright infringement
case *anywhere*:
The reasoning it applied was straightforward and correct and will
be applied when similar cases arise elsewhere.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Rjack wrote:
The GPL contains unenforceable terms.
The GPL is a copyright license which may be accepted voluntarily
by someone who wishes to copy and distribute a covered work, and
if so, its obligations are enforceable and if not obeyed the
distributor has infringed the copyrights of the
amicus_curious wrote:
After conveying the license to use the software to the end user, the GPL
goes on and on about what is allowed to be in the black box. I don't
think that the courts really care.
That's false. For example, until the law was changed, copyright law
forbade the importation
Rjack wrote:
Fact: The CAFC sets no precedent in copyright cases.
The line of reasoning the CAFC used is straightforward and
correct and courts facing the same situation will reason
the same way.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Rjack wrote:
Attempting to bind all third parties under the GPL provisions
is against public policy (unenforceable).
Since the GPL only binds the single person who is accepting
its authorization to copy and distribute the covered work,
what you say about binding all third parties is
Rjack wrote:
Performance of a condition precedent may be excused inter alia when
the condition is waived, performance of the condition is unlawful or
impossible, or the other party prevents or makes impossible the
performance of the condition.
The conditions of the GPL are legal, possible, and
Rjack wrote:
CORRECT !! It only attempts to...
No. It only controls the covered work, but part of that control
is asserting authority of how it may be used in a combined work.
That authority is granted by copyright law to the rights holder.
___
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
CORRECT !! It only attempts to...
No. It only controls the covered work, but part of that control
is asserting authority of how it may be used in a combined work.
That authority is granted by copyright law to the rights holder.
quote source=Open Source
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
quote source=Open Source Licensing: Virus or Virtue?
Even if the open source license [GPL] is binding, the copyleft
provision may still not be enforceable as to independent
proprietary code, in light of the intellectual property misuse
doctrine.
This may in fact
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
quote source=Open Source Licensing: Virus or Virtue?
Even if the open source license [GPL] is binding, the copyleft
provision may still not be enforceable as to independent
proprietary code, in light of the intellectual property misuse
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
don't you understand, stupid Hyman?
The copyright misuse defense is similar to an antitrust claim, where a
copyright owner has misused the limited monopoly granted by the
copyright. However, the Lasercomb decision made it clear that the
copyright misuse defense is
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:tslyl.148172$2h5.58...@newsfe11.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
After conveying the license to use the software to the end user, the GPL
goes on and on about what is allowed to be in the black box. I don't
think that the courts really care.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
don't you understand, stupid Hyman?
The copyright misuse defense is similar to an antitrust claim, where a
copyright owner has misused the limited monopoly granted by the
copyright. However, the Lasercomb decision made it clear that the
amicus_curious wrote:
Was anyone ever prosecuted over such a silly situation?
I don't know if there were prosecutions, but the publishing industry
very much wanted this law enforced - it was the equivalent of DVD
region coding for books. Publishers wanted control over how books
were published
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Violation of 17 USC 301.
This makes even less sense than usual. 17 USC 301 is the federal
preemption of copyright law. It cannot be violated. And it has no
relevance to the GPL.
The GPL also violates contractual privity requirements for
enforceability.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Stop being utter idiot Hyman.
From the Lasercomb decision,
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/cases/15PQ2D1846.htm
The question is not whether the copyright is being
used in a manner violative of antitrust law (such as whether the
licensing agreement is
Rjack wrote:
The GPL also violates contractual privity requirements for
enforceability.
Does not.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
That leaves the GPL open to the different common law contract
interpretation rules of the fifty different states (plus Guam
and Puerto Rico).
This is not a problem because of 17 USC 301.
If it were legally enforceable, which it is not.
The GPL is legal
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The CAFC case is meaningless to *any* other copyright
infringement case *anywhere*:
The reasoning it applied was straightforward and correct and will
be applied when similar cases arise elsewhere.
Fact: The CAFC case is meaningless to *any* other copyright
1 - 100 of 264 matches
Mail list logo
