Re: Daniel Wallace case vs. FSF thrown out, ordered to pay costs

Well, you could have won EURO 50. Wanna bet whether Wallace will appeal and/or file Rule 60 Motion first? I bet EURO 50 that he will. Who's playing? regards, alexander.

Re: cdrtools - GPL code with CDDL build system

On 3/19/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a GPLed > work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord is not a > derivative work of the GPLed part of cdrecord and the build system. Yeah, and your car is a deriv

Re: cdrtools - GPL code with CDDL build system

On 3/18/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like > license? And what's the scale and gradations for "GPL-compatibility" in your brainwashed (linking triggers "GPL-incompatibility") mind? I just wonder. "hahaha" rega

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

On 3/17/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > try to have a court declaring the GPL illegal which would maybe make GPL > documents unredistribuable. Uhmm, if you mean Wallace... The GPL is an egregious and pernicious misuse of copyright that rises to the level of an antitrust viol

Re: Question about upstream duty as regards with OpenSSL

On 17 Mar 2006 11:45:35 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > resolving the license incompatibility. That problem exists only in the GNU Republic where linking constitutes creation of copyleft-infringing "derived works" (and where owners of copies of software don't enjoy rights a

Re: Question about upstream duty as regards with OpenSSL

On 3/17/06, Pierre Machard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > I read http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00595.html "the copyright holders give permission to link the code of portions of this program with the OpenSSL" Copyright holders just can't give such permission because it doesn'

Re: changing upstream's MODULE_LICENSE string in module source

On 2/25/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Next, the presence of the binary blobs, if they're actually needed, > preclued this work from being compatible with the GPL. Sez who? The last I heard Moglen "freed" blobs. The Prof in GNU Law declared them to be fully resistant to the

Re: changing upstream's MODULE_LICENSE string in module source

On 2/25/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > exist. Md raised his voice and he has a point, though a DMCA-threat in > GPL context looks slightly absurd. Slightly?! - The authentication sequence, it is true, may well block one form of "access"—the "ability to . . . make use of"

Re: Bug#354216: upstream license patched in debian package

On 2/25/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 24, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I know, no need to teach me. But what are you trying to say? Or are you > That your change is a deliberate DMCA violation ("circumvention of > technological measures"). http://www.eff.org

Re: Bug#354216: upstream license patched in debian package

HACK_MODULE_INFO(LICENSE, GPL, "The licensing of this module is *NOT* \ GPL-Nazis' business. Oh and BTW, the GPL it is not... notwithstanding \ the presence of the string of data consisting of the letters 'G-P-L'. \ Inquiring Minds: see Sega v. Accolade and Lexmark v. Static Control."); regards, a

Re: gnome-vfs daemon, GPL and LGPL

On 2/24/06, Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > According to my understanding, if the interface between the daemon > and what spawns it is tight (undocumented suggests tight), then the > GPLness of the daemon taints the library, which taints applications > that link against it. A

Re: GPL v3 Draft

Page 2 exhibit managed to escape. Bringing it back. On 2/22/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Moglen's underling Fontana in action. > > http://www.ciocentral.com/article/Questions+Still+Abound+over+GPL+3+/171577_1.aspx > > > "On the

Re: GPL v3 Draft

Moglen's underling Fontana in action. http://www.ciocentral.com/article/Questions+Still+Abound+over+GPL+3+/171577_1.aspx "On the DRM front, there is little the GPL can do to fix this, and this is a matter that needs to be taken up by the legislature, Fontana said. But, that being said,

Re: GPL v3 Draft

On 2/22/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > The GPL give you *more* permissions than copyright law; so a > contract is not needed because the forbidden things by the GPL > are forbidden by copyright law anyway. If you break the GPL > you just can get sued because you have distributed/modif

Re: GPL v3 Draft

Barnes & Thornburg LLP on conspiracy. -- Finally, the Response confirms that there is no alleged "conspiracy," as the GPL is allegedly "public" by its nature with "hundreds" and potentially an "unlimited" number of programmers using the program. (Response at 3.) The allegations support no more

Re: GPL v3 Draft

On 2/22/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Barnes & Thornburg LLP on price: > > --- > Plaintiff's argument that an agreement to license any derivative works > at "no charge" is somehow a "minimum" re-sale price is untenable giv

Re: GPL v3 Draft

On 2/22/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [... Not a Contract ...] > I do not see why you object to this theory. Go ask Barnes & Thornburg LLP. "[O]ne of the Midwest's largest law firms" says that "The GPL, like the shrinkwrap license in ProCD, is a license applicable to anyone who receives

Re: GPL v3 Draft

Barnes & Thornburg LLP on price: --- Plaintiff's argument that an agreement to license any derivative works at "no charge" is somehow a "minimum" re-sale price is untenable given that the provision does not set a "price" for licenses at all, but rather provides that there shall be "no" price f

Re: GPL v3 Draft

Breaking new. Barnes & Thornburg LLP on the GPL (Wallace v IBM et al): - Although it is not clear how it is relevant to whether the per se or rule of reason analysis would apply, Plaintiff also argues that the GPL "purports to defeat the requirements of contractual privity and thus evade

Re: EU antitrust is also cool (was: A new practical problem...)

On 2/19/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf > > > > There is no judgement at all in this document which is resume only the > arguments of D. Wallace. This court has dismissed D. Wallace on the > basis of similar arguments in the doc

Re: EU antitrust is also cool (was: A new practical problem...)

On 18 Feb 2006 12:43:51 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Unfortunately, the dismissal is not yet final and many of the recent > filings[1] are not (easily?) available online. Re: Wither Wallace? by: day5done10/12/05 11:03 am GPL supporters such as Tuxrocks and

Re: EU antitrust is also cool (was: A new practical problem...)

On 2/18/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the following links might interest you. Yeah. > All complain about the GPL are dismissed one after the other. > > http://hearsay.com/wp-hdcarchives/cases/wallace_v_fsf-28nov2005.pdf Here the judge rejected a number of the arguments of the Fr

Re: GPL v3 Draft

I respectfully suggest to Debian and Software in the Public Interest, Inc. to consider sponsoring a new glasses (let's not dilute $4 million grant from OSDL) to crazy Eben, and let him take a brief look at ... http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html Because the deterrent ef

Re: GPL v3 Draft

On 2/16/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/15/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:26:10AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:47:32PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >

Re: GPL v3 Draft

On 2/15/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:26:10AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:47:32PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > On 2/14/06, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >

Re: EU antitrust is also cool

On 2/15/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > It is reproached that a German court apply German law (?!?). A Germanian > bring a lawsuit in Germany for infrigment of a license he have choosen. > It is obvious that German laws will apply. It's far from obvious unless the license specifies th

Re: EU antitrust is also cool (was: A new practical problem...)

On 2/15/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > Are you really educated in (some) law? > > Check for yourself. > http://www.fundp.ac.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005395/ > Sorry it's in french (the website has just been revamped), but I guess > you'll get the gist of it. A hint:

Re: EU antitrust is also cool

On 2/15/06, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >> On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> [...] > >> > >>>First off, hello. > >&g

Re: EU antitrust is also cool (was: A new practical problem...)

On 2/15/06, Ville Oksanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dr. Mikko Välimäki has a quite nice article on the topic: > > Mikko Välimäki: Copyleft Licensing and EC Competition Law, forthcoming > in European Competition Law Review 3/2006 > http://www.valimaki.com/org/open_source_competition.pdf Tha

Re: EU antitrust is also cool (was: A new practical problem...)

On 2/15/06, Ville Oksanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dr. Mikko Välimäki has a quite nice article on the topic: > > Mikko Välimäki: Copyleft Licensing and EC Competition Law, forthcoming > in European Competition Law Review 3/2006 > http://www.valimaki.com/org/open_source_competition.pdf day

Re: GPLv3 Drafting Process

On 2/14/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > I suppose that "fontana" belongs to Moglen's underling at SFLC Richard > Fontana. An interesting article about Eben Moglen: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1139911511108 "Meet the DotCommunist" regards, alexander.

Re: EU antitrust is also cool (was: A new practical problem...)

On 2/15/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:28:22AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] > > > Assuming you mean the FSF and/or GNU project, with whom are they

Re: EU antitrust is also cool (was: A new practical problem...)

On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Assuming you mean the FSF and/or GNU project, with whom are they > entering onto agreement? Mmmmh? I mean the GPL license. > > Also, please have a look at 81 § 3. I did it. Now you please take a look at http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/le

Re: EU antitrust is also cool (was: A new practical problem...)

On 2/14/06, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re > > http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html? > First of

Re: GPLv3 Drafting Process

> A Interesting things are going on over there at gplv3.fsf.org Committee A. http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?Query=%20Creator%20=%20'lrosen'%20%20AND%20'CF.NoteUrl'%20LIKE%20'gplv3-draft-1'%20&Order=DESC&OrderBy=id&Rows= It appears that Rosen was (?is?) on the Committee A. He ident

Re: GPL v3 Draft

On 2/14/06, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > What purpose do you feel calling a person "blind" or an "idiot" serves? > I don't think you are contributing anything to this discussion. How about this: http://www.linuxworld.com/story/43614.htm ("I am an Adjunct Professor at Duquesne U

EU antitrust is also cool (was: A new practical problem...)

On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > First off, hello. Hello Yorick. What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html? TIA. regards, alexander. -- http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace

Re: GPL v3 Draft

On 2/14/06, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > But we all know that the GPL is a license-not-a-contract, and so UCC > > and related case law simply doesn't apply. > > Do we? I thoug

Re: GPL v3 Draft

On 1/17/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/17/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > Eben had a really humorous explanation, which I will attempt to > > paraphrase from my (impressively imperfect) memory: > > > >

Re: FYI, kernel firmware non-freeness discussions

On 2/14/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > I bet another EURO 50 (through PayPal) that Red Hat and Novell are > > also going to lose and won't get dismissal under 12(b)(6). > > I wish I could play, but I'm p

Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries

On 2/12/06, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > However, what if the customer then wanted to sell the machine, or if > > the company wanted to sell machines with this incompatible binary and > > library preinstalled. Would this violation the GPL, or is it possible > > that the compan

Re: legal residence for corporations

On 2/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > I believe that the position is similar in `Civil law' systems, > (France, Germany and similar jurisprudential systems). Strange things happen in the civil law district of Munich I. http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL2_2

Re: FYI: Savannah forces new projects to use GFDL for documentation

Hey Gymnasist, be advised that if Wallace http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf won't succeed in US, I'll invite him to Germany. http://www.allenovery.com/asp/pdf/gercomplaw.pdf -- Rules on distribution Basics Vertical relationships between market participants operating

Re: Moglen's "all good faith"

On 1/20/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > My dossier is rapidly growing. And growing. Here's more evidence that notwithstanding what the FSF says to the judge in Indiana, the FSF's own director and lead counsel in fact (and in "all good faith&quo

Re: FYI, kernel firmware non-freeness discussions

On 1/14/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/14/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We should start a "betting pool"[0] on when Wallace v. FSF will be > > dismissed (again). > > I bet EURO 50 (through PayPal) that t

Re: libgsm: right to distribute

On 2/4/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 07:19:28PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > Simon Neininger wrote: > > > Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann, > > > Technische Universitaet Berlin > > > > Carsten is my thesis counsellor, I

Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries

On 2/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [... bloby Eben's manifestations of blatant copyright misuse*** ...] > Thanks, that makes it clearer. Bitteschoen, bittesehr. Now be a good GNItian and go . regards, alexander. ***) http://www.xfree86.org/pipe

Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries

On 2/5/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Quoting Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > This is tricky. The relevant section in the GPL is > > > > > > But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which > > > is a work based on the

Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries

On 2/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > I hope i have it right this time... In the GNU Republic you'll end up in jail. One of the questions with the GPL is about how tightly you may link GPL code with non-GPL code, for example, when you compile a GPL program and it us

Re: libgsm: right to distribute

On 2/4/06, Simon Neininger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Does the term "Any use" give the user the right to distribute libgsm? The right to distribute authorized copies is statutory. See 17 USC 109 (it is commonly called "first sale", but the actual parameters of the rule are specified in th

Re: Moglen's "all good faith"

One more nail in EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL coffin... On 1/30/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/29/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > >Development of proprietary kernel modules is tolerated, see

Re: Moglen's "all good faith"

On 1/29/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Development of proprietary kernel modules is tolerated, see > >EXPORT_SYMBOL vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. AFAICS, this special exception > >to the GPL has never been formalized, but at least overe here the mere > While p

Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wesley J. Landaker writes: > > > On Friday 27 January 2006 20:29, Michael Poole wrote: > > > There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative > > > of some software to identify themselves would prevent a

Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries

; > I'm trying to understand licensing obligations in regard to GPL'ed > > binaries that link to GPL incompatible libraries. > > First of all, don't pay attention to anything that Alexander Terekhov > writes. He is the biggest troll I have seen on debian-legal for a

Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

Another dose of pain to plonked Miller and other FSF's lackeys (kudos to Wallace for calling the bluff)... On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey plonked Miller, breaking news... > > On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: &

Re: Hi to All!

On 1/28/06, INFONOVA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! Hi! Educated by Prof. Pedro? regards, alexander.

Re: GPL and Court Procedure (was Re: Adobe open source ...)

On 1/28/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Like, say, "ordered set of instructions" to mean "computer program" Hey Prof., how about "a series of instructions"? > > > If you won't write something that means > > anything, is there some reason I should continue replying? > > Fe

Re: GPL and Court Procedure (was Re: Adobe open source ...)

On 1/27/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > anything, is there some reason I should continue replying? You can't read. Stop replying. Drop an email to Judge Saris telling her that you can't read and asking her to phone you back. regards, alexander.

Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

Hey plonked Miller, breaking news... On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/27/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What argument? > > > > http://lis

Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

On 1/27/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What argument? > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00475.html Edwards has already explained it to you. A "question of law" is a

Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

On 1/27/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Plonk doesn't mean "let's ignore the person's argument and then What argument? Edwards has wasted enough time on you in the past and you still don't grok a simple fact that IP licenses are contracts which is not akin to lottery or other st

Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

More pain to plonked Miller and other FSF's lackeys. On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just to stress... > > On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/26/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > &

Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries

On 1/27/06, Glenn L. McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all; > > This question doesn't directly relate to debian, but i hope you can > help straighten me out with this. Easy. > > I'm trying to understand licensing obligations in regard to GPL'ed > binaries that link to GPL incompatible libra

Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

On 1/27/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Agreeing to the condition--[whatever]--is a condition to receive > the license to the software. Well, the GPLv3, for example, elaborates on GPLv2 section 5 (go read its first statement) and says that "You are not required to accept this

Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 05:47:37PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > Michael> If the laws governing default fora are flawed, please fix > those laws. > > Very well. I am now off to fix the laws of every country in the > world. Take me, take me with

Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

Just to stress... On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/26/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

On 1/26/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] > > > And licensing software is not selling it. > > > > Yorick, Yor

Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:07:02AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: [... blame geography ...] For the record: I agree with Yorick regarding venue. Poole is dead wrong as usual. regards, alexander.

Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Beware, what you are citing is an opinion, and not the actual legal > framework. Yorick, Yorick. I suggest you go talk to Hoeren on "software licensing" in Europe. http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf The Pr

Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > And licensing software is not selling it. Yorick, Yorick. The courts disagree. Adobe asserts that its license defines the relationship between Adobe and any third-party such that a breach of the license constitutes copyright infring

Re: Moglen on kernel firmware blobs

On 23 Jan 2006 16:14:00 +0100, Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > > [blobs] From the point of view of the GPL work called the Linux > > kernel, they're just data. > > Apart from the fact that the data is meant to be executed by some > computi

Re: Distributing GPL software.

Plonk. regards, alexander.

Re: Distributing GPL software.

On 1/23/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/23/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel > > &

Re: Distributing GPL software.

On 1/23/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel > > like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret > > the GP

Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft

On 1/23/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > A legitimate privacy device may function very much like DRM. Consider > classified environments, where you really don't want people to copy > things around willy-nilly. Making it hard to copy information won't > eliminate leaks, but it

Re: Distributing GPL software.

On 1/22/06, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am 2006-01-12 18:51:42, schrieb Alexander Terekhov: > > > BTW, I've just checked my records. I have 15 orders of MS winxp64 beta > > downloads on record. 14 copies are still available. Anyone? Just EURO 5 &

Moglen freed blobs (free as in exempted from free as in freedom)

And that's in spite of them being nothing but object code "which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work under the GPL and must be released." Riots arose all over the GNU Republic. The Coalition Death To Unfree Blobs called for

Re: Moglen's "all good faith"

On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] > >> > Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were >

Re: Moglen's "all good faith"

On 1/20/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexander Terekhov said on Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:10:54AM +0100,: > > > My dossier is rapidly growing. Next time you see Moglen tell him > > that in the current tempo (driven by the GPLv3) my dossier on his >

Re: Moglen's "all good faith"

On 1/20/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > 3. FSF's ownership of parts of the kernel means FSF is one of the >copyright holders in the collective work called the linux kernel. You apparently don't know what the copyright in a collective work is and most likely you were m

Re: Moglen's "all good faith"

On 1/20/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > GNU GPL'd. And, BTW, how come that the FSF's "compliance lab" didn't > > purify the kernel of *GNU*/Linux? > > Because FSF doesn't own any copyrights in Linux - it doesn't contribute. Well, The Foundation notes that despite the a

Re: Moglen's "all good faith"

On 1/20/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are some (bad) parts in the linux kernel that are not GPL, and > even some parts which could be considered non-free. Look through the > individual file copyright notices. Sorry, but under Moglen's own theory, it is enough to have a ti

Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft

On 1/20/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > (Unfortunately, I don't speak that language ...) Hey legals, drop this link http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=effectively to poor Maynard. regards, alexander.

Re: Moglen's "all good faith"

On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in > > its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary > > video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't > > li

Re: GPL v3 Draft

On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > (Of course, laws and courts have free reign to interpret words in any > way that suits their agenda, so "effectively" probably really means > "pretends to" ...) It means"in effect" here. regards, alexander.

Moglen's "all good faith"

Hey legals, enjoy Moglen speaking on one-way street, linking, etc. http://news.com.com/Defender+of+the+GPL/2008-1082_3-6028495.html Now, One specific area where the linking question arises is in the Linux kernel, where proprietary video drivers loaded are loaded as modules. Another one migh

Re: Question on GPL compliance

On 1/19/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Alright, thanks. I guess we'll ship two CDs then. I am very risk adverse > and I don't want to worry about the sources. Even if you feel under obligation to do what the GPL decrees, your customers can of course make a promise not to com

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

Hands Off Yorick! On 1/19/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire? > > A clue-by-four, the same as used for top-post/whole-quoters. > > (ObSerious: please stop feeding the troll, please follow > the code of conduct

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

On 1/19/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > compatible with itself > > The GPL is incompatible with itself. [ ... Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01 ...] Beside that, http://www.onlamp.co

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

On 1/19/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire? A troll hunter. regards, alexander.

Re: GR: GFDL Position Statement

On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > Yes, these are classic "must provide source to be free software" cases. > > Er, no they're not--"classic", that is. And here comes Moglen. "Your Honor, all hardcopies of GPL'd works are object code." That will quickly become classic.

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > compatible with itself The GPL is incompatible with itself. A recent press conference of the Free Software Foundation confirmed the rumors that the GNU General Public License was found to be incompatible with itself. This newly discov

Re: GPL v3 Draft

On 1/19/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > > It's indeed a hypocrisy masterpiece... :-( Welcome to the club. Free as in not GNU. regards, alexander.

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

On 1/19/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/18/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > > Hey, I'm the troll here. Go away. > > Seriously (sort of), I just wonder how you define a SEQUENCE, Prof. I guess our Prof has a lecture.

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

On 1/18/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... Hey, I'm the troll here. Go away. Seriously (sort of), I just wonder how you define a SEQUENCE, Prof. regards, alexander. P.S. "author's right" has really little to do with distribution. First Sale, y'know.

Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

On 1/18/06, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...} > What do other people think of this? I think the GPLv3 is great. It's perfect impotence pill for (ordinary contractual) stuff like OSL, IPL, CPL and whatnot the FSF is going to deem now "compatible". The OSI approval (I just pray that s

Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

On 1/18/06, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Also, how about just "to receive copies" and add "under the terms > of this License". Sneaky. But it won't help. GPLv3 9.[5] Not a Contract. ("You are not required to accept this License in order to receive a copy of the Program.")

Re: GPL v3 Draft

On 1/18/06, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:35:55AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Moglen is a liar. And Stallman too. > > *plonk* And how long is your plonk? Longer than Pool's one? regards, alexander.

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

On 1/18/06, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Well, the draft for GPL v3 says: > >"Object code" means any non-source version of a work. > Everyone seems to like this. > So in GPL v3 it will be very clear that a printed copy is "object code". How fascinating. The courts will enjoy

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

Plonk. regards, alexander.

  1   2   >