Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> You are focusing on the definition of "derived work", but that is not
> really the issue. Copyright also covers use of a work as part of a
> larger combined work.
Your silly claims like "If a.o is under the GPL and talks to b.o
which talks to c.o, the GPL covers all
Yorick Cool wrote:
[...]
> The reasoning is pretty simple. As Sean said, it is based on the
> understanding that the GPL is a contract.
Yeah. Except that everybody and his dog knows that the FSF's
position is that GPL != contract. Moglen and RMS now call it
"The Constitution" (of the GNU Repub
On 9/12/05, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Alexander> > Larry Lessig?
> Alexander>
> Alexander> CC share-alike licenses don't try to infect compilations
> (collective
> Alexander> works).
>
> So? That changes nothing to the fact Lessig considers the GPL -- the license
> we're
>
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[...]
> I will grant you Lawrence Lessig even though a few minutes' Googling
http://www.google.com/search?q=Lessig+GPL+insane
yields
http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2005/02/thoughts_on_sof.html
Quite refreshing. ;-)
Similar concerns from an another lawyer:
Don Armstrong wrote:
[...]
> The argument of the FSF has been (and continues to be, TTBOMK) that
> dynamic linking with a GPLed work forms a derivative work when the
> binary is distributed.
I have yet to see any arguments from the FSF apart from baseless
and totally lunatic claims regarding der
On 9/12/05, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative and then you
> have to
> accept them all (including the dynamic linking business), or you admit
> you can depart with any of their assertions.
And where can I find more deta
On 9/14/05, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[... FSF: assert(!is_contract(GPL)); ...]
> Alexander> > Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative
> and then you have to
> Alexander> > accept them all (including the dynamic linking business), or you
> admit
> Alexander>
On 9/14/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:14:21AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> > "However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
> > distribute the Program or its derivative works."
>
>
On 9/14/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> As an anarchist I
You're brainwashed GNUtian.
regards,
alexander.
> permission for a compilation work.
Copyright doesn't establish exclusive right to prepare (original)
compilations (the term compilation includes collective works).
Compilation is entirely separate work from its constituents. You'd
need permission to prepare a derivative compilation (by modify
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > The license on visual studio doesn't really matter here. What
> > matters is the license on the SDK (which has fairly generous terms
> > for stuff you write yourself).
It follows that if sell a Windows program that you've m
On 9/15/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > It follows that if sell a Windows program that you've made without
if you sell, I meant.
> > Microsoft SDK which has "generous terms" (what are they, BTW?)...
>
> When you're talking about what you need to build generic programs
I sa
On 9/16/05, Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > My, what a lunacy. Regarding FSF's derivative works theory, I suspect
> > that the FSF objective is to establish basis for insanity defense -- the
> > only
> > thing that m
> GPL-incompatible
Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01).
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 discovered fact may actually
cause a l
On 9/16/05, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > GPL-incompatible
http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensingfaq.html
("We paid the FSF to have them provide us these answers. So these
answers are verified correct by people like FSF lawyer and law
prof
On 9/16/05, Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Are you asking to put FSF's officers in jail?
I'm not an Attorney General. But to fulfill your curiosity, I'd rather
"extradite" the entire gang to North Korea with no right to return.
regards,
alexander.
On 9/16/05, Harri Järvi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 14:12:34 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > GPL-incompatible
> >
> > Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01).
>
> That's April Fool's Day.
It ru
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 1. the GPL can only restrict the distributions of an original work or
> its derivatives;
Modulo "first sale" (which is nonexistent in the GNU Republic).
> and
>
> 2. the only way to determine if a work is a derivative work o
On 9/16/05, Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 9/14/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> As an anarchist I
> >
> > You're brainwashed GNUtian.
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be "GPL compatible" not having
> > section 3 of the LGPL.
>
> Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also
> distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT (2 and
> 3 cla
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be "GPL compatible" not having
> > > > section 3 of the LGPL.
> > >
> > > Everything distributable under the terms of BSD
On 9/20/05, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Harald Welte have successfully pursued
> infringment claims against people who violate the GPL.
Einstweilige Verfuegung (ex parte action) != Hauptverfahren (lawsuit).
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43996.html
It's a Small Wel
On 9/20/05, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/20/05, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Harald Welte have successfully pursued
> > infringment claims against people who violate the GPL.
>
> Einstweilige Verfuegung
On 30 Sep 2005 08:43:23 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> You can package them together, but if the pictures are compiled into
> the application
Apart from "mere aggregation", the GPL TERMS AND CONDITIONS say
nothing about applications.
"How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs"
On 9/30/05, Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> The latter /is/ a problem: if the images are not merely aggregated with
> your application (for instance as a sample images in an image viewer),
> but used in program's user interface it is likely that the image is
> considered part of th
On 30 Sep 2005 19:06:35 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Combined work is not a derivative work of its components. Combined
> > work is protected as a compilation (at best, if at all) and falls
> > under &q
Aussonderung
Kinder und Jugendliche mit Verhaltensproblemen
On 01 Oct 2005 15:23:32 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 30 Sep 2005 19:06:35 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If they are com
On 10/1/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray writes:
>
> > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 30 Sep 2005 19:06:35 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > If they are compiled in in some way that means tha
On 10/1/05, Christian Jodar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...
That's how (GNU General Public) virus is spreading. Yet another (brainwashed)
victim.
regards,
alexander.
On 10/1/05, Patrick Herzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/10/05, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/1/05, Christian Jodar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...
> >
> > That's how (GNU General Public) virus is spreading. Yet another
On 10/1/05, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 01 October 2005 21:34, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > On 10/1/05, Patrick Herzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 01/10/05, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > &g
On 10/11/05, Martin Koegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> At http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/en/licensing-notice.html
Under the laws of the GNU Republic (MySQL district), all works are "derived"
(in metaphysical sense) from some other preexisting GPL'd work(s) and hence
fall under the GPL
On 11/25/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> "PHP scripts are derivative works of PHP" sounds like someone misinterpreted
> the FSF's claims, and ended up believing that the source of a program is a
> derivative work of its libraries. (That, unlike the FSF's claims, seems
On 11/26/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 09:22:24PM +, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > Statements like this one would seem to have something to do with it:
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
>
> Odd statements, indeed.
http://groups.
On 12/20/05, Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> The tarball compiler (I mean the person that put all the files
> together in a consistent collection) can assert a "compilation
> copyright" (that is a copyright over the whole tarball because of his
> work in putting it together).
The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put
the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway
(antitrust violation -> copyright misuse -> quasi public domain/copyright
impotenc
On 1/5/06, Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> > The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
> > But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put
> > the entire GPL&#
On 1/7/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> The obvious conclusion one would draw from this is that there are no
> competitors to Linux or, at least, that all the existing ones are
> quickly being killed off. However, a quick examination of reality shows
> this not to be the ca
On 1/7/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:59:01PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
> > > But actually it doesn'
And one more..
On 1/7/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/7/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:59:01PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > > The gang shoul
My suggestion to the FSF is to retire the [L]GPL ASAP and close the shop.
I suggest to relicense the entire GPL'd code base under OSL/EPL/CPL/
real-stuff-like-that.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. http://www.stromian.com/Corner/Feb2005.html
Rosen is too polite to call for replacing the FSF licenses w
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That would be *really* easy to do. To relicense the
> entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL project
> would have to agree, possibly in writing. There are thousands, maybe
> millions of them.
If they don't mind quasi p
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That would be *really* easy to do. To relicense the
> > > entire GPL codeb
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL
> > gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those c
On 1/7/06, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Alexander Terekhov:
>
> > Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL
> > gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as
> > I see fit) is made under 1
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GPL has been upheld by courts in other countries, e.g. the
> Netfilter case.
Oh yeah, It's a Small Welte. Einstweilige Verfuegung (ex parte
action) doesn't really "upheld" anything, to begin with.
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/4399
On 1/8/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> If Rosen wrote a license then it's a good bet that it's not a free license.
Who cares about your bet... but free as in what, BTW?
regards,
alexander.
On 1/8/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Free as in DFSG-free, FSF-free, OSI-open source, etc.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php
regards,
alexander.
On 1/9/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Although FSF thinks AFL and OSL are free, but very inconvienient (e.g.
> the OSL's assent provision).
Yeah, right. Assent is not needed in the GNU Republic where "first sale" is
nonexistent, IP is not property, and where distributing s
On 1/11/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[... obligation to provide access to source code ...]
> Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all.
It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
him without any "I agree" manifestations of
On 1/11/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
> > him without any "I agree" manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
> > redistribute it (i.
On 1/11/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Right. But it's not required. You can gift or sell it without T&C.
> >
> > The rest is here:
> >
> > http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm
>
> That l
On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> [And for reference, the doctrine of first sale is typically held to
> apply only when (amongst other things) (a) the work is sold,
The doctrine is codified in 17 USC 109. It is commonly called
"first sale", but the actual parameters of
On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:44:32PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I
> > just download the tar.gz file and put it on a CD.
> >
> > Does this clause mean that everyone who is
On 1/12/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:44:32PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > > Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I
>
On 1/12/06, Benjamin A'Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> If they refuse to provide you the source (or access to the source, or
> whatever), then they are in violation of the GPL. Is this not against
> the law
Downloads aside for a moment and assuming that the GPL is a
bilateral contract (con
On 11 Jan 2006 20:27:49 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Benjamin A'Lee writes:
>
> > If they refuse to provide you the source (or access to the source, or
> > whatever), then they are in violation of the GPL. Is this not against
> > the law (in the US, UK, wherever)?
>
> Please s
On 1/12/06, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of laptops
> > with the sources, and a sign next to the CDs that says "If you want the
> > sources for this CD, ask us, and we'll burn you a CD for $2".
>
On 1/12/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > Use of the ECW SDK with Unlimited Decompressing and Unlimited Compression
> > for
> > applications licensed under a GNU General Public style license ("GPL") is
> > governed by the "ECW SDK PUBLIC USE LICENSE AGREEMENT".
>
> Not su
On 1/12/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 02:34:39AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Alexander>
> Alexander> Well, I'm in the DE. But in both UK and DE *the Rome Convention on
> Alexander> on the law applicable to cont
On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Download the binary and the *corresponding* source code. While
> distributing only the binary. put on the CD, a file saying that the
> source code to every binary on the CD is available from you to the
> person you gave th
On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>
> > On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Download the binary and the *corresponding* source code. While
> > &g
On 12 Jan 2006 12:32:41 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>
> > On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> > >
> > > &g
On 1/12/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2006 12:32:41 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> >
> > > On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 1/12/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > That's because your suggested process is not what I suggest to Carrera.
> >
> > Yeah, I know that it's close to impossible for a GNUtian to grok "first
> > sale&
On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 1) Buy a copy of relatively pricey commercial software.
Download some FSF's perl like emacs.
>
> 2) Buy a computer without that piece of software on it.
Check.
>
> 3) Install the software on that computer, since you
On 1/12/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Universe won't collapse as a result, believe me.
Isaac got it:
-
Further, my understanding is that Alexander was proposing lawfully acquiring
and distributing copies and not making new copies. If the law r
On 1/13/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/11/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh, that's close (hint: googly-googly covenant). But according
> > to the FSF, the GPL is not a contract.
>
> I think you've misunders
On 1/13/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov said on Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:27:27PM +0100,:
>
> > And I'm still not in prison. How come?
>
> 1. You have some kind of understanding with the copyright holder of
>the program in que
On 1/13/06, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I think his point is this: Person A can legally make and distribute a lot of
> copies to B without putting B under any obligation, as long as B doesn't
> make more copies himself. B, who now has a lot of copies, can dispose of them
> as h
On 1/13/06, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> The argument "what if it was Windows XP instead of GPL software" doesn't seem
> to work here. The first step would become "Person A can legally make and
> distribute a lot of copies of Windows XP to B..." This statement would be
> true f
On 1/13/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Terekhov's more delusional conspiracy theories.
Hey, if you mean "Wallace v GPL"...
The FSF has already admitted price-fixing (albeit "vertical") and also
conceded "distribution of software to consumers at no cost other than
the cost
On 1/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> *plonk*
A day without a plonk is not exciting. I'm thankful to Maynard.
regards,
alexander.
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 the FSF is going to lose it
once again and won't get dismissal with prejudice through that
motion.
Who's playing?
On 1/14/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/15/06, 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
On 1/16/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> This is probably right. B will not break the law. However; the GPL give
> you permission to distribute the software only if you agree to it.
17 USC 109 (aka copyright exhaustion in Europe) gives you
"permission", not the GPL.
> If you don't agr
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/643d20ed959418ec
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/decb10a8816c96b6
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/eb61dbc76806b071
regards,
alexander.
On 1/16/06, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...
Pls don't mess up my game, Ken.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Note also that modification and copying under 17 USC 117
(plus any other lawful activity under any other exceptions and
limitations to exclusive rights) doesn't trigger acceptance.
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:
>
>No lawyer knows exactly why we have been shouting at eachother for
>the past 50(?) years; but since everyone
On 1/17/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> In particular read section 4 of the GPL.
It says "You are not required to accept this License, since you
have not signed it." And I agree that you are not require to accept
this License (noting that signing a license agreement is not the
only wa
On 1/17/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[... not accepting the GPL ...]
> So in this case you cannot make copies
You can download copies without accepting the GPL.
> (nor modifying) of the software anymore.
And adapt/modify computer programs and make additional copies
under 17 USC 117 fro
On 17 Jan 2006 10:25:44 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>
> > Yeah. So legal mandates like, for example,
> >
> > http://www.courts.state.va.us/text/scv/amendments/rule_71_75_SC.html
> >
> >
> > When
On 17 Jan 2006 11:28:14 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I understand that you are willing to and have posted totally
> irrelevant regulations as support for claims that you provide no
> direct or plausible indirect support for.
Well, I was just hinting at disbarring Moglen.
On 17 Jan 2006 11:44:42 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Seriously, I'm just asking you to back that up instead of hand-waving.
I refrain. Drop an email to http://www.mama-tech.com/. She claimed it.
regards,
alexander.
On 1/17/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2006 11:44:42 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Seriously, I'm just asking you to back that up instead of hand-waving.
>
> I refrain. Drop an email to http://www.mama
On 17 Jan 2006 13:22:19 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[... *plonk* and handwaving ...]
Thanks for playing. Next time you see Moglen tell him that in the
current tempo (driven by the GPLv3) my dossier on disbarring him
is going to rich the critical mass pretty soon. So he might w
On 1/17/06, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Bernhard R. Link:
>
> > But it lists no conditions that that stuff is in any way free.
> > When I do not misread it, it would even Microsoft to take any
> > GPLv3 program, extend it, build an API around the extensions
> > and distribute it t
On 1/17/06, Samuel E RIFFLE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I am not authorized to offer a legal opinion, but the above is a "common
> sense", practitioner oriented reading of the terms of the GPL.
Except that you were mostly reading the manifesto part of the GPL
which doesn't belong to T&C ope
knows exactly why we have been shouting at eachother for
> >the past 50(?) years; but since everyone is shouting, everyone
> >thought there must be some reason. I've decided to take take the
> >initiative and return to mixed case, ending the endless shouting
> &
On 1/18/06, Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
>
> > As for your claims that Eben Moglen is a repeated violator of the legal
> > rules of Virginia (you practically call him a habitual liar), presumably
> > you have some evidence, or are you just engaging in casual libel?
>
>
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Care to post a link to rules of New York?
>
> It's not up to me. You charged Moglen with offenses, you back it up.
In this type of offence it sorta
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > Care to post a link to rules of New York?
> >
> > It's not up to
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 1/18/06, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.
The Copyright Act defines a computer program as"a set of
statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
a computer in order to bring about a certain result. " 17 U.S.C.
§ 101. Computer programs can be expressed in eit
On 1/18/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.
> >
> > The Copyright Act defines a computer program as"a set of
> > statements or instructions to b
On 1/18/06, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf, an english translation at
> http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
I know. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00088.html
Pls read that message in its entirety (and als
On 18 Jan 2006 10:31:12 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster writes:
>
> > I wouldn't be too sure that "set" doesn't have a different meaning to
> > lawyers than it has to mathematicians or computer scientists.
> >
> > Anyway, I doubt whether sequence is correct, too - unl
On 1/18/06, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (BTW I'm subscribed, no need to Cc)
Setup your Mail-Followup-To as you see fit.
[... GPL would not allow distribution on paper at all ...]
Really? Nobody shall be surprised that it's knows as GNU legal
nonsense.
> What does the law say about
Plonk.
regards,
alexander.
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
