Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. Bullshit. Linux and GPL is only growing. The BSDs are dying. Its a shame because BSD is a GREAT system. Or Shut up and Hack. Come to this list when PCC is good enough to be on OpenBSD by default. PCC doesn't need more hackers. PCC and the BSD's need more donations and support from commercial vendors for drivers. BSD and PCC needs friendly people and hackers, not useless whiners pieces of shit like you. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO writes: BSD and PCC needs friendly people and hackers, I don't think these trolls qualify on either count. In the good old days we were trolled by the likes of John Dyson and Jay Maynard: jerks, but competent hackers. Now we just get dorks. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com 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: Significance of the GP licence.
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO vt...@c3sl.ufpr.br writes: Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. Bullshit. Linux and GPL is only growing. The BSDs are dying. Its a shame because BSD is a GREAT system. Or Shut up and Hack. Come to this list when PCC is good enough to be on OpenBSD by default. PCC doesn't need more hackers. PCC and the BSD's need more donations and support from commercial vendors for drivers. BSD and PCC needs friendly people and hackers, not useless whiners pieces of shit like you. That probably counts as friendly. Anyway, one sales theory of BSD fans is that it is more business-friendly, so why the lack of donation and support? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. Bullshit. Linux and GPL is only growing. The BSDs are dying. Its a shame because BSD is a GREAT system. Or Shut up and Hack. Come to this list when PCC is good enough to be on OpenBSD by default. PCC doesn't need more hackers. PCC and the BSD's need more donations and support from commercial vendors for drivers. BSD and PCC needs friendly people and hackers, not useless whiners pieces of shit like you. I think I misunderstood what you're trying to say. Please remove the dick from your mouth. That'll improve your enunciation dramatically. Have a nice Victor! _ _ |R| |R| |J| /^^^\ |J| _|a|_ (| o |) _|a|_ _| |c| | _(_---_)_ | |c| |_ | | |k| ||-|_| |_|-|| |k| | | | | / \ | | \/ / /(. .)\ \ \/ \/ / / | . | \ \ \/ \ \/ /||Y||\ \/ / \__/ || || \__/ () () || || ooO Ooo ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO writes: BSD and PCC needs friendly people and hackers, not useless whiners pieces of shit like you. David Kastrup writes: That probably counts as friendly. When I was deciding between FreeBSD and Linux John Dyson's trolling pushed me toward Linux. However, as I was not a commercial user they probably didn't want me anyway. BSDi certainly didn't, despite my having paid them $1000 to be one of their beta testers. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com 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: Significance of the GP licence.
OK I'm so fucking tired of this. I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux. BSD is free. GPL is free. Alexander, please stop drinking de Raadt's Kool Aid. Or Shut up and Hack. Come to this list when PCC is good enough to be on OpenBSD by default. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: OK I'm so fucking tired of this. I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux. BSD is free. GPL is free. Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. Alexander, please stop drinking de Raadt's Kool Aid. De Raadt's Kool Aid resides in the World of Reality. His philosophical Kool Aid consists of Use it for anything you want, just be honest about where it came from. Or Shut up and Hack. Come to this list when PCC is good enough to be on OpenBSD by default. PCC doesn't need more hackers. PCC and the BSD's need more donations and support from commercial vendors for drivers. I put my money where my mouth is and proudly donate. http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html http://bsdfund.org/projects/pcc/ Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
RJack u...@example.net writes: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: OK I'm so fucking tired of this. I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux. BSD is free. GPL is free. Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. A few people told RMS when he started. Now it is a whole hissing and yelling bunch. That they bother is the best proof that they are wrong. And they know it. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: OK I'm so fucking tired of this. I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux. BSD is free. GPL is free. Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. A few people told RMS when he started. Now it is a whole hissing and yelling bunch. That they bother is the best proof that they are wrong. And they know it. There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe the GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that copyright permissions be licensed at no charge to all third parties. More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its permissions. And that's what counts, regardless of where you think your nut-jobs may be hanging out. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: OK I'm so fucking tired of this. I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux. BSD is free. GPL is free. Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. A few people told RMS when he started. Now it is a whole hissing and yelling bunch. That they bother is the best proof that they are wrong. And they know it. There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe the GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that copyright permissions be licensed at no charge to all third parties. The United States Supreme Court held in the famous Sony Betamax case: [A] use that has no demonstrable effect upon the potential market for, or the value of, the copyrighted work need not be prohibited in order to protect the author's incentive to create. The prohibition of such noncommercial uses would merely inhibit access to ideas without any countervailing benefit. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 US 417. When Stallman worshipers like DAK read this citation, their eyelids slam shut and they retreat into their tidy world of denial and make-believe. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: OK I'm so fucking tired of this. I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux. BSD is free. GPL is free. Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. A few people told RMS when he started. Now it is a whole hissing and yelling bunch. That they bother is the best proof that they are wrong. And they know it. There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe the GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that copyright permissions be licensed at no charge to all third parties. More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its permissions. Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I await with 'bated breath for your documentation. And that's what counts, regardless of where you think your nut-jobs may be hanging out. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: OK I'm so fucking tired of this. I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux. BSD is free. GPL is free. Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. A few people told RMS when he started. Now it is a whole hissing and yelling bunch. That they bother is the best proof that they are wrong. And they know it. There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe the GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that copyright permissions be licensed at no charge to all third parties. More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its permissions. Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. You are changing the topic: of course you are free to ignore the terms of the GPL and it explicitly says so itself. What you are not free to do is ignore its terms _while_ making use of its permissions. I await with 'bated breath for your documentation. You are changing the topic, namely judges who *do* believe. So please name a few judges who believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored _while_ making use of its permissions. You won't find any. And that's the point. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
David Kastrup wrote: [...] You won't find any. And that's the point. Since it is YOU GNUtians who are crying copyright violation, copyright violation... which is a tort and on a large scale it is even a crime, IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE THE CLAIM YOU IDIOT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof It is a logical fallacy to presume that mere lack of evidence of innocence of a crime is instead evidence of guilt. Similarly, mere lack of evidence of guilt cannot be taken as evidence of innocence. For this reason (among others), Western legal systems err on the side of caution. Simply the act of taking a defendant before a court is not adequate evidence to presume anything. Courts require evidence of guilt to be presented first, adequate for the court to find that the charge has been substantiatedi.e., that the prosecution's evidential burden has been metand only after this burden is met is the defense obliged to present counter-evidence of innocence. If the burden of proof is not met, that does not imply that the defendant is innocent. Hence, in such a case, the defendant is found not guilty, except in Scotland, where the jury also has the option to return a verdict of not proven. Also, as a hypothetical example of an argument from personal incredulity, defined above, suppose someone were to argue: - I cannot imagine any way for Person P to have executed action X without committing a crime Y - Therefore, Person P must be guilty of crime Y. Merely because the person making the argument cannot imagine how scenario A might have happened does not necessarily mean that the person's preferred conclusion (scenario B) is correct. As with other forms of the argument from ignorance, the arguer in this instance has arrived at a conclusion without any evidence supporting the preferred hypothesis, merely for lack of being able to imagine the alternative. The same principles of logic apply to the civil law, although the required burdens of proof generally are different. As well, these principles of logic apply to the introduction of a given component of a legal case by either a complainant or a defendant. That is, the mere lack of evidence in favor of a proposition put forth by a party in a legal proceeding (e.g., the assertion she couldn't have left the house and returned in time to do X... is offered without evidence in support) would not properly be taken as evidence in favor of an alternative explanation (e.g., she did leave the house and return in time to do X...). regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
On 5/5/2010 8:11 AM, RJack wrote: Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I await with 'bated breath for your documentation. Sure, here you are: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510 PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MYSQL AB, et al., Defendants. ORDER SARIS, District Judge. ... With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. Affidavits submitted by the parties' experts raise a factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini program is a derivative or an independent and separate work under GPL ¶ 2. After hearing, MySQL seems to have the better argument here, but the matter is one of fair dispute. Moreover, I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the breach. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
On 5/5/2010 10:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: the case was about alleged contract breach It doesn't matter what the case was about. Your fellow crank asked for links to US federal judges who *do not* believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored, and I provided a link to a US judge who shows in her order that she does not believe that the terms of the GPL can be ignored. Of course you and your fellow cranks will disregard evidence which contradicts your cherished but incorrect beliefs even when this evidence is exactly what you asked for. That's what makes you cranks after all. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 5/5/2010 8:11 AM, RJack wrote: Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I await with 'bated breath for your documentation. Sure, here you are: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510 PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MYSQL AB, et al., Defendants. ORDER SARIS, District Judge. ... With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof [...] I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the breach. ^^ Yes, the case was about alleged contract breach, you retard. NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MORON. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf (COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)) COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License) ^^ Take your meds Hyman, take your meds. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 5/5/2010 8:11 AM, RJack wrote: Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I await with 'bated breath for your documentation. Sure, here you are: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510 PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MYSQL AB, et al., Defendants. ORDER SARIS, District Judge. ... With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof [...] I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the breach. ^^ Yes, the case was about alleged contract breach, you retard. NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MORON. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf (COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)) COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License) ^^ I read Count VIII here, so let us look at the other counts: COUNT I (Federal Trademark Infringement) COUNT II (Federal Unfair Competition: False Designation) COUNT III (Violation of Federal Trademark Dilution Statute) COUNT IV (Common Law Trademark Infringement) COUNT V (Breach of Contract) [not the GPL, but rather a trade agreement] COUNT VI (Unjust Enrichment) COUNT VII (Quantum Meruit) Count VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License) Count IX Violation of M.G.L.c. 93A§11 The relief asks for: A(iv): Progress/NuSphere violated the GPL License and thus, their rights under the GPL were automatically terminated. B Primarily and permanently enjoin (iii) Progress/Nusphere from copying, modifying, sublicensing or distributing the MySQL program. D Award compensatory and _punitive_ damages [...] (punitive damages for contract violation of a contract without punitive terms?) I mean, you are pretty much cherry-picking again, aren't you? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] You won't find any. And that's the point. Since it is YOU GNUtians who are crying copyright violation, copyright violation... which is a tort and on a large scale it is even a crime, IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE THE CLAIM YOU IDIOT. Well, I didn't find any. And you don't find any even though you wish you would. And all those that wish they'd find such a judge don't. So yes, we have More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its permissions. And that's what counts, regardless of where you think your nut-jobs may be hanging out. Now of course this is not mathematical evidence since obviously, judges being not bound by logic but only by their own choices (which usually include not being displaced for incompetence). So there is no proof but merely statistics. And the statistics so far support your opinion with a staggering 0%. You are still waiting for your outlier to appear that you can then declare the only existing verdict. The way you argue, that will be enough to proudly parade this around long after it has been overturned. So far, you are batting exactly zero. Should you ever get a single hit, you'll declare your batting average to be 1.0 for all future. And probably even believe it. But you are not there yet. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 5/5/2010 10:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: the case was about alleged contract breach It doesn't matter what the case was about. Your fellow crank The fact that Judge Saris *rejected the plea for injunction* regarding alleged breach of the GPL while she was not supposed/allowed to rule *sua sponte* that certain provisions of the GPL are unenforceable is NOT a proof that she believes that certain terms of the GPL can NOT be ignored. Got it now, retard? Go contact her asking to clarify her ruling *rejected the plea for injunction* for you utter idiot. http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/boston/saris.htm Take your meds Hyman, take your meds. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
David Kastrup wrote: [...] A(iv): Progress/NuSphere violated the GPL License and thus, their rights under the GPL were automatically terminated. B Primarily and permanently enjoin (iii) Progress/Nusphere from copying, modifying, sublicensing or distributing the MySQL program. DENIED http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510 Uh moron dak. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
David Kastrup writes: Award compensatory and _punitive_ damages [...] (punitive damages for contract violation of a contract without punitive terms?) Presumably based on the noncontract claims. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com 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: Significance of the GP licence.
On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I gave him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored (I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ... source code ... didn't cure the breach.) None of your twisting and spinning can change the simple and obvious fact that here is a judge who does not believe that the terms of the GPL can be ignored. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
On 5/5/2010 10:56 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: DENIED http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510 That's because the standards required for a preliminary injunction are high. In the judge's words: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510 In any event, even if MySQL has shown a likelihood of success on these points, it has not demonstrated that it will suffer any irreparable harm during the pendency of the suit, particularly in light of the sworn statement that all source code for Gemini has been disclosed and the stipulation, given by Progress during the hearing, that the end use license for commercial users will be withdrawn. Finally, because the product line using MySQL is a significant portion of NuSphere's business, Progress has demonstrated that the balance of harms tips in its favor regarding the use of the MySQL program under the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
David Kastrup wrote: [...] If she considers a breach ... She did NOT rule that there was a breach, you retard. She ruled quite the opposite: With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED *HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED*, YOU IDIOT. And yes, the case was about alleged contract breach, you retard. NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MORON. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf (COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)) COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License) ^^ regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] If she considers a breach ... She did NOT rule that there was a breach, you retard. She ruled quite the opposite: With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. You are confusing the decision about the preliminary injunction with the ruling. And you _did_ forget again what the discussion was about. But I admit that you did not use moron or idiot in your reply. *HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED*, YOU IDIOT. Ah well, at least not in its first sentence. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Sonny! Uncle Hasler has spoken! John Hasler wrote: David Kastrup writes: Award compensatory and _punitive_ damages [...] (punitive damages for contract violation of a contract without punitive terms?) Presumably based on the noncontract claims. MySQL's case/claim *regarding the GPL* was a contract case, NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. MySQL complained about other non-contract (tort) matters as well in addition to the GPL contract claim. Judge Saris was not supposed/allowed to rule sua sponte that certain provisions of the GPL are unenforceable and she simply denied the plea for injunction regarding alleged breach of the GPL on other grounds. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 5/5/2010 10:56 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: DENIED http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510 That's because the standards required for a preliminary injunction are high. In the judge's words: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510 With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED *HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED*, YOU IDIOT. And yes, the case was about alleged contract breach, you retard. NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MORON. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf (COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)) COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License) ^^ Take your meds Hyman, take your meds. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I gave him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored (I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ... source code ... didn't cure the breach.) None of your twisting She is simply saying that the GPL provision of automatic termination on a slightest breach is UNENFORCEABLE you idiot. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I gave him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored (I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ... source code ... didn't cure the breach.) None of your twisting She is simply saying that the GPL provision of automatic termination on a slightest breach is UNENFORCEABLE you idiot. Do you still remember what we were talking about? We were talking about the non-existence of judges who are of the opinion that you can make use of the GPLs permissions without heeding its terms. If she considers a breach likely healed because the terms _have_ been heeded after substantial delay, does that mean that she thinks one needs not heed the terms? I have no doubt that you'll form a sentence containing idiot or moron as a reply, but please do try to remember what the topic was. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] If she considers a breach ... She did NOT rule that there was a breach, you retard. She ruled quite the opposite: With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. You are confusing the decision about the preliminary injunction with the I'm confusing noting, silly dak. With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED *HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED*, YOU IDIOT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof And yes, the case was about alleged contract breach, you retard. NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MORON. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf (COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)) COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License) ^^ regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 5/5/2010 10:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: the case was about alleged contract breach It doesn't matter what the case was about. Your fellow crank asked for links to US federal judges who *do not* believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored, and I provided a link to a US judge who shows in her order that she does not believe that the terms of the GPL can be ignored. With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. . . but the matter is one of fair dispute. Even Glenn Beck couldn't spin this to mean an affirmation of the validity of GPL terms. ROFL. Of course you and your fellow cranks will disregard evidence which contradicts your cherished but incorrect beliefs even when this evidence is exactly what you asked for. That's what makes you cranks after all. ROFL. This, from a GNUtian moron who claims a copyright license is not a contract. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. The judge never interpreted the terms of the GPL. She merely acknowledged the existence of a contract which some GNUtians hope to deny is a contract. I gave him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored (I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ... source code ... didn't cure the breach.) None of your twisting and spinning can change the simple and obvious fact that here is a judge who does not believe that the terms of the GPL can be ignored. You're playing semantic games. [A} judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored means a judge who interprets the GPL terms to be enforceable. No federal judge has ever construed the terms of the GPL at all. Moove the goalposts Hyman -- it won't help -- but mooove them anyway if it makes you feel better. This is an identical situation to those who claim nonexistent GPL settlement victories. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
On 5/5/2010 4:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
On 5/5/2010 2:26 PM, RJack wrote: This is an identical situation to those who claim nonexistent GPL settlement victories. Yes, it is. In both situations anti-GPL cranks cannot bring themselves to believe what has long been obvious to anyone else, so they twist and spin to avoid facing the truth. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 5/5/2010 2:26 PM, RJack wrote: This is an identical situation to those who claim nonexistent GPL settlement victories. Yes, it is. In both situations anti-GPL cranks cannot http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz bring themselves to believe what has long been obvious to anyone else, so they twist and spin to avoid facing the truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof Commonly in an argument from ignorance or argument from personal incredulity, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as evidence in favor of an alternative view of his or her choice. Examples of these fallacies are often found in statements of opinion which begin: It is hard to see how..., I cannot understand how..., or it is obvious that... (if obvious is being used to introduce a conclusion rather than specific evidence in support of a particular view) regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
On 5/5/2010 5:31 PM, RJack wrote: Sayeth Hyman Rosen: Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link. Sayeth Hyman Rosen: Commonly in an argument from ignorance or argument from personal incredulity, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as evidence in favor of an alternative view of his or her choice. Wishful Thinking: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wishthnk.html Form: I want P to be true. Therefore, P is true. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 5/5/2010 4:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz Sayeth Hyman Rosen: Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link. Sayeth Hyman Rosen: Commonly in an argument from ignorance or argument from personal incredulity, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as evidence in favor of an alternative view of his or her choice. Sayeth RJack: ROFL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow some proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a real operating system. Microsoft hates the thought that folks will understand the GPL is unenforceable. That's the reason Microsoft embraced the GPL -- it suppressed new competition. Perhaps the Linux kernel will continue to be improved under a free (free as in freedom) license such as BSD or Apache. You still don't get it, RJ. The GPL is the most popular free licence, and that popularity has a reason. Working on a BSD kernal is so much less popular than working on Linux. That has a reason, too. Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point? You are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually have to make sense. What's your rhetorical focus? Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow some proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a real operating system. Microsoft hates the thought that folks will understand the GPL is unenforceable. That's the reason Microsoft embraced the GPL -- it suppressed new competition. Perhaps the Linux kernel will continue to be improved under a free (free as in freedom) license such as BSD or Apache. You still don't get it, RJ. The GPL is the most popular free licence, and that popularity has a reason. Working on a BSD kernal is so much less popular than working on Linux. That has a reason, too. Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point? You are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually have to make sense. What's your rhetorical focus? Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it. If, for some currently inconceivable reason, Linux was relicenced under what you call a free as in freedom licence, many developers would cease development. This might leave a mere rump, scarcely larger than the groups which maintain the BSD kernels. Sincerely, RJack :) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow some proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a real operating system. Microsoft hates the thought that folks will understand the GPL is unenforceable. That's the reason Microsoft embraced the GPL -- it suppressed new competition. Perhaps the Linux kernel will continue to be improved under a free (free as in freedom) license such as BSD or Apache. You still don't get it, RJ. The GPL is the most popular free licence, and that popularity has a reason. Working on a BSD kernal is so much less popular than working on Linux. That has a reason, too. Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point? You are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually have to make sense. What's your rhetorical focus? Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it. If, for some currently inconceivable reason, Linux was relicenced under what you call a free as in freedom licence, many developers would cease development. Let them go home, place their candle under a basket and buy Microsoft software. No problem there. This might leave a mere rump, scarcely larger than the groups which maintain the BSD kernels. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point? You are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually have to make sense. What's your rhetorical focus? Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it. Well, that's half of the story. Linux has been written to support a preexisting GNU userland. And that userland has a tradition of being popular and freely available quite before Linux. And BSD became freely available only some time after GNU/Linux. The GNU userland is unpopular among BSD developers because, well, they are BSD developers. And because their kernel of choice already comes in one package with a userland. So quite a lot of popularity of GNU/Linux comes from GNU, and not necessarily just because GNU is GPLed. If, for some currently inconceivable reason, Linux was relicenced under what you call a free as in freedom licence, many developers would cease development. The Linux kernel developers tend not to be all too religious about licensing. Well, they do, but they call their religion pragmatism. This might leave a mere rump, scarcely larger than the groups which maintain the BSD kernels. I doubt it. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
David Kastrup wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point? You are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually have to make sense. What's your rhetorical focus? Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it. Well, that's half of the story. Linux has been written to support a preexisting GNU userland. And that userland has a tradition of being popular and freely available quite before Linux. And BSD became freely available only some time after GNU/Linux. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The University of California at Berkeley has a long history of pioneering software development and software distribution models. Having existed in some form since the early 1980s, the BSD licence can claim to be the oldest of the open source licences. In fact its long life has resulted in there being more than one version, and it is slightly misleading to speak of the BSD licence as a result. Although the history of its evolution is an interesting one, for the purposes of this document we will confine ourselves to detailing the last major revision that resulted in what is today called the modified BSD licence or the new BSD licence. http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/modbsd.xml Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point? You are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually have to make sense. What's your rhetorical focus? Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it. Well, that's half of the story. Linux has been written to support a preexisting GNU userland. And that userland has a tradition of being popular and freely available quite before Linux. And BSD became freely available only some time after GNU/Linux. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The University of California at Berkeley has a long history of pioneering software development and software distribution models. Having existed in some form since the early 1980s, the BSD licence can claim to be the oldest of the open source licences. We are not talking about the age of the BSD license(s), but the time when a complete BSD type operating system became available freely. USL v. BSDi was settled just in 1993. URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
David Kastrup wrote: [...] We are not talking about the age of the BSD license(s), but the time when a complete BSD type operating system became available freely. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7tvI6JCXD0 Hth, silly dak. regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it. Well, that's half of the story. Linux has been written to support a preexisting GNU userland. And that userland has a tradition of being popular and freely available quite before Linux. What is the reason for that popularity (amongst developers), if it's not the GPL. GPL vs. BSD license was one of the few big differences between the projects way back then. And BSD became freely available only some time after GNU/Linux. Yet how does that explain why Linux is so much more popular amongst developers than a BSD kernel? BSD became freely available at a very early stage of the development of GNU/Linux, early enough to catch up on its merits. The GNU userland is unpopular among BSD developers because, well, they are BSD developers. And because their kernel of choice already comes in one package with a userland. The BSDs include some GNU stuff, just as GNU/Linux includes some BSD licensed stuff. So quite a lot of popularity of GNU/Linux comes from GNU, and not necessarily just because GNU is GPLed. Would you argue that GNU would have become just as popular (amongst its developers), had it been licensed under something like the BSD licence? I would doubt that very much. If, for some currently inconceivable reason, Linux was relicenced under what you call a free as in freedom licence, many developers would cease development. The Linux kernel developers tend not to be all too religious about licensing. Well, they do, but they call their religion pragmatism. That pragmatism being that they can get on with development without bothering too much about the licence, which they know they can trust. How happy would these folks be about being unpaid hackers for, e.g., Apple? This might leave a mere rump, scarcely larger than the groups which maintain the BSD kernels. I doubt it. Well there's little prospect of that experiment taking place, thankfully. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Alan Mackenzie wrote: Well there's little prospect of that experiment taking place, thankfully. The GPL is gasping for breath Alan. It'll soon be DEAD. Get over it Alan. Copyleft style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law. You may, perhaps, continue to extol the virtues of the GPL under the patchwork of laws of Europe but it's dead in the USA. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it. Well, that's half of the story. Linux has been written to support a preexisting GNU userland. And that userland has a tradition of being popular and freely available quite before Linux. What is the reason for that popularity (amongst developers), if it's not the GPL. Quality. It was traditional for UNIX utilities to dump core when fed random garbage. And availability. GNU utilities ran on more than just UNIX systems. GPL vs. BSD license was one of the few big differences between the projects way back then. Uh, not even at Linux birthtime (1991) there was a complete freely available BSD system. But there already was a GNU userland under DOS/Windows and some other systems. Life saver. And BSD became freely available only some time after GNU/Linux. Yet how does that explain why Linux is so much more popular amongst developers than a BSD kernel? BSD became freely available at a very early stage of the development of GNU/Linux, early enough to catch up on its merits. Still not with a GNU userland. The GNU userland is unpopular among BSD developers because, well, they are BSD developers. And because their kernel of choice already comes in one package with a userland. The BSDs include some GNU stuff, Not the normal userland. It already has one. just as GNU/Linux includes some BSD licensed stuff. But there is no preexisting GNU alternative for that which it includes BSD licensed. So quite a lot of popularity of GNU/Linux comes from GNU, and not necessarily just because GNU is GPLed. Would you argue that GNU would have become just as popular (amongst its developers), had it been licensed under something like the BSD licence? I would doubt that very much. Speculative history. We won't find out. Well there's little prospect of that experiment taking place, thankfully. Yup. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
On 3/9/2010 11:48 AM, RJack wrote: Copyleft style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law. No, that's not correct. A court has enforced an open license: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As the Second Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976), the unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the proprietor of the copyright. Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar- denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
RJack u...@example.net writes: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Well there's little prospect of that experiment taking place, thankfully. The GPL is gasping for breath Alan. It'll soon be DEAD. Get over it Alan. Copyleft style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law. Quite right, since they are no contracts and the recipient did not sign them. And the GPL says so itself. But that does not change that _copyright_ stays enforceable, and while that is the case, a license like the GPL which gives conditions for additional permissions is likely welcome to the recipients of software. Once copyright falls, the GPL is a piece of toilet paper, while the licenses like shrink-wrap and click-through which require the recipient to agree to obnoxious restrictions on the rights that would properly be his under copyright, will still be able to affect people who did agree to be bound in that manner. You may, perhaps, continue to extol the virtues of the GPL under the patchwork of laws of Europe but it's dead in the USA. Stay away from your keyboard during your wet dreams. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/9/2010 11:48 AM, RJack wrote: Copyleft style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law. No, that's not correct. A court has enforced an open license: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As the Second Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976), the unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the proprietor of the copyright. Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar- denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief. Take your citation to the courts in Zimbabwe Hyman. The federal courts of the United States ignore CAFC authority in areas outside their unique patent appeals areas. CAFC copyright decisions are valuable only as toilet paper in federal courthouse restrooms. I hope and pray the SFLC cites to your CAFC decision. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
On 3/9/2010 12:14 PM, RJack wrote: The federal courts of the United States ignore CAFC authority in areas outside their unique patent appeals areas. Since the CAFC reasoned out the case correctly, we can expect that other courts will do the same. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/9/2010 12:14 PM, RJack wrote: The federal courts of the United States ignore CAFC authority in areas outside their unique patent appeals areas. Since the CAFC reasoned out the case correctly, we can expect that other courts will do the same. Ratchet up your hopes Hyman. Ratchet up your hopes. Imagine a victory just like you imagine settlement agreements. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
