Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: How come that http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html says Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as you. That does not make the licensee able to act as licensor with all the possibilities upstream has. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: As the GPL fades
Erik Funkenbusch e...@despam-funkenbusch.com writes: On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:50:26 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/01/28/as-the-gpl-fades/ -- As the GPL fades Jay Lyman, January 28, 2010 @ 3:17 pm ET We’re continuing to see signs that the dominant GPL open source license may be fading from favor among commercial open source software players. Freshmeat: Licenses GPL (20985) [...] [...] That's not exactly fading in my book. Who's to say that Freshmeat's license count is kept up to date, but let's assume it is. By my count, that's more than 10,000 non-GPL licenses. And since you don't list the counts from, say a year ago, we have no way of knowing if the overall ratio of GPL to non-GPL has gone down or up. So your post doesn't really say anything. It doesn't say anything about the _trend_. But fade is not just about a trend. It is about becoming irrelevant. And at about 70% of the current license breakdown, this is a nonsensical characterization. Nobody say that Internet Explorer is fading from favor among computer users even though Firefox has made a considerable dent in its usage ratio. But fade? That would be stupid. That would not even be accurate for Microsoft's internet server (what's it's name? IIS or so?) which has about half the deployment as Apache. But being in second place is not the same as faded. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: How come that http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html says Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as you. That does not make the licensee able to act as licensor with all the possibilities upstream has. You will never convince Free Softies that a non-exclusive license CANNOT empower a licensee to further authorize copyright permissions for downstream licensees. With a non-exclusive license such as the GPL the only thing a licensee can do is effect a transfer of his contractual interest. The Copyright Act, 17 USC 106, states that Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: Unfortunately, Free Softies are so wacked-out on Moglen's Freedom Kool-Aid that they are incapable of rational understanding of the words exclusive and author as used in the Copyright Act. If authorizing is reserved as exclusive for the author of a work how does a non-owner do any authorizing? Mentioning little contradictions in logic such as this simply causes Free Softies eyes to glaze over and total deafness sets in. In 24 hours time they are back out in the Blogosphere blathering about the GPL authorizing downstream licensees as if there were actually a linear downstream set of distinct licensees existing. Pity the poor Free Softies. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: As the GPL fades
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:18:39 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: Will you please tell me how you got that information? Search in the projects for a wildcard (empty string or so, don't remember right now what I did) and look at the license breakdown. Oh. A strange method, but it works. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
RJack u...@example.net writes: The Copyright Act, 17 USC 106, states that Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: Unfortunately, Free Softies are so wacked-out on Moglen's Freedom Kool-Aid that they are incapable of rational understanding of the words exclusive and author as used in the Copyright Act. It means that the author has the exclusive right to grant others the freedom to sublicense and modify something exactly like they were licensed it. It is the author's exclusive right to pick his own software's terms of modification and redistribution, including the GPL. If he does pick the GPL, it does not make a difference to the rights of the recipient whether he or somebody else is distributing and modifying the software and passing modified versions on. That's what the public in public license means. If authorizing is reserved as exclusive for the author of a work how does a non-owner do any authorizing? By being licensed for such authorization. He does not have a _choice_ of what terms he can attach to such an authorization, unless the original author himself. Only the original author can change license terms at will. But as long as he stays with the GPL, upstream and downstream can authorize and do the same changes. Mentioning little contradictions in logic such as this simply causes Free Softies eyes to glaze over and total deafness sets in. Yes, total deafness sets in because you ignore all explanations of what you pretend not to understand. It is _you_ who feigns deafness. Pity the poor Free Softies. My pity is better spent on bileful old men like you who don't have anything constructive to offer to the world. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
On 2/7/2010 7:19 AM, RJack wrote: If authorizing is reserved as exclusive for the author of a work how does a non-owner do any authorizing? Because the original author has authorized him to do so. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Moglen's bullshit rap at its finest
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 18:19:29 -0800 (PST), peterwn wrote: On Feb 7, 1:50 am, RJack u...@example.net wrote: Everyone wants a piece of you these days: Google, Facebook, Flickr, Apple, ATT, Bing. They’ll give you free e-mail, free photo storage, free web hosting, even a free date. They just want to listen in. And you can’t wait to let them. They’ll store your stuff, they’ll organize your photos, they’ll keep track of your appointments, as long as they can watch. It all goes into the “Cloud.” Moglen whines mightily about the very thing the GPL purports to do. 1) Give you something for free -- public copyright permissions. 2) Snatch control of your exclusive copyrights for public consumption. Are Free Softies actually so stupid that they can't see the hypocrisy in Moglen's protestations? This guy you call a bull artist studied at Yale, was a clerk to one of the US Supreme Court Justices and is a professor at an Ivy League law school (Columbia). In the light of that, your criticisms sound rather pathetic. He has quite an impressive resume! Indeed! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
