On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 04:52:35PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > You're thinking of patents, not copyrights. Under US law, copyrights
> > persist until they expire (now 75 years if held by a natural person, 95
> > years if held by a corporation) or are affirmatively abandoned..
>
> Acvtually, I was
On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > pkg_add -r gcc on a freebsd box will pull down a binary of gcc without a
> > copy of the GPL.
>
> Perhaps I'm confused, but I thought the normal procedure was the
> "ports" mechanism, which pulls down source
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> pkg_add -r gcc on a freebsd box will pull down a binary of gcc without a
> copy of the GPL.
Perhaps I'm confused, but I thought the normal procedure was the
"ports" mechanism, which pulls down source and compiles it locally.
If it's actually more like the w
On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Is it? What does Debian have to do with EvilCorp that Red Hat or
> > Slackware doesn't? Why is Debian getting singled out? Why haven't I seen
> > the same thing on the FreeBSD lists? It looks as if RMS's
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have an idea: we hack gzip to automatically decompress a particular
> coding sequence to the text of the GPL. Then all we have to do is
> force people to use our hacked gzip (screw up the magic in our
> header) and we don't have to use any additiona
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Acvtually, I was thinking trademarks: Kleenex for the prime example. The
> big issue is collateral estoppel. If there is collateral estoppel in
> copyright law, failure to prosecute infringement may disallow you from
> ever prosecuting the same type of inf
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it? What does Debian have to do with EvilCorp that Red Hat or
> Slackware doesn't? Why is Debian getting singled out? Why haven't I seen
> the same thing on the FreeBSD lists? It looks as if RMS's goal it to make
> Debian his own private whipping boys
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> RMS is meeting with lawyers. You brought that tidbit up. What are we
> supposed to think: he's there because he likes their office decor?
He sends email to law professors that he respects, who are experts in
intellectual property law, who are personal frie
[John Galt - Sat, 2 Dec 2000 04:50:58 PM CST]
} Is it? What does Debian have to do with EvilCorp that Red Hat or
} Slackware doesn't? Why is Debian getting singled out? Why haven't I seen
} the same thing on the FreeBSD lists? It looks as if RMS's goal it to make
} Debian his own private whipp
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 02:54:24AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:58:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > > > Since when does intention have anything to do with breaking the
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 02:54:24AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:58:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > > Since when does intention have anything to do with breaking the law?
> > > Negligence is also a crime.
> >
> > Catego
On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > www.ll.georgetown.edu/Fed-Ct/Circuit/fed/opinions/97-1425.html
> >
> > Reasonable man and estoppel are linked, and a choice quote:
> >
> > A delay of more than six years raises a presumption that it is
> >
On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > See Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U.S. 96, 99 (1885). See also USC Title 17,
> > section 507
> >
> > * (b) Civil Actions. - No civil action shall be maintained under the
> >provisions of this title unles
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thomas> Let's not drive the rhetoric to a feverish pitch, accusing people of
> Thomas> being unreasonable or unthinking. Consider the reasons for that
> Thomas> clause of the GPL,
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Show me where we have advertized any individual deb for
> download on your non Debian system, as opposed to piecewise upgrade
> of you preexisting Debian machine.
I'm not sure exactly what RMS has in mind. Most of the obvious cases
certainly
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are you, perchance, advocating we keep several (potentially
> several thousand) copies of the GPL on every Debian machine out there
> on the off chance that the end user (despite pointers in the
> copyright file) is unable to get a copy of th
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 01:19:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Debian advertises a freely redistributable system, with no special need
> to read copyrights before redistributing all or part of it.
Not exactly. If I upload /bin/ls from my system to a BBS without
providing source, I am violating t
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Debian advertises individual .debs for download in many contexts.
Raul> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:13:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I am not sure I agree wi
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Let's not drive the rhetoric to a feverish pitch, accusing people of
Thomas> being unreasonable or unthinking. Consider the reasons for that
Thomas> clause of the GPL, and consider the ways that our enemies would like
Thom
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
n??
Thomas> The GPL speaks of what you distribute. When you put a bunch
Thomas> of pieces up on a web site, the question of whether you
Thomas> intend to distribute the pieces or only the combined whole is
Thomas> a question of wh
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> The issue isn't whether you "make something downloadable";
Thomas> it's whether you distribute it. Distributing on the net
Thomas> involves several things, not just making it downloadable, but
Thomas> also advertising it,
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> It's not a special extra distinction, it's part of figuring out what
Thomas> it counts as to distribute a thing. If you put a big composite thing
Thomas> on a download site, whether it's one thing or a bunch of things is
T
> >>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas> Debian advertises individual .debs for download in many contexts.
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:13:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am not sure I agree with this statement.
Debian advertises a freely redistrib
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> See Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U.S. 96, 99 (1885). See also USC Title 17,
> section 507
>
> * (b) Civil Actions. - No civil action shall be maintained under the
>provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years
>after the cl
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> www.ll.georgetown.edu/Fed-Ct/Circuit/fed/opinions/97-1425.html
>
> Reasonable man and estoppel are linked, and a choice quote:
>
> A delay of more than six years raises a presumption that it is
>unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial.
>
> _Wanlas
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I know a Randroid might think all lawyers are the same, but amazingly,
> > they are not.
>
> Ahhh! Out of logical refutation, you fall to the last refuge of the
> incompetent: personal attacks.
Um, your the one who launched personal attacks against peop
On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > First of all, knowledge is not that of the actors, but of the "reasonable
> > man". The .deb archive standard contents were decided on when Debian was
> > still a FSF project, and they certainly haven't been
On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Lawyers are involved? This makes it imperitive that no change ever get
> > off the ground ATM. Compromising around a lawyer is like bleeding around
> > a shark: you don't do it twice.
>
> I have no idea wh
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First of all, knowledge is not that of the actors, but of the "reasonable
> man". The .deb archive standard contents were decided on when Debian was
> still a FSF project, and they certainly haven't been modified to remove
> the license after the separation
On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Widespread ignorance of the law is. Name one binary packaging system that
> > always includes the GPL when necessary. Five years without a correct
> > implementation is evidence of widespread ignorance or a
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lawyers are involved? This makes it imperitive that no change ever get
> off the ground ATM. Compromising around a lawyer is like bleeding around
> a shark: you don't do it twice.
I have no idea what "ATM" means.
I know a Randroid might think all lawyers
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Widespread ignorance of the law is. Name one binary packaging system that
> always includes the GPL when necessary. Five years without a correct
> implementation is evidence of widespread ignorance or a changing playing
> field, take your choice.
It's qui
On 1 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> This is a nice way to explain it; perhaps even this is the best way to
> describe it. When rms gets back to me after talking to the lawyers,
> I'll suggest it.
Lawyers are involved? This makes it imperitive that no change ever get
off the ground AT
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Failure to zealously prosecute one's every possible avenue of recourse in
> enforcing one's own copyright is not an offense under U.S. law, nor, as far
> as I know, anywhere else.
However, it is the case that failure to prosecute a copyright
violatio
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:58:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > Since when does intention have anything to do with breaking the law?
> > Negligence is also a crime.
>
> Categorically, no. There is such a thing as "criminal negligence" but it
> exi
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:58:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Since when does intention have anything to do with breaking the law?
> Negligence is also a crime.
Categorically, no. There is such a thing as "criminal negligence" but it
exists within specific legal contexts, typically those assoc
Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since when does intention have anything to do with breaking the law?
> Negligence is also a crime. The FSF is violating the GPL when they
> make binaries such as /bin/ls downloadable without the downloading of
> the GPL. Negligence is no excuse.
Nothing
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:45:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The GPL speaks of what you distribute. When you put a bunch of pieces
> up on a web site, the question of whether you intend to distribute
> the pieces or only the combined whole is a question of what your
> intention is. One
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> *Sigh*. No, the FSF is not the enemy. I think that my
> arguments point out, though, that a modicum of common sense would be
> most welcome in this frenzy of zealous and nitpicking attention to
> the fine print; and point out the these are im
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:45:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Where in the GPL does it make a distinction??
> The GPL speaks of what you distribute. When you put a bunch of pieces
> up on a web site, the question of whether you intend to dist
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thomas> One way that it certainly matters is that nobody at GNU advertises
> Thomas> individual binaries on ftp.gnu.org in that way for download.
>
> Thomas> Debian advertises ind
Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 09:09:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Strawman. Tell me how your argument differes from me
> > > downloading ftp://ftp.gnu.org/bin/ls and not getting the GPL.
> >
> > One way that it certainly matters is that nob
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When the FSF starts playing by these rulkes, perhaps we shall
>> have the basis of a discussion.
Thomas> You seem to be regarding the FSF as the enemy here, and I think that'
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> One way that it certainly matters is that nobody at GNU advertises
Thomas> individual binaries on ftp.gnu.org in that way for download.
Thomas> Debian advertises individual .debs for download in many contexts.
I
* Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001201 22:07]:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:50:03PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > Make the GPL show up in ftp motd and perhaps even the web server
> > (headers?)
>
> I sincerely hope you aren't implying that the _complete_ copy of GPL (or,
> for that matter, any
45 matches
Mail list logo
