Re: GPL and other licences
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 17:46 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > [...] > > The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft > > explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they > > were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that? > > What they are stating is this: (MS EULA) > > > * Installation and use. You may install, use, access, > display and run one copy of the Product on a single > computer, yawn. You're boring. You try to say !a showcasing a. > BTW, given the set-in-stone FSF's stance on legal status of the > GPL (everybody and his dog knows for certain that the GPL is a > unilateral-permission-not-a-contract) I have no idea what > contract the FSF hired lawyers in Indian are talking about. > > Hey mini-RMS, what do you think? C'mon share your thoughts on > that. I don't think anything since I don't know not of what you're speaking. But the anecdotal evidence portrayed by your posts leave you very little credit as far as saying a truthful thing goes. Rui signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 14:35 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Keep in mind that copyright law doesn't concern itself with > distribution of AUTHORIZED copies and that the act of distribution > doesn't turn AUTHORIZED copies into unauthorized copies. Here you go again, confusing _your_copy_ with _copies_of_your_copy_ plonk Rui signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft
> explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they
> were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that?
What they are stating is this: (MS EULA)
* Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the Product on a single
computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
("Workstation Computer"). The Product may not be used
by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any
single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum
of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each
a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to
utilize the services of the Product solely for File and
Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote
access (including connection sharing and telephony
services). The ten connection maximum includes any
indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other
software or hardware which pools or aggregates
connections. Except as otherwise permitted by the
NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop
features described below, you may not use the Product
to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other
executable software residing on the Workstation Computer,
nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display,
or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless
the Device has a separate license for the Product.
[...]
* Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy
of the Product on a storage device, such as a network
server, used only to install or run the Product on your
other Workstation Computers over an internal network;
however, you must acquire and dedicate an additional
license for each separate Workstation Computer on or
from which the Product is installed, used, accessed,
displayed or run. A license for the Product may not be
shared or used concurrently on different Workstation
Computers.
[...]
4. TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different
Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must
completely remove the Product from the former Workstation
Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the
Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to
another end user. The transfer has to include all
component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and
if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The
transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a
consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving
the transferred Product must agree to all the EULA terms.
No Rental. You may not rent, lease, lend or provide
commercial hosting services to third parties with the
Product.
[...]
6. TERMINATION. Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft
may cancel this EULA if you do not abide by the terms and
conditions of this EULA, in which case you must destroy all
copies of the Product and all of its component parts.
[...]
19. The Product is protected by copyright and other intellectual
property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own
the title, copyright, and other intellectual property
rights in the Product. The Product is licensed, not sold.
Well, of course when you buy it for example in retail (separately
or in a bundle with a new computer), the "product" (copy) is sold.
But the moment you agree to that contract (e.g. when installing
and pressing something to manifest assent), you give up all your
rights under 17 USC 109 and 117 (subject to local regulations
regarding unfair contractual terms), and, to quote the FSF's
brief in Wallace v. FSF "the contract controls".
BTW, given the set-in-stone FSF's stance on legal status of the
GPL (everybody and his dog knows for certain that the GPL is a
unilateral-permission-not-a-contract) I have no idea what
contract the FSF hired lawyers in Indian are talking about.
Hey mini-RMS, what do you think? C'mon share your thoughts on
that.
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 11:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > > [... legal scheme to escape copyleft ...] > > I resent the innuendo implicated by this cut, which could lead someone > to think I wrote a legal scheme to escape copyleft. Oh c'mon mini-RMS, you're a rightful co-author. (Future press conference in Boblingen regarding FSF's anti-copyleft conspiracy lawsuit) Q) Who authored that legal scheme to escape copyleft? A) You know, rms himself co-authored it. (Dead silence in the audience) > > Another of your nice works of fraud, Alex? Objection! See above. > > > But here's a big secret for you, mini-RMS: copyright doesn't > > contemplate copyleft. First sale, copyright misuse, and etc. > > You hide behind "first sale", "copyright misuse", and etc, but you > constantly hide behind the confusion of what you do with _your_copy_ and > what you do with _copies_of_your_copy_. Go talk to your doctor, really. Let him hear your answer to this rather simple question: Are those _copies_of_your_copy_ AUTHORIZED copies or how not? Keep in mind that copyright law doesn't concern itself with distribution of AUTHORIZED copies and that the act of distribution doesn't turn AUTHORIZED copies into unauthorized copies. http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/0a794dfd7697e067 regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 11:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > [... legal scheme to escape copyleft ...] I resent the innuendo implicated by this cut, which could lead someone to think I wrote a legal scheme to escape copyleft. Another of your nice works of fraud, Alex? > But here's a big secret for you, mini-RMS: copyright doesn't > contemplate copyleft. First sale, copyright misuse, and etc. You hide behind "first sale", "copyright misuse", and etc, but you constantly hide behind the confusion of what you do with _your_copy_ and what you do with _copies_of_your_copy_. Rui signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: [...] > Of course they can. The copyright holder most definitely cannot control > how the software is used (unless there is a contract stipulating > such), because copyright law doesn't give such rights - it's the right > to make and distribute copies that is granted to the copyright holder, 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 the statute and not some lay reading of "first", "sale", or even "first sale"). Over here in the EU, that statutory doctrine is known as "copyright exhaustion". http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf Note that that Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute is no stranger. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hoeren http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/panel/profiles/hoeren.pdf MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL BODIES Member/Vice President, German Association for Law and Informatics (DGRI); Member, Society for Computers and Law, U.K.; Member, German-Japanese Law Association, Hamburg and Tokyo; Co-editor "Computer und Recht", Computer and Law, Cologne; Member, Institute for European Media law, Saarbrücken; Member, Editorial Board, Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence, BNA's Electronic Information Policy and Law Report and EDI Law Review; Legal Advisor, European Commission/DG XIII, Legal Advisory Board on Information Technology; Co-editor, Multimedia und Recht, Munich; Member, Task Force Group on Intellectual Property Rights of the European Commission; Legal expert in several research projects commissioned by the European Commission/DG III (COPEARMS), DG XIII (MULTISOLUTION, EDIBOL, EDIPAY) and the DG XV; Member, Legal Advisory Board, DENIC, Frankfurt. AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION Intellectual Property law; Internet Regulation; Information Law; Unfair Competition Law; International Business Law. EXPERIENCE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Judge at the Court of Appeal in Düsseldorf within the Trademark & Copyright Senate; Professor in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Muenster; Member, Task Force Group on Intellectual Property Law, European Commission/DG XIII. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [... legal scheme to escape copyleft ...] > You realize all this emails could probably be proof of your scheme to > break copyright law? A never ending search for ways to break it in your > profit? > > What you just said could be quickly read as accessory to crime... Oh I can see headlines. "The Free Software Foundation, Boston files a lawsuit against Alexander Terekhov, Boblignen and all his Jane and Joe Doe buddies across the planet for anti-copyleft conspiracy." Darn. I may even donate some moneys to the FSF to make that historical event happen. But here's a big secret for you, mini-RMS: copyright doesn't contemplate copyleft. First sale, copyright misuse, and etc. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Uber GNUtian "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: (to GNUtian dak) [...] > No wonder why Alexander likes you enough to `unplonk' you. Erm. I've unplonked you both sometime around last Silvester. Then I've replonked you, ams. GNUtian dak didn't take my offer of free replonk, go ask mini-RMS (he volunteered to be a witness). And now I've unplonked you. I see you had a nice weekend with dak. ;-) regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft > explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they > were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that? No. Because copyright law would not allow the creation of the additional copies beyond the one installed on the hard disk of the first computer on which it is installed. It just emphasises the restriction. I suspect that these clauses are a hangup from the days when software both came on a ran from floppy disk. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
