Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:57:33 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ. They go on and on and on obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and coherent. A typical one of your posts assumes, often tacitly, something you showed in some previous post, sometime. Even you haven't got a mental overview over your many hundred, possibly several thousand, posts on this worn out topic. Please put your arguments in a coherent form on a web site, somewhere. Hear, hear. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:57:33 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ. They go on and on and on obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and coherent. Your whining continues obsessively Alan. Since you obviously don't understand kill-files: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file please read up on the merits of kill-files and then implement one. A kill-file will save you untold anguish, as the characters from my posts that appear on your LCD screen will certainly force you to read them. A typical one of your posts assumes, often tacitly, something you showed in some previous post, sometime. Even you haven't got a mental overview over your many hundred, possibly several thousand, posts on this worn out topic. Please put your arguments in a coherent form on a web site, somewhere. Hear, hear. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:57:33 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ. They go on and on and on obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and coherent. Your whining continues obsessively Alan. Since you obviously don't understand kill-files: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file please read up on the merits of kill-files and then implement one. Hi, Rjack, please understand - I'm not whining, I'm trying to help you get your point across; I'm giving you feedback intended to be helpful. A kill-file will save you untold anguish, as the characters from my posts that appear on your LCD screen will certainly force you to read them. That's like saying an air raid shelter will save the anguish of bombs. Again, as a matter of interest, there are two different verbs in German meaning to persuade: ueberzeugen means to persuade by means of reason; ueberreden means to persuade by browbeating, shouting, intimidation. What you are trying to do here is the latter. It's a shame there aren't two corresponding words in English. You may not have noticed, but nobody's engaging you any more in serious debate about your idea. It's been exhausted, talked out. You even admit you've posted several hundred times on the topic. Why can't you talk about something else, something others are interested in too? That's what newsgroups and mailing lists are for. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Since you obviously don't understand kill-files: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file please read up on the merits of kill-files and then implement one. That's like saying an air raid shelter will save the anguish of bombs. Exactly. RJack keeps advising killfiles, fully aware that anyone who replies to his messages will happily quote his nonsense to those of us who do bother to killfile him. (Now including me, grrr!) -- Timothy Musson FSF Associate Member http://russianclub.wikidot.com/http://www.fsf.org/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:57:33 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ. They go on and on and on obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and coherent. Your whining continues obsessively Alan. Since you obviously don't understand kill-files: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file please read up on the merits of kill-files and then implement one. Hi, Rjack, please understand - I'm not whining, I'm trying to help you get your point across; I'm giving you feedback intended to be helpful. Perhaps you should drop your attempts to help me get my point across as futile. Try and read a good book instead. Coffee goes well with a good book. You are simply insulting anyone who hasn't decided to kill-file my posts. Are other readers of Usenet to dumb to make up their own minds? Your condescension is no more effective than are your insults. A kill-file will save you untold anguish, as the characters from my posts that appear on your LCD screen will certainly force you to read them. That's like saying an air raid shelter will save the anguish of bombs. Buzz bombs over London huh? Again, as a matter of interest, there are two different verbs in German meaning to persuade: ueberzeugen means to persuade by means of reason; ueberreden means to persuade by browbeating, shouting, intimidation. What you are trying to do here is the latter. It's a shame there aren't two corresponding words in English. Wow! Your teutonic superiority is self-evident. You're a veritable Houston Stewart Chamberlain. You may not have noticed, but nobody's engaging you any more in serious debate about your idea. It's been exhausted, talked out. You even admit you've posted several hundred times on the topic. Why can't you talk about something else, something others are interested in too? That's what newsgroups and mailing lists are for. Screen out the noise. That's what kill-files are for. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Tim wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Since you obviously don't understand kill-files: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file please read up on the merits of kill-files and then implement one. That's like saying an air raid shelter will save the anguish of bombs. Exactly. RJack keeps advising killfiles, fully aware that anyone who replies to his messages will happily quote his nonsense to those of us who do bother to killfile him. (Now including me, grrr!) Ah. There may be a few individuals whose thinking you cannot control. Just kill-file anyone who replies to his messages. That'll sure 'nuff teach 'em to disagree with *your* boycott! By golly. -- Timothy Musson FSF Associate Member http://russianclub.wikidot.com/http://www.fsf.org/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal. And he protests: Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying. ... You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of just denying and lying. OK, readers, I need your assistance here. I admit that I have not read everything that Rjack has ever posted. Nor, I suspect, has anybody else, with the possible exception of amicus_curious. But in the sample that I did read, I have not seen Rjack ever specify exactly what in the GPL is illegal. For a short while I thought he was referring to antitrust, but not, he said he was not. Has anybody seen any specific description from Rjack in his posts that tells us what in the GPL is illegal? Until you understand what the term illegal means when used in the context of contract construction any specific description will be meaningless since you will reflexively deny that any specific description whatsoever is illegal. Here's a definition: A contract may be unenforceable due to illegality. The illegality may take different forms. The contract in its entirety may be illegal or the contract may have an illegal term. -- Essentials of Contract Law, Phyllis Hurley Frey, Published by Cengage Learning, 2000, ISBN 0766821455, 9780766821453. The courts apply rules of contract construction when construing a contract. Break one of those rules and an illegal term may result. An illegal term could comprise different forms: violation of a criminal statute, civil statute or a violation of a common law rule of contract construction. An illegal term may cause all or just a severable part of a contract to be unenforceable. The only section of the GPL that is of great controversay is Section 2(b) which attempts to establish the principle of copyleft: 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. The illegal part of the term is ... licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. The part ... under the terms of this License means that all future derivative works must be under the same GPL license terms. 1) This violates 17 USC sec 301(a) which is a civil statute of The United States Code (Copyright Act). 2) Section 2(b) also violates the common law rule of statutory construction which holds that a contract to make a contract is unenforceable when all the essential terms that bind the future parties are not present: [A] contract to make a contract is enforceable only where all material terms have been agreed upon. 1 Corbin, Contracts, sec. 2.8, at 131, 133-34 (Perillo ed. 1993). Prisma Zona's own statements, and the service contract drafts which it attaches, show that material issues were still open.; Prisma Zona Exploratoria de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Calderón 310 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002). Under Michigan law, [t]o be enforceable, a contract to enter into a future contract must specify all its material and essential terms and leave none to be agreed upon as the result of future negotiations. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. v. Waldo, 286 N.W. 630, 632 (Mich. 1939)” Now Rahul, had you *actually* been reading any of my posts, you would know that the above specific descriptions of illegality are a repetition of my post of Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44 to gnu.misc.discuss, misc.int-property, comp.os.linux.advocacy. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ed4b928bd2684836 Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
RonB wrote: Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal. And he protests: Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying. ... You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of just denying and lying. OK, readers, I need your assistance here. I admit that I have not read everything that Rjack has ever posted. Nor, I suspect, has anybody else, with the possible exception of amicus_curious. But in the sample that I did read, I have not seen Rjack ever specify exactly what in the GPL is illegal. For a short while I thought he was referring to antitrust, but not, he said he was not. Has anybody seen any specific description from Rjack in his posts that tells us what in the GPL is illegal? I killfiled Rjack shortly after his first message showed up. I have no idea what he's yammering on about -- but I'm guessing he's pretty much a crank in the Snit mode. It doesn't matter how convincing your argument might be -- he'll just rewind and re-spew -- starting the whole thing all over again. That's the crank way. Best to just killfile him. I totally agree. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack u...@example.net writes: [snip] You're flat out lying Rahul. I never claimed that. You're a desperate, despicable, deleterious desperado indeed. Your mother should wash your mouth out with soap for claiming such things. [snip] If true, such claims are irrelevant. Ad hominen attacks never address issues raised in argument. Ad hominen attacks are a mark of desperation denoting that you have no rational reply. [...] Did Rjack just admit that he himself has no rational arguments? -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org http://www.ghoti.net/~kst Nokia We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this. -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, Yes Minister ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
I had figured that Rjack was saying that terms in the GPL are unenforceable because they are illegal. But now, in his latest posting, he seems to be saying the opposite: that terms in the GPL are illegal because they are unenforceable. Which is cyclic enough that nobody will ever win this argument. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
In gnu.misc.discuss Keith Thompson ks...@mib.org wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: [snip] You're flat out lying Rahul. I never claimed that. You're a desperate, despicable, deleterious desperado indeed. Your mother should wash your mouth out with soap for claiming such things. [snip] If true, such claims are irrelevant. Ad hominen attacks never address issues raised in argument. Ad hominen attacks are a mark of desperation denoting that you have no rational reply. [...] Did Rjack just admit that he himself has no rational arguments? Indeed he did, probably without realising it. Sometimes, you've just got to laugh. :-) His usual trick is never to give a complete systematic account of his thesis. You never get more than, say, 25% of it in a single post, and often that is so prolix as to be unreadable. I doubt he's ever given a systematic readable account of his idea in a post. And if you ask him a reasonable pertinent question which he can't answer, he responds with abuse instead. His notion is pure sophistry. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Happy pagan fertility rite, RJack! In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Rahul Dhesi wrote: If the GPL contains any illegal terms, it should be easy to prove this. Just find some statute or case law according to which GPL-like permissions are illegal. If you can find none, then perhaps the GPL does not contain illegal terms. During the last few hundred or so postings to this group, The last few hundred. Or so. Does it not occur to you that we're all bored to tears with this minor sub-subject? It's really not that important. , you have consistently ignored the reasons I have cited for the lack of enforceability of the GPL license terms under the common law of contracts and through preemption by U.S. copyright law. Since I have cited a plethora of U.S. statute and case law supporting my arguments, you are well informed as to their nature and substance. You need only review the messages to this group to refresh your memory. These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ. They go on and on and on obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and coherent. A typical one of your posts assumes, often tacitly, something you showed in some previous post, sometime. Even you haven't got a mental overview over your many hundred, possibly several thousand, posts on this worn out topic. Please put your arguments in a coherent form on a web site, somewhere. You may continuously intone phrases such as *If* the GPL contains any illegal terms... and ...*perhaps* the GPL does not contain illegal terms until hell freezes over and nothing will ever be resolved. The ifs and perhaps lead only to repetition. Likewise, debating semantics concerning the meaning of illegal or similar words leads only to repetition. We're completely agreed on this point. Furthermore, this repetition is boring and highly undesirable on this mailing list. If you wish to claim the GPL is enforceable then you may wish to present your own arguments as to why it is, just as Eben a license is not a contract Moglen did and we'll let the readers of the World decide. Its enforceability is a sensible default assumption. The GPL was put together by a competent lawyer, is perfectly clear in what it says, is perfectly reasonable in what it says, has so far stood the test of time, and has been ruled valid by judges whenever it has been challenged in court. Your arguments, on the other hand, as much as I can make them out, seem based on arcane interpretations of USA law, sometimes citing cases going back the best part of a century judged in social conditions which simply don't exist any more. They also seem based on the notion that absolute logical consistency holds in law. So put your argument up on a web site, and leave some room here for people to talk about something interesting. 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: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Alan Mackenzie wrote: Happy pagan fertility rite, RJack! . . . whining . . . . . . more whining . . . Its enforceability is a sensible default assumption. The GPL was put together by a competent lawyer, I didn't know Richard Stallman was a lawyer. Was that pseudo-fact also a default assumption? is perfectly clear in what it says, is perfectly reasonable in what it says, has so far stood the test of time, and has been ruled valid by judges whenever it has been challenged in court. The GPL has never been interpreted by a U.S. court. Your arguments, on the other hand, as much as I can make them out, seem based on arcane interpretations of USA law, sometimes citing cases going back the best part of a century judged in social conditions which simply don't exist any more. They also seem based on the notion that absolute logical consistency holds in law. So put your argument up on a web site, and leave some room here for people to talk about something interesting. As long as the Free Software Foundation claims enforceability under U.S. law and harasses folks through bogus lawsuits, I shall counter their attempts at socialist propaganda. Countless blogs mindlessly repeat their fiction and this demands correction. Rulings in non-U.S. jurisdictions are irrelevant to me as I have explicitly disclaimed knowledge of non-U.S. law. You Marxist folks may wallow in Stallman's socialism all you wish. I don't expect you to grasp or follow U.S. law. Dogs don't do nuclear physics and socialists don't do capitalism. If you don't like or understand the arguments I present, then by all means use your kill-filter to raise your comfort level. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack made two ludicrious claims. First, that the GPL causes promissory estoppel, and as a result, anybody can copy GPL software as he pleases, with no limitations. I will discuss this later. Second, that the GPL, if treated as causing a contract to form, is unenforceable due to illegality. Let's discuss this below. Having claimed that the GPL contains illegal terms, Rjack is having a very, very hard time specifying just what in the GPL is illegal. He sort of implied that the ilelgality came from antitrust, when he wrote: The licensing fees in the GPL are price fixed a no charge to all third parties. Price-fixing sounds like antitrust, doesn't it? But when I probed about this, Rjack denied that he was thinking of antitrust. OK, let's grant him that. And just as well, bcause we know there is no antitrust issue. We know there isn't because Daniel Wallace, in Rjack style, argued that repeatedly and lost in court about five times (!) before giving up. What else is there that could be illegal in the GPL? I can't find anything. And neither, you might have notice, can Rjack. So in his latest posting, his reasoning now essentially is: If you can't prove that the GPL is enforceable, then it must be illegal. Two problems here. First, as a practical matter, the GPL is enforceable, because it's routinely enforced. Second, even if it were not, that would not necessarily make it illegal. Illegality is just one of many possible reasons why a contract (if the GPL causes a contract to form) might be unenforceable. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack made two ludicrious claims. First, that the GPL causes promissory estoppel, and as a result, anybody can copy GPL software as he pleases, with no limitations. You're flat out lying Rahul. I never claimed that. You're a desperate, despicable, deleterious desperado indeed. Your mother should wash your mouth out with soap for claiming such things. I will discuss this later. Second, that the GPL, if treated as causing a contract to form, is unenforceable due to illegality. I have certainly claimed that. Let's discuss this below. Having claimed that the GPL contains illegal terms, Rjack is having a very, very hard time specifying just what in the GPL is illegal. Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying. He sort of implied that the ilelgality came from antitrust, when he wrote: The licensing fees in the GPL are price fixed a no charge to all third parties. Price-fixing sounds like antitrust, doesn't it? But when I probed about this, Rjack denied that he was thinking of antitrust. OK, let's grant him that. And just as well, bcause we know there is no antitrust issue. We know there isn't because Daniel Wallace, in Rjack style, argued that repeatedly and lost in court about five times (!) before giving up. If true, such claims are irrelevant. Ad hominen attacks never address issues raised in argument. Ad hominen attacks are a mark of desperation denoting that you have no rational reply. What else is there that could be illegal in the GPL? I can't find anything. You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of just denying and lying. And neither, you might have notice, can Rjack. Sure I have. You just keep denying and then lying. So in his latest posting, his reasoning now essentially is: If you can't prove that the GPL is enforceable, then it must be illegal. Two problems here. First, as a practical matter, the GPL is enforceable, because it's routinely enforced. Just show me the U.S. court decisions -- not your fantasies. Second, even if it were not, that would not necessarily make it illegal. Nice leap of logic in hedging your bet there Rahul. Illegality is just one of many possible reasons why a contract (if the GPL causes a contract to form) might be unenforceable. Name one reason other than violation of the canons of contract construction. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal. And he protests: Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying. ... You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of just denying and lying. OK, readers, I need your assistance here. I admit that I have not read everything that Rjack has ever posted. Nor, I suspect, has anybody else, with the possible exception of amicus_curious. But in the sample that I did read, I have not seen Rjack ever specify exactly what in the GPL is illegal. For a short while I thought he was referring to antitrust, but not, he said he was not. Has anybody seen any specific description from Rjack in his posts that tells us what in the GPL is illegal? I killfiled Rjack shortly after his first message showed up. I have no idea what he's yammering on about -- but I'm guessing he's pretty much a crank in the Snit mode. It doesn't matter how convincing your argument might be -- he'll just rewind and re-spew -- starting the whole thing all over again. That's the crank way. Best to just killfile him. -- RonB There's a story there...somewhere ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
RonB stated in post grrlk7$64...@news.motzarella.org on 4/11/09 8:01 PM: Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal. And he protests: Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying. ... You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of just denying and lying. OK, readers, I need your assistance here. I admit that I have not read everything that Rjack has ever posted. Nor, I suspect, has anybody else, with the possible exception of amicus_curious. But in the sample that I did read, I have not seen Rjack ever specify exactly what in the GPL is illegal. For a short while I thought he was referring to antitrust, but not, he said he was not. Has anybody seen any specific description from Rjack in his posts that tells us what in the GPL is illegal? I killfiled Rjack shortly after his first message showed up. I have no idea what he's yammering on about -- but I'm guessing he's pretty much a crank in the Snit mode. It doesn't matter how convincing your argument might be -- he'll just rewind and re-spew -- starting the whole thing all over again. That's the crank way. Best to just killfile him. LOL! You imply that you made reasoned arguments in response to my comments. Hey, I bet you that you cannot find a single example. And you *know* I am right. -- [INSERT .SIG HERE] ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
RonB ronb02nos...@gmail.com writes: Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal. And he protests: Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying. ... You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of just denying and lying. OK, readers, I need your assistance here. I admit that I have not read everything that Rjack has ever posted. Nor, I suspect, has anybody else, with the possible exception of amicus_curious. But in the sample that I did read, I have not seen Rjack ever specify exactly what in the GPL is illegal. For a short while I thought he was referring to antitrust, but not, he said he was not. Has anybody seen any specific description from Rjack in his posts that tells us what in the GPL is illegal? I killfiled Rjack shortly after his first message showed up. I have no idea what he's yammering on about Sound's about right. You certainly didn't have a clue about UI consistency and made yourself look pretty ignorant there. So same there then? -- In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack u...@example.net writes: (I'm assuming that Rjack's recent sources of authority, namely, answers.com and merriam-webster.com, will not suffice here.) I had hoped after trying to teach you that the meaning of the term illegal changed with a change contexts, that a little something would have soaked in. It obviously didn't. Well, consider this. We have a couple of hundred years (maybe more?) of case law discussing when a contract should be unenforceable due to illegality. But ignoring all that case law, you went instead to answers.com and merriam-webster.com to prove your point. I was sardonically pointing out that you quote the authorities you want to quote, not the authorities most relevant to the issue. Now for obvious reasons I don't expect our friend amicus_curious to cite any case law. But from you, Rjack, I had expected better. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: (I'm assuming that Rjack's recent sources of authority, namely, answers.com and merriam-webster.com, will not suffice here.) I had hoped after trying to teach you that the meaning of the term illegal changed with a change contexts, that a little something would have soaked in. It obviously didn't. Well, consider this. We have a couple of hundred years (maybe more?) of case law discussing when a contract should be unenforceable due to illegality. But ignoring all that case law, you went instead to answers.com and merriam-webster.com to prove your point. ***Rahul compared a breach of contract issue to a criminal offense: So now, according to Rjack, suddenly, the GPL contains illegal terms! In other words, if you try to enforce a provision in the GPL, it's like you are trying to kill somebody, and the courts won't let you ***Amicus_curious replied: I think you are placing too much emphasis on the term illegal. In the GPL sense, since it is a civil issue, the term is equivalent to unenforcable or invalid or any other word that boils down to being unable to recover damages. ***Rahul replied: Rjack, he's posting this nonsense to defend you. This would be a good oportunity for you to find some citations proving him wrong -- but will you do so? ***Rjack replied: The terms illegal, unenforceable and invalid are synonyms used in civil law. Amicus curious is simply emphasising the fact that you made reference to a criminal offense (kill somebody) when the context is contractual or tortuous in kind. I was sardonically pointing out that you quote the authorities you want to quote, not the authorities most relevant to the issue. What were those authorities that were most relevant to the issue? Now for obvious reasons I don't expect our friend amicus_curious to cite any case law. But from you, Rjack, I had expected better. Rahul there is a tried and true maxim that applies here: ***WHEN YOU'RE IN HOLE STOP DIGGING*** Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack has outdone himself. I objected to his quoting answers.com and merriam-webster.com to show that the GPL contains illegal terms. I suggested that, since we have a couple of hundred years or more of case law discussing when a contract should be unenforceable due to illegality, Rjack ought to be able to provide some case law citations. Intesad, Rjack went to answers.com and merriam-webster.com to try to prove his point. So now he responds: ***Rahul compared a breach of contract issue to a criminal offense: Talk about a non-sequitor. Rjack, I thought you said the GPL was unenforceable? But now you are talking about a breach of contract. I didn't compare breach of contract to a criminal offense. In fact I didn't even mention breach of contract, since you were arguing that the GPL was unenforceable. If I agreed that the GPL is unenforceable, it would be silly of me to talk about the GPL being breached, even if I agreed, and I don't, that the GPL normally causes a contract to form. I did say that killing somebody would be an example of something being illegal. Im still looking for some case law citations (and that doesn't mean quotes from answers.com and merriam-webster.com :-) showing that the GPL contains any illegal term. If you can't find any state law citations, how about something from your previosly-favored (in the pre-answers.com days) authority on the common law of contracts, i.e., the Second Circuit? -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack has outdone himself. I objected to his quoting answers.com and merriam-webster.com to show that the GPL contains illegal terms. I suggested that, since we have a couple of hundred years or more of case law discussing when a contract should be unenforceable due to illegality, Rjack ought to be able to provide some case law citations. Intesad, Rjack went to answers.com and merriam-webster.com to try to prove his point. In General: Whether Medeiros read the provisions concerning additional and underage drivers or not, he must be presumed to have known the law and intended to be bound by an objectively reasonable understanding of the terms of the contract, and Shasta Ford was entitled to so assume. Indeed, a sine qua non of contract doctrine is a shared expectation that the parties will execute the contract in accord with the law. See John D. Calamari Joseph M. Perillo, Contracts 889 (3rd ed.1987) (noting that parties may not generally bargain for or agree to an illegal term and that [a]s a general rule an illegal bargain is unenforceable and often void.)1; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 143 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1998). http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/143/143.F3d.1260.97-15781.html Why not try CHAPTER 9 p.186 Essentials of Contract Law; FreyFrey, West Legal Studies http://books.google.com/books?id=WrH-4YHvsF4Cpg=PA186lpg=PA186dq=%22illegal+term%22+unenforceable+contractsource=blots=P5eIw4nsuLsig=LtOqGNN9omxK9w5zOw6Ttbek788hl=enei=T67fSddi0eKdB7mL2K0Jsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=4 How about Section 1702 NEGOTIATING AND DRAFTING CONTRACT BOILERPLATE;Tina Stark http://books.google.com/books?id=hhbeYinQIS0Cpg=PA541lpg=PA541dq=%22illegal+term%22+unenforceable+contract+%22second+circuit%22source=blots=Y2uFNyLDOvsig=0F9OFGLx1nH4o5-PFDF2LFN_fuQhl=enei=qLTfScG9C-TfnQfuhPG3CQsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=1 Why not Google [ illegal agreements unenforceable contracts ]? So now he responds: ***Rahul compared a breach of contract issue to a criminal offense: Talk about a non-sequitor. Rjack, I thought you said the GPL was unenforceable? But now you are talking about a breach of contract. I didn't compare breach of contract to a criminal offense. In fact I didn't even mention breach of contract, since you were arguing that the GPL was unenforceable. If I agreed that the GPL is unenforceable, it would be silly of me to talk about the GPL being breached, even if I agreed, and I don't, that the GPL normally causes a contract to form. I did say that killing somebody would be an example of something being illegal. Im still looking for some case law citations (and that doesn't mean quotes from answers.com and merriam-webster.com :-) showing that the GPL contains any illegal term. Sigh. Since the GPL has never been reviewed by a court with proper jurisdiction, you're going to look for a loong time. Since you obviously don't understand what an illegal term means in general contract interpretation your quest is ultimately futile anyway. If you can't find any state law citations, how about something from your previosly-favored (in the pre-answers.com days) authority on the common law of contracts, i.e., the Second Circuit? You can continue to parse the meaning of what is is but what you are demonstrating is that you don't understand when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. Ah Rahul. Did you think you could fool a Corlene? Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Sigh. Since the GPL has never been reviewed by a court with proper jurisdiction, you're going to look for a loong time. Since you obviously don't understand what an illegal term means in general contract interpretation your quest is ultimately futile anyway. Oh dear! The GPL was recently upheld in its entirety in a German court. Civil courts throughout the civilised world tend to uphold what is just. There is every reason to believe that courts outside of Germany will uphold the GPL too, since not to do so would constitue injustice. 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: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack is trying to show that the GPL contains illegal terms. Indeed, a sine qua non of contract doctrine is a shared expectation that the parties will execute the contract in accord with the law http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/143/143.F3d.1260.97-15781.html This is a case about an unlicensed 15-year-old driver who killed somebody and then wanted to get the benefit of somebody else's insurance policy. Hard to find any similar facts here. Are you claiming, Rjack, that somebody copying GPL software beyond the scope of the license is like an unlicensed driver? If so, the case goes against you, because the unlicensed driver lost the case. On the other hand, if you intended this case to simply provide a general statement of the law, then I fail to see how it proves that the GPL contains any illegal terms. Same problem with all the other references. If the GPL contains any illegal terms, it should be easy to prove this. Just find some statute or case law according to which GPL-like permissions are illegal. If you can find none, then perhaps the GPL does not contain illegal terms. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Sigh. Since the GPL has never been reviewed by a court with proper jurisdiction, you're going to look for a loong time. Since you obviously don't understand what an illegal term means in general contract interpretation your quest is ultimately futile anyway. Oh dear! The GPL was recently upheld in its entirety in a German court. Civil courts throughout the civilised world tend to uphold what is just. There is every reason to believe that courts outside of Germany will uphold the GPL too, since not to do so would constitue injustice. Sincerely, Rjack :) civilised world ... but Rjack is from U.S. ... ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack is trying to show that the GPL contains illegal terms. Indeed, a sine qua non of contract doctrine is a shared expectation that the parties will execute the contract in accord with the law http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/143/143.F3d.1260.97-15781.html This is a case about an unlicensed 15-year-old driver who killed somebody and then wanted to get the benefit of somebody else's insurance policy. Hard to find any similar facts here. Are you claiming, Rjack, that somebody copying GPL software beyond the scope of the license is like an unlicensed driver? If so, the case goes against you, because the unlicensed driver lost the case. On the other hand, if you intended this case to simply provide a general statement of the law, then I fail to see how it proves that the GPL contains any illegal terms. I am witness to your failings. Same problem with all the other references. If the GPL contains any illegal terms, it should be easy to prove this. Just find some statute or case law according to which GPL-like permissions are illegal. If you can find none, then perhaps the GPL does not contain illegal terms. During the last few hundred or so postings to this group, you have consistently ignored the reasons I have cited for the lack of enforceability of the GPL license terms under the common law of contracts and through preemption by U.S. copyright law. Since I have cited a plethora of U.S. statute and case law supporting my arguments, you are well informed as to their nature and substance. You need only review the messages to this group to refresh your memory. You may continuously intone phrases such as *If* the GPL contains any illegal terms... and ...*perhaps* the GPL does not contain illegal terms until hell freezes over and nothing will ever be resolved. The ifs and perhaps lead only to repetition. Likewise, debating semantics concerning the meaning of illegal or similar words leads only to repetition. If you wish to claim the GPL is enforceable then you may wish to present your own arguments as to why it is, just as Eben a license is not a contract Moglen did and we'll let the readers of the World decide. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack u...@example.net writes: Your remark concerning use is interesting. There is a subtle distinction between use in the context of patents and that of copyrights. The patent grant states: [ a long, tedious, legal argument ] More and more, when I read Rjack's flawed and tedious arguments that despite quoting many alleged legal authorities repeatedly come to erroneous conclusions, I'm reminded of the lawsuit filed by a plaintiff identifying himself as Daniel Wallace. Just like Rjack goes on and on, so did Wallace. Each time his complaint in court proved to be worthless, he amended it and refiled it, and kept going until the judge finally told him he had had enough chances. Wallace still didn't give up -- he kept going until the Seventh Circuit, too, told him enough. http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/157903. Rjack, like Wallace, won't give up. As soon as he loses the argument, he reposts it under a new subject heading. Rjack, like Wallace http://www.danwal.com/rescission.html, makes a big deal of the word rescission and apparently does not distinguish between that and cancellation of a contract. Rjack, like Wallace http://www.danwal.com/preemption.html. focusses a bit too much on preemption. Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace? -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxthexg.usenet.us.com wrote in message news:grlfag$9e...@blue.rahul.net... Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace? -- A very major difference is that judges were ruling against Wallace and that has not yet happened to Rjack. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace? -- A very major difference is that judges were ruling against Wallace and that has not yet happened to Rjack. Ah yes! I had forgotten that Rjack has overruled the CAFC (repeatedly). I appreciate the correction. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxthexg.usenet.us.com wrote in message news:grli7b$f2...@blue.rahul.net... amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace? -- A very major difference is that judges were ruling against Wallace and that has not yet happened to Rjack. Ah yes! I had forgotten that Rjack has overruled the CAFC (repeatedly). I appreciate the correction. The CAFC decision was not so clear regarding the is a license a contract discussion. Rather it turned on whether there were opportunities for irreparable harm arising from the conditions in the Artistic license and the motion was remanded to the district to litigate that issue. I think that would be the case whether or not the license was considered a contract or whatever else it could be. The only importance to this is whether or not there should be a presumption of harm and so an injunction awarded regardless of the financial damage caused by the violation. Contracts have a balance of harms and many other issues. The copyright, though, is coming under the same sort of consideration, i.e. the presumption of irreparable harm is no longer the case. Interestingly enough, the district decided that there wasn't anything that rose to that level that had been submitted by the plaintiff. Somehow or another, the jursisdiction of the CAFC is now under dispute since it arises somehow out of there having to be a patent issue in the case and that has apparently, according to the defendant, been removed from the case. So now the case may go to another appeals court that is more focused on the copyright issue. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi wrote: amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace? -- A very major difference is that judges were ruling against Wallace and that has not yet happened to Rjack. Ah yes! I had forgotten that Rjack has overruled the CAFC (repeatedly). I appreciate the correction. Courts disagree with other courts all the time. Constant disagreement among the Appellate Circuits is a major reason for a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court. Present a rational, logical argument supported by legal authority and have at it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with disagreeing with a court when relying on alternate but conflicting legal authority. Present your legal arguments and have at it. Using ad homonem arguments because your angry with someone will convince no one. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack u...@example.net writes: Present a rational, logical argument supported by legal authority and have at it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with disagreeing with a court when relying on alternate but conflicting legal authority. The CAFC panel, comprising three smart people, already unanimously provided you with a rational, logical argument supported by legal authority. If that doesn't satisfy you, nothing will. The JMRI case may soon be heard again by the Ninth Circuit. If so, the Ninth Circuit will surely uphold the possibility of an injunction against those who misappropriate copyrighted software. And I predict that that won't satisfy you either. Rjack and Wallace quote a lot of case law fragments, but seem to not consider the point that the law is, in the end, all about dispensing justice. Denying a copyright owner any recourse against those who misappropriate his software would be an injustice. And generally the courts tend to lean against that. This simple fact explains why the CAFC ruled the way it did. At the end of the day, it's mostly about keeping things fair. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack u...@example.net writes: [...] Present your legal arguments and have at it. Using ad homonem arguments because your angry with someone will convince no one. It's taken you this long to realize that? -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org http://www.ghoti.net/~kst Nokia We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this. -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, Yes Minister ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: Present a rational, logical argument supported by legal authority and have at it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with disagreeing with a court when relying on alternate but conflicting legal authority. The CAFC panel, comprising three smart people, already unanimously provided you with a rational, logical argument supported by legal authority. If that doesn't satisfy you, nothing will. The JMRI case may soon be heard again by the Ninth Circuit. If so, the Ninth Circuit will surely uphold the possibility of an injunction against those who misappropriate copyrighted software. I suspect *any* Circuit would uphold the possibility of an injunction if the misappropriation of copyrighted software actually violated *copyright* law. Judge White of the Northern District of California cited to Ninth Circuit precendential law when he found that Jacobsen's remedies were contractual in nature: The license explicitly gives the users of the material, any member of the public, “the right to use and distribute the [material] in a more-orless customary fashion, plus the right to make reasonable accommodations.” (See Suppl. Jacobsen Decl., Ex. A.) The scope of the nonexclusive license is, therefore, intentionally broad. The condition that the user insert a prominent notice of attribution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather, Defendants’ alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create liability for copyright infringement where it would not otherwise exist. Therefore, based on the current record before the Court, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim properly sounds in contract and therefore Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating likelihood of success on the merit of his copyright claim and is therefore not entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm. See Sun Microsystems, 188 F.3d at 1119. Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating either a combination of probable success on the merits of his copyright claim nor the existence of serious questions going to the merits. See GoTo.com, 202 F.3d at 1204-05. http://www.scribd.com/doc/259007/jacobsen-v-katzer If you acually think the Ninth Circuit will overrule it's own precendent because of the CAFC ruling, then I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you -- cheap. Because of an unusual quirk in US law, the court had to apply the legal standards of a sister appellate court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; and the Federal Circuit's interpretation of 9th Circuit law has no precedential value. Even a future Federal Circuit case on this area of the law must look again to the regional [9th] circuit and not the Federal Circuit interpretation, according to Harold Wegner, a partner in the Washington, DC office of Foley Lardner. http://www.mail-archive.com/gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org/msg07755.html And I predict that that won't satisfy you either. Rjack and Wallace quote a lot of case law fragments, but seem to not consider the point that the law is, in the end, all about dispensing justice. Denying a copyright owner any recourse against those who misappropriate his software would be an injustice. Get the facts straight Rahul. Judge White didn't deny any recourse in the law. He simply correctly applied Ninth Circuit prevailing law and said any remedy was contractual in nature. And generally the courts tend to lean against that. This simple fact explains why the CAFC ruled the way it did. At the end of the day, it's mostly about keeping things fair. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack u...@example.net writes: If you acually think the Ninth Circuit will overrule it's own precendent because of the CAFC ruling, then I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you -- cheap. I don't believe any of the Ninth Circuit's precedents are directly relevant to the misappropriation of free software. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: If you acually think the Ninth Circuit will overrule it's own precendent because of the CAFC ruling, then I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you -- cheap. I don't believe any of the Ninth Circuit's precedents are directly relevant to the misappropriation of free softwar Please identify what system(s) of law(s) provide a legal remedy for this so called misappropriation of software. So that we may further discuss misappropriation in more detail. Seems to be an ill-defined term. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack u...@example.net writes: Please identify what system(s) of law(s) provide a legal remedy for this so called misappropriation of software. So that we may further discuss misappropriation in more detail. Seems to be an ill-defined term. Does anybody else understand what Rjack is asking for? If so, please help clarify. (I'm assuming that Rjack's recent sources of authority, namely, answers.com and merriam-webster.com, will not suffice here.) -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: Please identify what system(s) of law(s) provide a legal remedy for this so called misappropriation of software. So that we may further discuss misappropriation in more detail. Seems to be an ill-defined term. Does anybody else understand what Rjack is asking for? If so, please help clarify. (I'm assuming that Rjack's recent sources of authority, namely, answers.com and merriam-webster.com, will not suffice here.) The Copyright Act doesn't mention misappropriation. I'm sure that your haughty sneers concerning the ordinary, common meanings of words is impressing all who read your posts. Unfortunately you have had so little exposure to legal terms that you don't understand what contexts demand specialized definitions and which demand the ordinary meanings of words and phrases when discussing matters. You need only Google [ plain meaning rule ] to see how foolish your attempts to ridicule appear. You remind me of the principle stated in the Serenity Prayer: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference. You are utterly lacking in the wisdom to know the difference in context that demands a different semantic. Sincerely, Rjack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: Please identify what system(s) of law(s) provide a legal remedy for this so called misappropriation of software. So that we may further discuss misappropriation in more detail. Seems to be an ill-defined term. Does anybody else understand what Rjack is asking for? If so, please help clarify. (I'm assuming that Rjack's recent sources of authority, namely, answers.com and merriam-webster.com, will not suffice here.) I had hoped after trying to teach you that the meaning of the term illegal changed with a change contexts, that a little something would have soaked in. It obviously didn't. After I go through the trouble to buy you books and send you to school you just chew on the pencil eraser. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
amicus_curious wrote: dr_nikolaus_klepp dr.kl...@gmx.at wrote in message news:2b749$49dbc4aa$557d7df2$...@news.inode.at... chrisv wrote: rat wrote: Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC. Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have been touched! So, you think software developers just grab source-code and use it in their projects, just assuming that it's free of copyright? That would be pretty stupid, don't you think, considering all GPL'ed software will declare and reference the GPL? Do you think willfully ignoring the copyright and GPL notification should be an excuse? Idiot. nice how you added that idiot :-) Presumably that was facetious. BTW, next to no one bothers with chrisv anymore. He has little to say and nothing to contribute to any interesting conversations. A minimal amount of lurking would tell you that. didnt see that your contribution was anything else than bullshit. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
rat wrote: Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC. Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have been touched! So, you think software developers just grab source-code and use it in their projects, just assuming that it's free of copyright? That would be pretty stupid, don't you think, considering all GPL'ed software will declare and reference the GPL? Do you think willfully ignoring the copyright and GPL notification should be an excuse? Idiot. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote: JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote in message news:slrngtkmgi.vvv.j...@nomad.mishnet... GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. I don't think that you understood the analogy. Let me put it in what might be a more understandable form. Say you go to Chicago for the Open Source Expo and you and your buddies, being new to the big city, are wandering up State Street and get enticed into a titty bar. Then some sweet honeys cozy up to you and ask you to buy them a drink. Sure!, you say, flattered by such attention. Then later you find that the tab for the girls' drinks are not what you expected and are some $50 apiece. Pay up or we will call the cops! is what you are told. Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC. Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have been touched! ...except the GPL is very plain and out in the open. The intent of RMS is very clear and rather blunt. The only way you can misunderstand anything is if it were your original intent to try and take advantage to begin with. The terms are by no stretch of the imagination hidden. Neither is the intent of the proprietor. Boldness and clarity of purpose does not make that purpose legal. ...then the whole situation reverts to straight property law. You're attempt to have it both ways just wont fly. -- Microsoft: Because the world doesn't have enough peasants.||| / | \ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
dr_nikolaus_klepp dr.kl...@gmx.at wrote in message news:2b749$49dbc4aa$557d7df2$...@news.inode.at... chrisv wrote: rat wrote: Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC. Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have been touched! So, you think software developers just grab source-code and use it in their projects, just assuming that it's free of copyright? That would be pretty stupid, don't you think, considering all GPL'ed software will declare and reference the GPL? Do you think willfully ignoring the copyright and GPL notification should be an excuse? Idiot. nice how you added that idiot :-) Presumably that was facetious. BTW, next to no one bothers with chrisv anymore. He has little to say and nothing to contribute to any interesting conversations. A minimal amount of lurking would tell you that. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Why not extend that argument to the conclusion: don't use any license at all. Sqlite is public domain. You're free to develop public domain software on your own. However, you're not likely to ever see a penny for your efforts. You're free to change the argument any new conclusion you wish. I never changed the argument, but extended your argument to its logical conclusion. Short of waiting seventy five years after its creation, it is difficult to place a work in the public domain. Well, sqlite is in the public domain according to wikipedia, which, for a layman like me, is sufficient evidence of its licensing. You must somehow unequivocally and publicly relinquish all claims of ownership. Some Circuits would probably disagree with that broad assertion. I was comparing Free Software licensed code and permissively licensed code. So what is the point you wish to make? The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:20:08 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44:43 -0400, Rjack wrote: The Free Software Foundation has *never* advanced a legal argument to refute the fact that the GPL is contractually unenforceable and preempted by the Copyright Act. What's your argument that isn't enforceable? The GPL is unequivocally a contract under U.S. law. (More specifically it is a contract for a grant of permission or license.) It's just as much a contract as any other EULA. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:20:08 -0400, Rjack wrote: To summarize, this means the GPL is a contract to requiring that: 1) you must cause Only if you choose to accept the GPL, only if you accept it. If you decline to accept it, that's fine, you can then contact the copyright holder to make arrangements for distribution. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
In gnu.misc.discuss Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote: It[the GPL]'s just as much a contract as any other EULA. The GPL isn't a EULA, except perhaps the tiny part of it that says you may run this program unconditionally. The concept of end user is absent in free software licensing, and the GPL goes to considerable lengths to ensure that nobody is relegated to the status of an end user, except by choice. The GPL is a license for distributing and changing software, not for using it. -Thufir -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:20:08 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44:43 -0400, Rjack wrote: The Free Software Foundation has *never* advanced a legal argument to refute the fact that the GPL is contractually unenforceable and preempted by the Copyright Act. What's your argument that isn't enforceable? The GPL is unequivocally a contract under U.S. law. (More specifically it is a contract for a grant of permission or license.) It's just as much a contract as any other EULA. -Thufir So? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:20:08 -0400, Rjack wrote: To summarize, this means the GPL is a contract to requiring that: 1) you must cause Only if you choose to accept the GPL, only if you accept it. If you decline to accept it, that's fine, you can then contact the copyright holder to make arrangements for distribution. -Thufir So? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote: It[the GPL]'s just as much a contract as any other EULA. The GPL isn't a EULA, except perhaps the tiny part of it that says you may run this program unconditionally. The concept of end user is absent in free software licensing, and the GPL goes to considerable lengths to ensure that nobody is relegated to the status of an end user, except by choice. The GPL is a license for distributing and changing software, not for using it. Your remark concerning use is interesting. There is a subtle distinction between use in the context of patents and that of copyrights. The patent grant states: 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(1) Every patent shall contain a short title of the invention and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, of the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States, and, if the invention is a process, of the right to exclude others from using, offering for sale or selling throughout the United States, or importing into the United States, products made by that process, referring to the specification for the particulars thereof. Here using is a *broad* grant concerning *any* use of the invention that falls within the limits of the patent specification. This defines scope of use in patent cases that gives rise to infringement. The Supreme Court has stated: The owner of a patent may assign it to another and convey (1) the exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention throughout the United States; or (2) an undivided part or share of that exclusive right; or (3) the exclusive right under the patent within and through a specific part of the United States. . . Conveying less than title to the patent or part of it, the patentee may grant a license to make, use, and vend articles under the specifications of his patent for any royalty, or upon any condition the performance of which is reasonably within the reward which the patentee by the grant of the patent I entitled to secure.; United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U.S. 476 (1926). The crucial idea is that the restriction must remain within the scope of the enumerated right: [Is] reasonably within the reward which the patentee by the grant of the patent is entitled to secure. (supra). Therefore in patent cases use is a broad in rem right giving rise to infringement that violates 35 U.S.C. 154. In copyright matters there is no broad right to use a work. In copyright scope of use must *directly* limit one of the the *specific* enumerated rights in listed in 17 U.S.C. 106: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. So unlike patent cases, in most (not all) copyright suits alleging use violation it is a matter of breach of contract and not copyright infringement. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. :-) The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky document with hidden traps waiting to snap. A normally intelligent child could understand it. If you conform to its requirements, which are few and clear, you won't have any problem with wild-eyed socialist zealots. If you don't like those requirements, use other code instead. If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument. It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own interpretation of some judges' decisions, that licensing code under the GPL is tantamount to making it public domain. 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: The GPL means what you want it to mean
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote: It[the GPL]'s just as much a contract as any other EULA. The GPL isn't a EULA, except perhaps the tiny part of it that says you may run this program unconditionally. The concept of end user is absent in free software licensing, and the GPL goes to considerable lengths to ensure that nobody is relegated to the status of an end user, except by choice. The GPL is a license for distributing and changing software, not for using it. Your remark concerning use is interesting. There is a subtle distinction between use in the context of patents and that of copyrights. The patent grant states: [ ] In copyright matters there is no broad right to use a work. In copyright scope of use must *directly* limit one of the the *specific* enumerated rights in listed in 17 U.S.C. 106: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. So unlike patent cases, in most (not all) copyright suits alleging use violation it is a matter of breach of contract and not copyright infringement. That's a non-sequitur. There's no logical implication of your last paragraph by your second last. Anyhow, my point was more about the end in end user. As soon as somebody is an end user, the GPL imposes no restrictions or conditions of any kind on her. It is only when her use is other than an end use that the GPL becomes important. 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: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote: It[the GPL]'s just as much a contract as any other EULA. The GPL isn't a EULA, except perhaps the tiny part of it that says you may run this program unconditionally. The concept of end user is absent in free software licensing, and the GPL goes to considerable lengths to ensure that nobody is relegated to the status of an end user, except by choice. The GPL is a license for distributing and changing software, not for using it. Your remark concerning use is interesting. There is a subtle distinction between use in the context of patents and that of copyrights. The patent grant states: [ ] In copyright matters there is no broad right to use a work. In copyright scope of use must *directly* limit one of the the *specific* enumerated rights in listed in 17 U.S.C. 106: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. So unlike patent cases, in most (not all) copyright suits alleging use violation it is a matter of breach of contract and not copyright infringement. That's a non-sequitur. There's no logical implication of your last paragraph by your second last. Anyhow, my point was more about the end in end user. As soon as somebody is an end user, the GPL imposes no restrictions or conditions of any kind on her. It is only when her use is other than an end use that the GPL becomes important. The GPL is legally important only in the sense that it generates grounds for claims of promissory estoppel for users of GPL'd code. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack u...@example.net writes: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. :-) The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky document with hidden traps waiting to snap. A normally intelligent child could understand it. If you conform to its requirements, which are few and clear, you won't have any problem with wild-eyed socialist zealots. If you don't like those requirements, use other code instead. If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument. It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own interpretation of some judges' decisions, that licensing code under the GPL is tantamount to making it public domain. You are not entitled to make up your own facts. Where have I ever claimed that GPL licensed code is tantamountto public domain code? Please use Google and all the resources at your disposal to demonstrate that I have claimed such a thing. I have long argued that users who rely on GPL licensed code have grounds for a contract claim of promissory estoppel. Sincerely, Rjack :) Are you two guys still arguing? Peter Koehlmann said it was all ridiculously simple and even a retard could understand it or words to that affect. -- In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. :-) The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky document with hidden traps waiting to snap. A normally intelligent child could understand it. If you conform to its requirements, which are few and clear, you won't have any problem with wild-eyed socialist zealots. If you don't like those requirements, use other code instead. If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument. It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own interpretation of some judges' decisions, that licensing code under the GPL is tantamount to making it public domain. You are not entitled to make up your own facts. Where have I ever claimed that GPL licensed code is tantamountto public domain code? Please use Google and all the resources at your disposal to demonstrate that I have claimed such a thing. Sorry, my mistake. You haven't claimed tantamount to. Your claims are tantamount to. That is my claim. ;-) I have long argued that users who rely on GPL licensed code have grounds for a contract claim of promissory estoppel. Whatever that means, exactly. ;-) You have repeatedly asserted that the GPL isn't a license, that it's a contract, and that one of upshots is that companies can violate the GPL without the copyright holders being able to stop the violation by injunction, or receive monetary damages. (I'm not quite sure you've said that last bit, but I think you have). This seems to me to being the same in practice as being in the public domain. Where do you see the difference, in practice, between software being in the public domain, and software being licensed under the GPL, understood as you understand it? 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: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Hadron wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. :-) The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky document with hidden traps waiting to snap. A normally intelligent child could understand it. If you conform to its requirements, which are few and clear, you won't have any problem with wild-eyed socialist zealots. If you don't like those requirements, use other code instead. If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument. It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own interpretation of some judges' decisions, that licensing code under the GPL is tantamount to making it public domain. You are not entitled to make up your own facts. Where have I ever claimed that GPL licensed code is tantamountto public domain code? Please use Google and all the resources at your disposal to demonstrate that I have claimed such a thing. I have long argued that users who rely on GPL licensed code have grounds for a contract claim of promissory estoppel. Sincerely, Rjack :) Are you two guys still arguing? Peter Koehlmann said it was all ridiculously simple and even a retard could understand it or words to that affect. I believe Alan Mackenzie changed the retard description to normally intelligent child. We need to tread carefully here since there'll soon be charges and counter charges of ad hominen attacks and generally unacceptable social behaviors. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. :-) The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky document with hidden traps waiting to snap. A normally intelligent child could understand it. If you conform to its requirements, which are few and clear, you won't have any problem with wild-eyed socialist zealots. If you don't like those requirements, use other code instead. If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument. It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own interpretation of some judges' decisions, that licensing code under the GPL is tantamount to making it public domain. You are not entitled to make up your own facts. Where have I ever claimed that GPL licensed code is tantamountto public domain code? Please use Google and all the resources at your disposal to demonstrate that I have claimed such a thing. Sorry, my mistake. You haven't claimed tantamount to. Your claims are tantamount to. That is my claim. ;-) I have long argued that users who rely on GPL licensed code have grounds for a contract claim of promissory estoppel. Whatever that means, exactly. ;-) You have repeatedly asserted that the GPL isn't a license, that it's a contract, and that one of upshots is that companies can violate the GPL without the copyright holders being able to stop the violation by injunction, or receive monetary damages. (I'm not quite sure you've said that last bit, but I think you have). This seems to me to being the same in practice as being in the public domain. Where do you see the difference, in practice, between software being in the public domain, and software being licensed under the GPL, understood as you understand it? Code in the public domain doesn't have ownership or other rights attached to it. That's a BIG, BIG, difference between code in the public domain and code subject to claims of promissory estoppel. Claims of promissory estoppel would give a particular litigant rights to use the code IF the claim meets the criteria: Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A promisor — one who makes a promise — makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee—one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment — that is, an economic loss — ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel For example, if someone uses your licensed code and invests a million dollars in developing and improving the code then they shouldn't be out a million dollars because the copyright license that *you* offered turns out to be legally unenforceable. This principle is implicit in the rule of contract interpretation which holds that contracts are construed against the offering (drafting) party. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Where do you see the difference, in practice, between software being in the public domain, and software being licensed under the GPL, understood as you understand it? Code in the public domain doesn't have ownership or other rights attached to it. That's a BIG, BIG, difference between code in the public domain and code subject to claims of promissory estoppel. Claims of promissory estoppel would give a particular litigant rights to use the code IF the claim meets the criteria: Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A promisor ? one who makes a promise ? makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee?one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment ? that is, an economic loss ? ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel Well thanks, and all that, but the above is in legalese. Presumably it means something to lawyers. Where's the BIG, BIG, difference, when the legalese is translated into English? For example, if someone uses your licensed code and invests a million dollars in developing and improving the code then they shouldn't be out a million dollars because the copyright license that *you* offered turns out to be legally unenforceable. This principle is implicit in the rule of contract interpretation which holds that contracts are construed against the offering (drafting) party. You've asserted, occasionally, that the GPL is unenforceable. Assuming for the current purposes that you're right, then your last paragraph seems pretty much the same as saying that if the code is GPL'd, he can freely invest a million dollars in a way which violates the GPL, yet not be subject to any sanctions by the copyright holder. This is, in effect, the same as GPL code being in the public domain. Isn't it? 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: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument. Sincerely, Rjack :) ... so poor rjack has a problem, he wants to steal some code GPL code but does not dare. so he tries to talk the code writers into using BSD licence, so that he can legally steal their code. oh, and is he upset that they dont want to licen? you can bet on that ... oh my, you should have spent your energy on learning ... but so .. just words in the wind ... LOL nik ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Where do you see the difference, in practice, between software being in the public domain, and software being licensed under the GPL, understood as you understand it? Code in the public domain doesn't have ownership or other rights attached to it. That's a BIG, BIG, difference between code in the public domain and code subject to claims of promissory estoppel. Claims of promissory estoppel would give a particular litigant rights to use the code IF the claim meets the criteria: Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A promisor ? one who makes a promise ? makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee?one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment ? that is, an economic loss ? ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel Well thanks, and all that, but the above is in legalese. Presumably it means something to lawyers. Where's the BIG, BIG, difference, when the legalese is translated into English? We'd all love for the lawyers to be ceremoniously fed to the the sharks. Unfortunately, many activities in life can't be summarized into simple sound bites. For example, if someone uses your licensed code and invests a million dollars in developing and improving the code then they shouldn't be out a million dollars because the copyright license that *you* offered turns out to be legally unenforceable. This principle is implicit in the rule of contract interpretation which holds that contracts are construed against the offering (drafting) party. You've asserted, occasionally, that the GPL is unenforceable. Assuming for the current purposes that you're right, then your last paragraph seems pretty much the same as saying that if the code is GPL'd, he can freely invest a million dollars in a way which violates the GPL, yet not be subject to any sanctions by the copyright holder. This is, in effect, the same as GPL code being in the public domain. Isn't it? Public domain code is freely available without legal reservation. *Anyone* who desires to use it may do so without legal consequence. As I previously stated, promissory estoppel is available only to a specific *individual* party who first goes to court and proves to the court that he is entitled to some equitable right. 1) Public domain rights are are freely available to the *whole world*. 2) Equitable rights granted through promissory estoppel by court decree are *personal* rights and have nothing to do with public domain rights. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
dr_nikolaus_klepp wrote: Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument. Sincerely, Rjack :) ... so poor rjack has a problem, he wants to steal some code GPL code but does not dare. so he tries to talk the code writers into using BSD licence, so that he can legally steal their code. oh, and is he upset that they dont want to licen? you can bet on that ... oh my, you should have spent your energy on learning ... but so .. just words in the wind ... LOL nik Thank you for your helpful contribution! Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see what happens. [deletia] The burdens of GPL software are no different than any other code that isn't public domain or effectively so. You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their living room floor and carting it off. -- The best OS in the world is ultimately useless ||| if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see what happens. [deletia] The burdens of GPL software are no different than any other code that isn't public domain or effectively so. You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their living room floor and carting it off. GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see what happens. [deletia] The burdens of GPL software are no different than any other code that isn't public domain or effectively so. You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their living room floor and carting it off. GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. -- This is a consumer product. ||| World domination simply isn't necessary./ | \ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote in message news:slrngtkmgi.vvv.j...@nomad.mishnet... GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. I don't think that you understood the analogy. Let me put it in what might be a more understandable form. Say you go to Chicago for the Open Source Expo and you and your buddies, being new to the big city, are wandering up State Street and get enticed into a titty bar. Then some sweet honeys cozy up to you and ask you to buy them a drink. Sure!, you say, flattered by such attention. Then later you find that the tab for the girls' drinks are not what you expected and are some $50 apiece. Pay up or we will call the cops! is what you are told. Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC. Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have been touched! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see what happens. [deletia] The burdens of GPL software are no different than any other code that isn't public domain or effectively so. You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their living room floor and carting it off. GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. Only in the mythical land of GNU where many marvelous fantasies become aq reality to its residents... ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
amicus_curious wrote: JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote in message news:slrngtkmgi.vvv.j...@nomad.mishnet... GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. I don't think that you understood the analogy. Let me put it in what might be a more understandable form. Say you go to Chicago for the Open Source Expo and you and your buddies, being new to the big city, are wandering up State Street and get enticed into a titty bar. Then some sweet honeys cozy up to you and ask you to buy them a drink. Sure!, you say, flattered by such attention. Then later you find that the tab for the girls' drinks are not what you expected and are some $50 apiece. Pay up or we will call the cops! is what you are told. Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC. Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have been touched! AHAH !! By using the analogy of a titty bar you are displaying your ugly misogynist side. Your sexist remarks have set women's rights back at least a half century. FOR SHAME ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On 2009-04-06, amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote: JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote in message news:slrngtkmgi.vvv.j...@nomad.mishnet... GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. I don't think that you understood the analogy. Let me put it in what might be a more understandable form. Say you go to Chicago for the Open Source Expo and you and your buddies, being new to the big city, are wandering up State Street and get enticed into a titty bar. Then some sweet honeys cozy up to you and ask you to buy them a drink. Sure!, you say, flattered by such attention. Then later you find that the tab for the girls' drinks are not what you expected and are some $50 apiece. Pay up or we will call the cops! is what you are told. Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC. Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have been touched! ...except the GPL is very plain and out in the open. The intent of RMS is very clear and rather blunt. The only way you can misunderstand anything is if it were your original intent to try and take advantage to begin with. The terms are by no stretch of the imagination hidden. Neither is the intent of the proprietor. -- Microsoft: Because the world doesn't have enough peasants.||| / | \ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see what happens. [deletia] The burdens of GPL software are no different than any other code that isn't public domain or effectively so. You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their living room floor and carting it off. GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. Only in the mythical land of GNU where many marvelous fantasies become aq reality to its residents... No. You are the one in some sort of fantasy land. Don't wander into Texas with an attitude like this. You might end up dead. -- Microsoft: Because the world doesn't have enough peasants.||| / | \ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC. Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have been touched! You have pointed out a potentially serious problem. Many anti-GPL people are trying to deceive software users into misappropriating GPL-licensed software, by telling them that the GPL is illegal, unenforceble, against public policy, etc. Later on, when the victims of this deception find that the GPL is actually being enforced, they may get into trouble. I'm not sure how actually serious this problem is. That would depend on how gullible software users are. Do they believe everything they read on Usenet? I suspect most of them are too smart to be fooled. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote: JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote in message news:slrngtkmgi.vvv.j...@nomad.mishnet... GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. I don't think that you understood the analogy. Let me put it in what might be a more understandable form. Say you go to Chicago for the Open Source Expo and you and your buddies, being new to the big city, are wandering up State Street and get enticed into a titty bar. Then some sweet honeys cozy up to you and ask you to buy them a drink. Sure!, you say, flattered by such attention. Then later you find that the tab for the girls' drinks are not what you expected and are some $50 apiece. Pay up or we will call the cops! is what you are told. Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC. Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have been touched! ...except the GPL is very plain and out in the open. The intent of RMS is very clear and rather blunt. The only way you can misunderstand anything is if it were your original intent to try and take advantage to begin with. The terms are by no stretch of the imagination hidden. Neither is the intent of the proprietor. Boldness and clarity of purpose does not make that purpose legal. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see what happens. [deletia] The burdens of GPL software are no different than any other code that isn't public domain or effectively so. You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their living room floor and carting it off. GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal contract. Nice self-nuke on your part there... You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing. Only in the mythical land of GNU where many marvelous fantasies become aq reality to its residents... No. You are the one in some sort of fantasy land. Don't wander into Texas with an attitude like this. You might end up dead. Death threats eh? That's pretty tough talk for a little feller. I'll bet your shorter than Kim Jong-il. The only thing I've ever seen come outta Texas is castrated steers tryin' to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. Have a nice day JEDIDIAH! _ _ |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: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi wrote: I'm not sure how actually serious this problem is. That would depend on how gullible software users are. Do they believe everything they read on Usenet? I suspect most of them are too smart to be fooled. Uh... does that include messages from a certain Rahul Dhesi who posts on Usenet in gnu.misc.discuss? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message news:0yydnb8mcqht8kfunz2dnuvz_sbin...@giganews.com... By using the analogy of a titty bar you are displaying your ugly misogynist side. Your sexist remarks have set women's rights back at least a half century. That long? I wouldn't think that the initiative was so feeble. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxthexg.usenet.us.com wrote in message news:grduio$r3...@blue.rahul.net... amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC. Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have been touched! You have pointed out a potentially serious problem. Many anti-GPL people are trying to deceive software users into misappropriating GPL-licensed software, by telling them that the GPL is illegal, unenforceble, against public policy, etc. Later on, when the victims of this deception find that the GPL is actually being enforced, they may get into trouble. I'm not sure how actually serious this problem is. That would depend on how gullible software users are. Do they believe everything they read on Usenet? I suspect most of them are too smart to be fooled. -- Well, it is not really such a problem in the real world. There has never been a case of a company taking a GPL program and proprietizing it for a profit. I cannot even find a case of a company taking a GPL program and improving it and releasing it back other than Linux itself wherein Red Hat and Novell need to make various changes to keep it viable in their server regions. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44:43 -0400, Rjack wrote: The Free Software Foundation has *never* advanced a legal argument to refute the fact that the GPL is contractually unenforceable and preempted by the Copyright Act. What's your argument that isn't enforceable? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Why not extend that argument to the conclusion: don't use any license at all. Sqlite is public domain. You're free to develop public domain software on your own. However, you're not likely to ever see a penny for your efforts. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Why not extend that argument to the conclusion: don't use any license at all. Sqlite is public domain. You're free to develop public domain software on your own. However, you're not likely to ever see a penny for your efforts. You're free to change the argument any new conclusion you wish. Short of waiting seventy five years after its creation, it is difficult to place a work in the public domain. You must somehow unequivocally and publicly relinquish all claims of ownership. Some Circuits would probably disagree with that broad assertion. I was comparing Free Software licensed code and permissively licensed code. So what is the point you wish to make? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44:43 -0400, Rjack wrote: The Free Software Foundation has *never* advanced a legal argument to refute the fact that the GPL is contractually unenforceable and preempted by the Copyright Act. What's your argument that isn't enforceable? The GPL is unequivocally a contract under U.S. law. (More specifically it is a contract for a grant of permission or license.) Section 2(b) states: 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. To summarize, this means the GPL is a contract to requiring that: 1) you must cause 2) any work to be licensed as a whole 3) to all third parties 4) under the terms of this License Therefore the *distributor* of GPL licensed code must cause a new contract to be formed between himself and the members of the general public that covers the created derivative work as a whole. The GPL is a 'contract to make a contract' with the general public to distribute a derivative work. The GPL is therefore a contract to make a contract. So. . . how is a contract between two parties to make a *new* contract with a *yet to be identified* third party for a *yet to be created* derivative of a derivative work going to be enforced? The short answer is it can't be enforced. See: [A] contract to make a contract is enforceable only where all material terms have been agreed upon. 1 Corbin, Contracts, sec. 2.8, at 131, 133-34 (Perillo ed. 1993). Prisma Zona's own statements, and the service contract drafts which it attaches, show that material issues were still open.; Prisma Zona Exploratoria de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Calderón 310 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002). Under Michigan law, [t]o be enforceable, a contract to enter into a future contract must specify all its material and essential terms and leave none to be agreed upon as the result of future negotiations. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. v. Waldo, 286 N.W. 630, 632 (Mich. 1939)” “To constitute a valid contract, the parties must assent to the same thing in the same sense, and their minds must meet as to all the terms. If any portion of the proposed terms is not settled, or no mode agreed on by which they may be settled, there is no agreement. Gregory v. Perdue, Inc., 47 N.C. App. 655, 657, 267 S.E.2d 584, 586 (1980). . . A 'contract to make a contract' is not an enforceable agreement. Northington v. Michelotti, 121 N.C. App. 180, 184, 464 S.E.2d 711, 714 (1995)(quoting 1 Joseph M. Perillo, Corbin on Contracts, §2.8(a)(revised edition 1993)). Wilkerson v. Carriage Park Development Corp., 130 NC App 475 (08/04/1998 97-1387) ‘If the document or contract that the parties agree to make is to contain any material term that is not already agreed on, no contract has yet been made; and the so called contract to make a contract is not a contract at all.’ Hansen v. Catsman, 123 N.W.2d 265, 266 (Mich. 1963). The GPL is also preempted by 17 USC sec. 301(a). Sec. 301. Preemption with respect to other laws (a) On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message news:tvqdnf7tyeli7evunz2dnuvz_g2wn...@giganews.com... amicus_curious wrote: Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message news:oymdndmtkdtop0vunz2dnuvz_vedn...@giganews.com... Only an idiot can construe intimidation from a written guarantee not to sue for a possibly contentious issue. And only a fucking Freetard moron such as yourself could twice fail to grasp the propaganda method to which I was referring in my original comment which compared the tactics of creationists to those of the Free Software Foundation. Fire and counter-fire, it just causes a deterioration in any conversation, productive or not. We should all refrain from firing the first and/or next shot. Quite true. Turning the other cheek *is* a virtue... Occasionally though, after your cheek turns red, it is difficult to aspire to mankind's higher calling. Just take the other person's lack of discipline as a victory for your own position. After all, it is no money out of your pocket and your family will still love you. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:fudbl.727$9t6@newsfe10.iad... On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Why not extend that argument to the conclusion: don't use any license at all. Sqlite is public domain. You're free to develop public domain software on your own. However, you're not likely to ever see a penny for your efforts. That is exactly correct. I think that is the essence of open source. Anyone who needs a basic function in their own application should be free to adopt one freely handed out by someone else. Since it is freely distributed, there is absolutely no obligation. Anyone so proud of their incremental innovation that improves the original that they want to brag to the world is also free to publish their dependent work. Anyone who doesn't see the value in such a publication or who hasn't made any such change would naturally refrain from any disclosure. The internet is full of sites and included articles describing this very kind of software and many developers have taken advantage of such articles to solve their own problems and to learn how to do a variety of things. There seems to be enough disclosure by those who learn a little so as to keep the ball rolling. All this makes Stallman and the FSF appear to be a sort of dog in the manger, denying access to those who might avail themselves of some learning or avoid some rote efforts. I do not think that anyone who included any such GPL solftware into their product could make any money from the effort either, just as they could not from public domain software. There is nothing that anyone trying to sell a product rather than give it away could sell other than their own innovation since the original functionality is still available to anyone at no charge. If I stole the code for FireFox and used it unchanged in a new product that I called HoundDog, I would never recover my costs of promoting it via license fees. I doubt that I would ever sell a single copy. If I added some functions that made it more valuable and likely to appeal to consumers, however, I could possibly benefit, but, again, it is doubtful that anyone could really innovate anything in this realm. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
amicus_curious wrote: Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message news:tvqdnf7tyeli7evunz2dnuvz_g2wn...@giganews.com... amicus_curious wrote: Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message news:oymdndmtkdtop0vunz2dnuvz_vedn...@giganews.com... Only an idiot can construe intimidation from a written guarantee not to sue for a possibly contentious issue. And only a fucking Freetard moron such as yourself could twice fail to grasp the propaganda method to which I was referring in my original comment which compared the tactics of creationists to those of the Free Software Foundation. Fire and counter-fire, it just causes a deterioration in any conversation, productive or not. We should all refrain from firing the first and/or next shot. Quite true. Turning the other cheek *is* a virtue... Occasionally though, after your cheek turns red, it is difficult to aspire to mankind's higher calling. Just take the other person's lack of discipline as a victory for your own position. After all, it is no money out of your pocket and your family will still love you. I *know* it will be no money out of my pocket -- wife has already spent it all. I can't talk back to her, so I have to vent my frustration elsewhere. That's why I'm so irritable at times. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44:43 -0400, Rjack wrote: The Free Software Foundation has *never* advanced a legal argument to refute the fact that the GPL is contractually unenforceable and preempted by the Copyright Act. What's your argument that isn't enforceable? The GPL is unequivocally a contract under U.S. law. (More specifically it is a contract for a grant of permission or license.) Section 2(b) states: 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. To summarize, this means the GPL is a contract to requiring that: 1) you must cause 2) any work to be licensed as a whole 3) to all third parties 4) under the terms of this License Therefore the *distributor* of GPL licensed code must cause a new contract to be formed between himself and the members of the general public that covers the created derivative work as a whole. The GPL is a 'contract to make a contract' with the general public to distribute a derivative work. The GPL is therefore a contract to make a contract. So. . . how is a contract between two parties to make a *new* contract with a *yet to be identified* third party for a *yet to be created* derivative of a derivative work going to be enforced? The short answer is it can't be enforced. See: [A] contract to make a contract is enforceable only where all material terms have been agreed upon. 1 Corbin, Contracts, sec. 2.8, at 131, 133-34 (Perillo ed. 1993). Prisma Zona's own statements, and the service contract drafts which it attaches, show that material issues were still open.; Prisma Zona Exploratoria de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Calderón 310 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002). Under Michigan law, [t]o be enforceable, a contract to enter into a future contract must specify all its material and essential terms and leave none to be agreed upon as the result of future negotiations. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. v. Waldo, 286 N.W. 630, 632 (Mich. 1939)” “To constitute a valid contract, the parties must assent to the same thing in the same sense, and their minds must meet as to all the terms. If any portion of the proposed terms is not settled, or no mode agreed on by which they may be settled, there is no agreement. Gregory v. Perdue, Inc., 47 N.C. App. 655, 657, 267 S.E.2d 584, 586 (1980). . . A 'contract to make a contract' is not an enforceable agreement. Northington v. Michelotti, 121 N.C. App. 180, 184, 464 S.E.2d 711, 714 (1995)(quoting 1 Joseph M. Perillo, Corbin on Contracts, §2.8(a)(revised edition 1993)). Wilkerson v. Carriage Park Development Corp., 130 NC App 475 (08/04/1998 97-1387) ‘If the document or contract that the parties agree to make is to contain any material term that is not already agreed on, no contract has yet been made; and the so called contract to make a contract is not a contract at all.’ Hansen v. Catsman, 123 N.W.2d 265, 266 (Mich. 1963). I disclaim any actual knowledge of the law in non-US based jurisdictions I will speculate that the GPL would be ruled unenforceable in England as a matter of English contract law. American common law is historically based upon English common law: 1. This Act shall be known as THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and is in Four Divisions, as follows: . . . 22.2. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxthexg.usenet.us.com wrote in message news:gr82or$kj...@blue.rahul.net... Rjack u...@example.net writes: American common law is historically based upon English common law: 1. This Act shall be known as THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and is in Four Divisions, as follows: . . . 22.2. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State. Interesting. When I quoted an Australian law professor in the context of defining common law contract terms, Rjack took exception, because he thought such things are determined by the US Circuit courts. Now he has reversed himself and suddenly English common law is viable again. What new profound insights will we he provide us with next? Stay tuned! -- The two are not really in conflict. If a circuit court rules on some specific element that would seem to apply to a subsequent case, it would be cited as a governing decision. In the absence of any such previous decision, an argument would revert to some construct of the common law. Or if you were on the wrong side of the circuit court decision, you might also argue some other spin on things. It is what makes the whole thing so interesting. You just never know. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: American common law is historically based upon English common law: 1. This Act shall be known as THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and is in Four Divisions, as follows: . . . 22.2. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State. Interesting. When I quoted an Australian law professor in the context of defining common law contract terms, Rjack took exception, because he thought such things are determined by the US Circuit courts. Now he has reversed himself and suddenly English common law is viable again. What new profound insights will we he provide us with next? Stay tuned! Which part of: The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States,... are you failing to grasp? Doesn't the grammatical construction, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with. . . carve an exception for US Circuit interpretation? Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack u...@example.net writes: American common law is historically based upon English common law: 1. This Act shall be known as THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and is in Four Divisions, as follows: . . . 22.2. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State. Interesting. When I quoted an Australian law professor in the context of defining common law contract terms, Rjack took exception, because he thought such things are determined by the US Circuit courts. Now he has reversed himself and suddenly English common law is viable again. What new profound insights will we he provide us with next? Stay tuned! -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
amicus_curious wrote: The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the compiler output, constructed of some collection of these constructs based on the programmer's arrangement of source code syntax and order, would ever be a unique expression fixed in a media as defined by the copyright laws. This whole discussion is akin to the arguments in theology regarding how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. The Free Software Foundation loves to start controversies about matters such as GCC generated object code for good reason. It is the same strategy used by religious fundamentalists when arguing against evolution being taught in the schools. By setting the stage whereby people are debating such minor nuances, an underlying impression is generated that the GPL is actually a legally enforceable document. This is how fundamentalists manage to elevate creation theory to the level of scientific theory in serious discussions. In certain respects, you have to credit the Free Software Foundation for being politically astute. They began years ago claiming that their marvelous license wasn't a contract. Despite the best efforts of people like Professor Micheal Davis of Cleveland State University to explain to Richard Stallman that the GPL would be considered a legal contract: So. Why is this an issue? To allow the GPL legal effect but to avoid some real or imagined consequences of it being treated as a contract by the law? I'm afraid you can't have one without the other; to repeat, if it's enforceable, it is, in essence, and in the end, a contract. http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html The real or imagined consequences of it being treated as a contract by the law are two-fold. First, as a matter of contract law the GPL is unenforceable. Second, as a matter of copyright law it is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301. The FSF persisted in claiming that the GPL was a license not a contract, http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ , and an urban legend was cleverly established. Hundreds of RMS's acolytes and other blogs repeated this mantra with unstoppable fervor. The Free Software Foundation has *never* advanced a legal argument to refute the fact that the GPL is contractually unenforceable and preempted by the Copyright Act. The FSF to this day has never admitted that a copyright license is a contract. They file groundless lawsuits and then immediately voluntarily dismiss them without court review in an effort to convince folks that the GPL has legal teeth. People should never allow the GPL to be *assumed* to be legally enforceable until the FSF abandons the utterly crackpot legal theory that a license is not a contract. Any discussions about the claims of GPL effects on details such as GCC generated object code simply generate further support for the false assumption that the GPL is an enforceable license. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack u...@example.net writes: amicus_curious wrote: The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the compiler output, constructed of some collection of these constructs based on the programmer's arrangement of source code syntax and order, would ever be a unique expression fixed in a media as defined by the copyright laws. This whole discussion is akin to the arguments in theology regarding how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. The Free Software Foundation loves to start controversies about matters such as GCC generated object code for good reason. You are confused. The whole point of the explicitly relinquished (rather than ascertained) rights is to _quell_ any such controversy from the start. By making explicitly clear that the compiled code is not covered by demands derived from compiler copyright (by volition of the compiler writers in addition to whatever copyright law might or might not dictate), users have one thing less to worry about. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
David Kastrup wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: amicus_curious wrote: The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the compiler output, constructed of some collection of these constructs based on the programmer's arrangement of source code syntax and order, would ever be a unique expression fixed in a media as defined by the copyright laws. This whole discussion is akin to the arguments in theology regarding how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. The Free Software Foundation loves to start controversies about matters such as GCC generated object code for good reason. You are confused. The whole point of the explicitly relinquished (rather than ascertained) rights is to _quell_ any such controversy from the start. By making explicitly clear that the compiled code is not covered by demands derived from compiler copyright (by volition of the compiler writers in addition to whatever copyright law might or might not dictate), users have one thing less to worry about. Sorry, but confusion does not reign on my part. You missed point of my assertion. This discussion is not occurring in a neutral context. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html By using terminology such as explicitly relinquished (rather than ascertained) rights, you are implying that the GPL, if it were not for the exception stated by the Free Software Foundation, *would* have legal consequence. By claiming, By making explicitly clear that the compiled code is not covered by demands derived from compiler copyright. . ., you leave the impression that the compiler license (the GPL) requirements *are* enforceable in other contexts. But they aren't. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: amicus_curious wrote: The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the compiler output, constructed of some collection of these constructs based on the programmer's arrangement of source code syntax and order, would ever be a unique expression fixed in a media as defined by the copyright laws. This whole discussion is akin to the arguments in theology regarding how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. The Free Software Foundation loves to start controversies about matters such as GCC generated object code for good reason. You are confused. The whole point of the explicitly relinquished (rather than ascertained) rights is to _quell_ any such controversy from the start. By making explicitly clear that the compiled code is not covered by demands derived from compiler copyright (by volition of the compiler writers in addition to whatever copyright law might or might not dictate), users have one thing less to worry about. Sorry, but confusion does not reign on my part. I was just operating under the directive don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. You missed point of my assertion. This discussion is not occurring in a neutral context. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html By using terminology such as explicitly relinquished (rather than ascertained) rights, you are implying that the GPL, if it were not for the exception stated by the Free Software Foundation, *would* have legal consequence. No. could. As decided by a court of law with judges in whatever good or bad mood. By claiming, By making explicitly clear that the compiled code is not covered by demands derived from compiler copyright. . ., you leave the impression that the compiler license (the GPL) requirements *are* enforceable in other contexts. I don't do anything of the sort. The impression is that people might _fear_ that their might be a reasonable amount of expectation they could go to court for it. Most people prefer not to go there in the first place, regardless of their chances. This possible fear is dispelled with regard to stuff compiled by GCC. But they aren't. It is easy for you to say that since you are not an involved party and don't have to fear any damages. When an involved party, however, states its full intent to relinquish all possibly purported rights and not sue for them, it is one thing less to worry about. Only an idiot can construe intimidation from a written guarantee not to sue for a possibly contentious issue. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
David Kastrup wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: amicus_curious wrote: The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the compiler output, constructed of some collection of these constructs based on the programmer's arrangement of source code syntax and order, would ever be a unique expression fixed in a media as defined by the copyright laws. This whole discussion is akin to the arguments in theology regarding how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. The Free Software Foundation loves to start controversies about matters such as GCC generated object code for good reason You are confused. The whole point of the explicitly relinquished (rather than ascertained) rights is to _quell_ any such controversy from the start. By making explicitly clear that the compiled code is not covered by demands derived from compiler copyright (by volition of the compiler writers in addition to whatever copyright law might or might not dictate), users have one thing less to worry about. Sorry, but confusion does not reign on my part. I was just operating under the directive don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. You missed point of my assertion. This discussion is not occurring in a neutral context. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html By using terminology such as explicitly relinquished (rather than ascertained) rights, you are implying that the GPL, if it were not for the exception stated by the Free Software Foundation, *would* have legal consequence. No. could. As decided by a court of law with judges in whatever good or bad mood. Which implies the GPL is enforceable. Which it is not. By claiming, By making explicitly clear that the compiled code is not covered by demands derived from compiler copyright. . ., you leave the impression that the compiler license (the GPL) requirements *are* enforceable in other contexts. I don't do anything of the sort. The impression is that people might _fear_ that their might be a reasonable amount of expectation they could go to court for it. Most people prefer not to go there in the first place, regardless of their chances. This possible fear is dispelled with regard to stuff compiled by GCC. But they aren't. It is easy for you to say that since you are not an involved party and don't have to fear any damages. When an involved party, however, states its full intent to relinquish all possibly purported rights and not sue for them, it is one thing less to worry about. Thank you! You just summarized the most important reason that people should avoid the GPL at all costs. Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion. Only an idiot can construe intimidation from a written guarantee not to sue for a possibly contentious issue. And only a fucking Freetard moron such as yourself could twice fail to grasp the propaganda method to which I was referring in my original comment which compared the tactics of creationists to those of the Free Software Foundation. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message news:oymdndmtkdtop0vunz2dnuvz_vedn...@giganews.com... Only an idiot can construe intimidation from a written guarantee not to sue for a possibly contentious issue. And only a fucking Freetard moron such as yourself could twice fail to grasp the propaganda method to which I was referring in my original comment which compared the tactics of creationists to those of the Free Software Foundation. Fire and counter-fire, it just causes a deterioration in any conversation, productive or not. We should all refrain from firing the first and/or next shot. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
amicus_curious wrote: Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message news:oymdndmtkdtop0vunz2dnuvz_vedn...@giganews.com... Only an idiot can construe intimidation from a written guarantee not to sue for a possibly contentious issue. And only a fucking Freetard moron such as yourself could twice fail to grasp the propaganda method to which I was referring in my original comment which compared the tactics of creationists to those of the Free Software Foundation. Fire and counter-fire, it just causes a deterioration in any conversation, productive or not. We should all refrain from firing the first and/or next shot. Quite true. Turning the other cheek *is* a virtue... Occasionally though, after your cheek turns red, it is difficult to aspire to mankind's higher calling. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:00:34 -0400, Rjack wrote: Don't like the GPLv3's provisions? Just issue an exception to its terms when convenient! I wanted to note that the FSF has just released an exception (the first?) to GPL3 under Section 7 (that allows additional permissions to negate other terms of the GPL3) that is quite interesting in this context. http://lwn.net/Articles/326854/rss If you write a new law and subsequently don't like it then just announce it doesn't *really* mean what says it means. ROFL. Developing nonfree software is not good for society, and we have no obligation to make it easier. We decided to permit this because forbidding it seemed likely to backfire, and because using small libraries to limit the use of GCC seemed like the tail wagging the dog. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html The GPLv3 has 5645 words when you include the How to apply... addendum. If that weren't confusing enough, you may now go out into the cyberworld and find what new exceptions the Masters of the Universe have added -- before they sue you in federal court in New York for violation of their 5645 word copyright contract that doesn't mean what they said it means. ROFL. Sincerely, Rjack :) Why should I care what the Federal court in New York decides when I live 3300 miles away across the Atlantic? There is also the point that the GPLv3 is not the be all and end all of the license. You can mix and match licenses depending on the source of the libraries and/or purpose. It looks to me that the exception to the GPLv3 license as it applies to the GNU GCC compiler allows for altered licensing in respect of proprietary modules used overall within an application. But then I am not a lawyer so take the above with a large pinch of salt! If I'm wrong I'm sure that someone will correct me! -- I'm always kind, polite and reasonable except when I'm not. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
SomeBloke wrote: On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:00:34 -0400, Rjack wrote: Don't like the GPLv3's provisions? Just issue an exception to its terms when convenient! I wanted to note that the FSF has just released an exception (the first?) to GPL3 under Section 7 (that allows additional permissions to negate other terms of the GPL3) that is quite interesting in this context. http://lwn.net/Articles/326854/rss If you write a new law and subsequently don't like it then just announce it doesn't *really* mean what says it means. ROFL. Developing nonfree software is not good for society, and we have no obligation to make it easier. We decided to permit this because forbidding it seemed likely to backfire, and because using small libraries to limit the use of GCC seemed like the tail wagging the dog. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html The GPLv3 has 5645 words when you include the How to apply... addendum. If that weren't confusing enough, you may now go out into the cyberworld and find what new exceptions the Masters of the Universe have added -- before they sue you in federal court in New York for violation of their 5645 word copyright contract that doesn't mean what they said it means. ROFL. Sincerely, Rjack :) Why should I care what the Federal court in New York decides when I live 3300 miles away across the Atlantic? You shouldn't. There is also the point that the GPLv3 is not the be all and end all of the license. You can mix and match licenses depending on the source of the libraries and/or purpose. It looks to me that the exception to the GPLv3 license as it applies to the GNU GCC compiler allows for altered licensing in respect of proprietary modules used overall within an application. But then I am not a lawyer so take the above with a large pinch of salt! If I'm wrong I'm sure that someone will correct me! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote in message news:49d517f2.ac331...@web.de... Rjack wrote: [...] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html Since all of the object code that GCC generates is derived from these GPLed libraries, that means you would be required to follow the terms of the GPL when propagating any of that object code. You could not use GCC to develop your own GPL-incompatible software. The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the compiler output, constructed of some collection of these constructs based on the programmer's arrangement of source code syntax and order, would ever be a unique expression fixed in a media as defined by the copyright laws. This whole discussion is akin to the arguments in theology regarding how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. The idea behind the work is not copyrighted material and if it is not protected by a patent, anyone can use the idea by putting it into their own words. You can use the plot and storyline of a novel, making up your own characters and filling in your own details and publish it without much fear of copyright violation. It is the artistic elements that are protected. The same holds true of a computer program. If you take the central idea, concept, method, etc., and re-code it in your own work, it is not a copyright issue. Even if it works exactly the same, i.e. the look and feel are identical to some other work, it is not subject to copyright claims. That seems to be overlooked by the GPL advocates today. Very little of what they think they are protecting is protected. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
