Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Nicolas Neuss]

Raffael Cavallaro 
writes:

> Using them would place their employer or the commercial organization
> to which they belong under the obligation of publishing all of the
> source code for any released product that included your library. As a
> result, most people working on commercial published software, or who
> contemplate doing so in the future, simply avoid gpl libraries
> altogether.

Here is a question which I find rather interesting: Is in-house use of
GPLed software allowed?  It is quite clear that using GPLed software by
a single developer to run a commercial web server for example is
allowed.  But in the case of multiple developers inside a company one
could either argue that the company operates as an entity, or
alternatively that the company by letting one of their developers
combine GPLed software with their own product is forced to give her/him
the whole software under GPL.

Nicolas

P.S.: Sorry about Cross-posting to gnu.misc.discuss, but there should be
the experts.

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Nicolas Neuss  writes:

> Raffael Cavallaro 
> writes:
>
>> Using them would place their employer or the commercial organization
>> to which they belong under the obligation of publishing all of the
>> source code for any released product that included your library. As a
>> result, most people working on commercial published software, or who
>> contemplate doing so in the future, simply avoid gpl libraries
>> altogether.
>
> Here is a question which I find rather interesting: Is in-house use of
> GPLed software allowed?  It is quite clear that using GPLed software by
> a single developer to run a commercial web server for example is
> allowed.  But in the case of multiple developers inside a company one
> could either argue that the company operates as an entity, or
> alternatively that the company by letting one of their developers
> combine GPLed software with their own product is forced to give her/him
> the whole software under GPL.

In-house use would be outside of the scope of the GPL, since no
"distribution" would occur.

A more interesting question would be what happens with respect to
holdings, and the daughter companies.  In this case, I would argue
distribution occurs (invoicing would have to occur legally AFAIK), and
therefore GPL would apply.  Which doesn't mean that YOU would get access
to the code of course, only that the daughter company who buys it from
another daughter company would get it (and be able to hire YOU instead
of the sister company if them need a patch and the sister is unable or
unwilling to provide it).


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Nicolas Neuss]

p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:

> In-house use would be outside of the scope of the GPL, since no
> "distribution" would occur.

This means that in-house "distribution" to employees would not count as
distribution in the GPL sense.  OK, this might indeed be the most
reasonable point of view.

Nicolas
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Nicolas Neuss  writes:

> p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:
>
>> In-house use would be outside of the scope of the GPL, since no
>> "distribution" would occur.
>
> This means that in-house "distribution" to employees would not count as
> distribution in the GPL sense.  OK, this might indeed be the most
> reasonable point of view.

Yes, definitely.

First, the most efficient companies won't have any "distribution".  The
new software would be instealled on the file server, and everybody
could use it from here.

And even in the less efficient companies, employees don't install
softwarem (it's the job of the IT jockeys).

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On 2010-03-21 11:22:57 -0400, John Hasler said:


They are not required to publish it.  They are merely required to
distribute it along with the binaries.  If you offer source to everyone
to whom you sell binaries you are done.


In practice this amounts to publication. Every customer would receive 
the source; every customer has the right to make it public; it would 
only take one customer excercising this right to make the source 
publicly available.




--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On 2010-03-21 15:29:44 -0400, John Hasler said:


They might, but there are cases where they did not.


One can't rely on this unlikely possibility, which becomes increasingly 
unlikely the more sales are made.



The point is that
_you_ are not required to publish anything.


It hardly matters who does the publishing. The point is that the source 
still becomes publicly available.



Offering source to everyone
who receives binaries from you satisfies your GPL obligations.  You can
ignore requests for source from anyone else.

Of course, if the possibility that someone might pass the software on
worries you, the solution is simple: don't link to GPL works.



Which is why many developers choose to avoid this possibility and use 
LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/Apache licensed libraries instead. And now we've 
come full circle.


warmest regards,

Ralph


--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Raffael Cavallaro 
writes:

> On 2010-03-21 15:29:44 -0400, John Hasler said:
>
>> Of course, if the possibility that someone might pass the software on
>> worries you, the solution is simple: don't link to GPL works.
>
>
> Which is why many developers choose to avoid this possibility and use
> LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/Apache licensed libraries instead. And now we've
> come full circle.

Sure.

And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me?

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:


Sure.

And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me?


Not only am I not imposing anything on you, I've already offered to pay 
you for a commercial license. So you can have your cake (GPL licensing) 
and eat it too (paid commercial licensing).


My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements 
regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many 
commercial developers, and therefore whenever possible, they choose 
non-GPL alternatives.


In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in 
terms of getting code open sourced. Users who need to keep their source 
closed either won't use it, or will use in in a way that allows them 
not to open the source (e.g., Paul Graham's viaweb and their use of the 
GPL CLISP).


Meanwhile, users of LLGPL or BSD, etc. licensed code frequently open 
source whatever they are able as contributions back to the relevant 
project. Giving users the choice of what they will and won't open 
source results in more users, and just as many open source 
contributions.


More use means the library is more of a community standard, more 
contributors, more bug fixes, more extensions, more additions, etc. And 
non-GPL license authors can still sell support (e.g., priorty for 
bugfixes or priority for adding new features, etc. - The Clozure folks 
did this for their IDE, and Clozure is LLGPL licensed).


I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic 
means of ensuring maximal adoption. Ironically, the FSF understood this 
dynamic which is why they created the Library GPL, now known as the 
Lesser GPL.


warmest regards,

Ralph


--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[RG]

In article <878w9k1k8l@thumper.dhh.gt.org>,
 John Hasler  wrote:

> Ralph writes:
> > I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic
> > means of ensuring maximal adoption.
> 
> You assume that everyone has maximum adoption as their primary goal.

Indeed, if maximal adoption were the goal the best way to achieve that 
would be to simply renounce the copyright and release the code into the 
public domain.

rg
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[RG]

In article ,
 Raffael Cavallaro  
 wrote:

> On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:
> 
> > Sure.
> > 
> > And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me?
> 
> Not only am I not imposing anything on you, I've already offered to pay 
> you for a commercial license. So you can have your cake (GPL licensing) 
> and eat it too (paid commercial licensing).
> 
> My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements 
> regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many 
> commercial developers, and therefore whenever possible, they choose 
> non-GPL alternatives.

That's a much better way of putting it than your original formulation.

> In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in 
> terms of getting code open sourced.

...

> I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic 
> means of ensuring maximal adoption.

Here is where you are imposing your choices on others.  Not everyone 
shares this quality metric of yours.  Some people have goals other than 
insuring maximal adoption, like, oh, I don't know, making money for 
example.  Such people might want to use the copyright laws not to force 
others to create open-source software but to create artificial scarcity 
in order to drive up prices.  One can argue whether or not this strategy 
will be effective.  One can argue (as Stallman does) that one ought not 
choose this quality metric for moral or political reasons.  But neither 
the quality metric nor the strategy are unreasonable a priori.

rg
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On 2010-03-22 10:52:58 -0400, John Hasler said:


You assume that everyone has maximum adoption as their primary goal.


I assume that the author's goal is maximizing the amount of open source 
- and in fact, it is Pascal's stated goal - that others who use his 
library will open their source code for him to see and use - a 
perfectly reasonable desire. I just don't think anyone whose source is 
closed is going to open that source code simply to use a library - if 
they are constrained not to open their source, they simply won't use 
GPL libraries.


In order to accomplish this primary goal - greater amounts of open 
source - you need users and contributors. Possibly counterintuitively, 
the goal of maximizing open source is actually better accomplished by 
*not* choosing the GPL. The GPL drives potential users away, and 
potential users are potential contributors, bug fixers, etc. Instead, 
these potential users will become users of some other library which is 
LGPL, or BSD, etc. licensed, and they will become open source 
contributors to those other libraries, not to the GPL licensed project.


Again, recognition of this dynamic is what drove the creation of the 
Library GPL (now the Lesser GPL) in the first place.


warmest regards,

Ralph


--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On 2010-03-22 13:03:31 -0400, RG said:




I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic
means of ensuring maximal adoption.


Here is where you are imposing your choices on others.  Not everyone
shares this quality metric of yours.


See my reply to John Hasler for why maximizing adoption is a means to 
maximizing openly available source code, Pascal's stated goal.


warmest regards,

Ralph

--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

RG  writes:

> In article ,
>  Raffael Cavallaro  
>  wrote:
>
>> On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:
>> 
>> > Sure.
>> > 
>> > And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me?
>> 
>> Not only am I not imposing anything on you, I've already offered to pay 
>> you for a commercial license. So you can have your cake (GPL licensing) 
>> and eat it too (paid commercial licensing).
>> 
>> My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements 
>> regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many 
>> commercial developers, and therefore whenever possible, they choose 
>> non-GPL alternatives.
>
> That's a much better way of putting it than your original formulation.
>
>> In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in 
>> terms of getting code open sourced.
>
> ...
>
>> I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic 
>> means of ensuring maximal adoption.
>
> Here is where you are imposing your choices on others.  Not everyone 
> shares this quality metric of yours.  Some people have goals other than 
> insuring maximal adoption, like, oh, I don't know, making money for 
> example.  Such people might want to use the copyright laws not to force 
> others to create open-source software but to create artificial scarcity 
> in order to drive up prices.  One can argue whether or not this strategy 
> will be effective.  One can argue (as Stallman does) that one ought not 
> choose this quality metric for moral or political reasons.  But neither 
> the quality metric nor the strategy are unreasonable a priori.

Indeed these are the questions.  I will have to think more about it, and
may be change the licence in the future (perhaps this year).

I also would like to contribute some of my code to some common library
and this would certainly require a change of license anyway.


But I need more time to think about it and work on it.


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Nicolas Neuss]

David Kastrup  writes:

> It does not get you "anything additional", but it gets you something
> _less_: a proprietary product that uses your own code to draw your
> user base away from you.

This is quite understandable - I would not really like seeing Microsoft
use my code.

However, when I was in search for a license for code of mine -Femlisp, a
PDE solver written in Common Lisp- I stood before the question which
license to choose[*].  A commercial license did not make much sense,
because the code was (and is) not yet commercially valuable.  However, I
wanted to retain at least some possibility of providing enhanced value
(in the form of additional features) within a commercial setting.  A GPL
license would make this business model impossible for everyone -
_including me_ as soon as other people would start contributing relevant
portions of code under the GPL.  Therefore, I decided in favor of the
(modified) BSD license.

Nicolas

[*] More precisely, I asked my university for permission to use either
GPL or BSD, and then had the choice.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On 2010-03-22 16:51:46 -0400, John Hasler said:


I guess this is why Linux has been totally eclipsed by BSD.


1. Linux isn't a *library*, it's an operating system. A GPL operating 
system doesn't force GPL licensing for any application that runs on it. 
A GPL library *does* force GPL licensing for any program that links 
with it.


Again, the LLGPL was created for precisely this purpose.

2. Mac OS X is BSD Unix. It has existed for half the time that linux 
has, and has more than 5 times the web client share of linux, so yes, 
BSD is on its way to eclipsing linux as a client OS.




warmest regards,

Ralph


--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On 2010-03-22 20:28:25 -0400, John Hasler said:


No it isn't.


The Open Group which does the official UNIX certification would beg to differ:





It's a heavily modified Mach single-server kernel with a
partial BSD userland.  And Apple contributes little or nothing back.




lists scores of open source components that form part of Mac OS X and 
to which Apple contributes its enhancements.


The market reality is that many programmers work on projects that are, 
at least in part, closed source. Open source licenses other than the 
GPL allow these programmers to use and contribute to open source 
projects.


warmest regards,

Ralph



--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[refun]

In article <871vfbzrb8@thumper.dhh.gt.org>, jhas...@newsguy.com says...

> The Berkeley license as well as _some_ other Open Source licenses permit
> them to keep some of their changes secret.  This is the very reason some
> programmers use the GPL.

While I respect Pascal's decision to use whatever license he wants to use, it 
might be worth noticing that a good majority of Common Lisp libraries(besides 
Pascal's and a handful of others) are licensed under BSD, LLGPL, MIT or public 
domain. 

GPL seems to be an unpopular choice for Common Lisp code, especially libraries. 
This means that in practice, people will pick a license which grants them more 
effective rights, and doesn't force them to release the code to their entire 
application just because they used a handful of functions from another library 
which is licensed under GPL. In most of the cases, even if other people don't 
have the intention of going commercial, they like to have the option, which is 
why GPLed libraries are usually unpopular with Common Lisp developers. 
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On 2010-03-22 22:48:27 -0400, John Hasler said:


Purchasing a certificate granting the right to label one's product UNIX
does not make it a BSD.


Being a derivative of 4.4 BSD makes it a BSD; Being certified by the 
Open Group makes it a UNIX. Mac OS X is a BSD UNIX.





The market reality...


...is irrelevant to many of us.


Many may wish it weren't relevant, but it is. The FSF recognized that 
the GPL was a poor match for the market realities of library use nearly 
20 years ago when the FSF created the GNU Library Public License, now 
the Lesser GPL, for precisely this reason.





...is that many programmers work on projects that are, at least in
part, closed source.  Open source licenses other than the GPL allow
these programmers to use and contribute to open source projects.


The Berkeley license as well as _some_ other Open Source licenses permit
them to keep some of their changes secret.  This is the very reason some
programmers use the GPL.


People and organizations who want to keep code secret are going to do 
so. It is naive to think that they will change their whole business 
model just to use a library. Instead, they will use libraries with 
licenses that allow them to keep some code private while still open 
sourcing other code thus contributing to the sum total of open source 
code.


warmest regards,

Ralph



--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Lieven Marchand]

Raffael Cavallaro 
writes:

> In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in
> terms of getting code open sourced. Users who need to keep their
> source closed either won't use it, or will use in in a way that allows
> them not to open the source (e.g., Paul Graham's viaweb and their use
> of the GPL CLISP).

As far as I can tell, GPL CLISP would allow you to distribute your
commercial applications compiled and dumped with it.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Nicolas Neuss]

David Kastrup  writes:

> That does not keep other people from contributing relevant portions of
> code under the GPL, if they so desire.

Of course, and it should not.  But I think that people contributing to a
library usually do so under the same license which is used for the
original body of code, especially if it is a "fair" license like GPL or
BSD which does not give any particular group of people special rights.

Nicolas
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On 2010-03-23 04:53:04 -0400, Lieven Marchand said:


As far as I can tell, GPL CLISP would allow you to distribute your
commercial applications compiled and dumped with it.


My understanding is that if your published application (commercial or 
otherwise) uses facilities of CLISP not generally available in other 
lisps (i.e., CLISP specific extensions to common lisp) then you would 
be required to release the source of your application under the GPL.


IOW, an application that could just as easily be distributed using sbcl 
or ccl, etc. does not need to open its source, but one that is clisp 
specific does.


warmest regards,

Ralph

--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On 2010-03-23 09:11:03 -0400, Hyman Rosen said:


It is not correct to say that Mac OS X "is" BSD Unix for normal
definitions of "is".


Mac OS X *is* descended from 4.4 BSD for normal definitions of "is."

Mac OS X *is* a UNIX by the only legal definition of UNIX and for 
normal definitions of "is."


The license under which Apple releases its open source doesn't change 
Mac OS X's BSD heritage, and it doesn't invalidate Mac OS X's UNIX 
certification.


warmest regards,

Ralph

--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Pillsy]

On Mar 23, 9:11 am, Hyman Rosen  wrote:

> On 3/22/2010 8:01 PM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:

> > 2. Mac OS X is BSD Unix. It has existed for half the time that linux
> > has, and has more than 5 times the web client share of linux, so yes,
> > BSD is on its way to eclipsing linux as a client OS.

> It is not correct to say that Mac OS X "is" BSD Unix for normal
> definitions of "is".

> Look at .
> The mix of licenses is broad, but many of Apple's own OS components
> are licensed under the APPLE PUBLIC SOURCE LICENSE, found at
> .

If Raffael had said that OS X is a "BSD-licensed Unix", your argument
would be on point (and Raffael's would be very, very silly). However,
he said nothing of the sort.

Whether it's a BSD Unix or not has nothing to do with its licensing,
and never has. The BSD Unix codebase was intentionally licensed in
such a way as to allow people to make and sell partially or wholly
closed-source, commercial derivatives. Over the years, a lot of
vendors have taken advantage of this opportunity, including Sun, NeXT,
Apple and, IIRC, Digital.

Cheers,
Pillsy
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Pillsy]

On Mar 21, 10:14 pm, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
> Raffael Cavallaro 
> writes:
[...]
> > Which is why many developers choose to avoid this possibility and use
> > LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/Apache licensed libraries instead. And now we've
> > come full circle.

> Sure.

> And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me?

He shouldn't, and AFAICT isn't trying to.

Upthread, you said that you allow people to use your libraries at the
price of abiding by the GPL. Pointing out that the price you charge is
too high for a given market is not remotely the same thing as forcing
you to choose a different price. Indeed, people attempt to negotiate,
better prices with vendors all the time. Of course, vendors refuse to
lower their prices in response to such requests with a good deal of
frequency as well.

When the consideration being exchanged is just a pile of currency,
this is all regarded as so mundane that people hardly notice it. The
only thing that's different here is that the negotiation is over
source code instead of money.

Cheers,
Pillsy
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: chrisv is a liar. chrisv is a piece of shit.

[One Shot, One Kill]

"RJack"  wrote in message 
news:1mwdnbvv-ozttjxwnz2dnuvz_sadn...@giganews.com...
> One Shot, One Kill wrote:
>> "chrisv"  wrote in message 
>> news:gjdhq5tgi1emdk5rd90snnm78137s0a...@4ax.com...
>>
>> chrisv is a liar. chrisv is a stupid piece of shit.
>>
>>
> Did chrisv piss in your Wheaties bowl this morning?
that dickless moron is too stupid to piss on himself.

> Such venom. Such rancor.
try reading the garbage that chrisv posts and then try telling me about 
venom and rancor.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Thomas A. Russ]

David Kastrup  writes:

> Raffael Cavallaro 
> writes:
> >
> > Mac OS X *is* descended from 4.4 BSD for normal definitions of "is."
> 
> Not really.  Darwin may be, but all the graphical folderol running on it
> is rather descended (or written new) from older MacOS code not based on
> BSD.

Well, actually, a fair bit of the graphical code on OS X comes from the
NeXT operating system and graphics library.  The older MacOS code has
slowly been dropped from the Mac OS over the years.

(The classic Mac OS actually used a Pascal interface.  The current Mac
 OS uses Objective C.)

-- 
Thomas A. Russ,  USC/Information Sciences Institute
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On 2010-03-23 09:41:02 -0400, Hyman Rosen said:


Since much of the discussion in this newsgroup
focuses on license features and requirements, saying that Mac OS X
"is" BSD needlessly confuses that issue.


Saying that Mac OS X is BSD is:

1. true

2. a counterexample to the claim that linux is trouncing BSD UNIX.

The original claim was that linux was dominating BSD UNIX because of 
the GPL. The 5x web client numbers for Mac OS X show that non-GPL 
licensed UNIX (here, BSD, APSL) in fact has much greater numbers than 
GPL linux.


Finally, the APSL requires that modifications to *covered code* (i.e., 
the APSL library or code you are using in your larger work) be open 
sourced if your larger work is distributed. You are not required to 
open source the whole larger work, something that the GPL *does* 
require, and the LGPL, like the APSL, does not.


warmest regards,

Ralph


--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Raffael Cavallaro 
writes:

> On 2010-03-23 09:41:02 -0400, Hyman Rosen said:
>
>> Since much of the discussion in this newsgroup
>> focuses on license features and requirements, saying that Mac OS X
>> "is" BSD needlessly confuses that issue.
>
> Saying that Mac OS X is BSD is:
>
> 1. true

For some meaning.

In the case of licensing, it looks like it's closer to LGPL than to BSD.


> 2. a counterexample to the claim that linux is trouncing BSD UNIX.

I'm afraid this counterexample is based on the wrong idea that MacOSX is
a system whose life started in 2001, after Linux.

Actually, MacOSX is just NeXTSTEP, and is older than Linux, so it's not
surprizing it has more web clients than Linux.  After all, NeXTSTEP was
the system where the web was INVENTED, and where the first web browser
was ever IMPLEMENTED!



> The original claim was that linux was dominating BSD UNIX because of
> the GPL. The 5x web client numbers for Mac OS X show that non-GPL
> licensed UNIX (here, BSD, APSL) in fact has much greater numbers than
> GPL linux.
>
> Finally, the APSL requires that modifications to *covered code* (i.e.,
> the APSL library or code you are using in your larger work) be open
> sourced if your larger work is distributed. You are not required to
> open source the whole larger work, something that the GPL *does*
> require, and the LGPL, like the APSL, does not.

Yes.

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On 2010-03-24 15:23:28 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:


Actually, MacOSX is just NeXTSTEP, and is older than Linux, so it's not
surprizing it has more web clients than Linux.  After all, NeXTSTEP was
the system where the web was INVENTED, and where the first web browser
was ever IMPLEMENTED!


And the laser printer was first connected to the Xerox Alto, but you 
don't see many of those at graphic design firms.


NeXTSTEP never had a significant web client share once numbers of 
internet users grew into the tens of millions. The numbers matched OS 
usage - 95% of these new users were on Windows, and the overwhelming 
majority of the remainder were on Mac OS. That's why NeXT had to sell 
the company to Apple, itself a minority player.


Mac OS X has 5x as many web clients as Linux because of what Apple did 
with NeXT, not because NeXT was ever a popular client platform.


warmest regards,

Ralph

--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Andrew Haley]

In gnu.misc.discuss Raffael Cavallaro 
 wrote:
> On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:
> 
> My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements 
> regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many 
> commercial developers, and therefore whenever possible, they choose 
> non-GPL alternatives.

The choose non-GPL alternatives because they want their software not
to be free, unlike the libraries they use.

> In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in 
> terms of getting code open sourced.

But history says otherwise.  For example, there's a lot of code in gcc
that is there because the customer was told that if they wanted their
gcc extension (custom back-end, front-end changes, etc) they'd have to
release it under the GPL.

> I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic
> means of ensuring maximal adoption. Ironically, the FSF understood
> this dynamic which is why they created the Library GPL, now known as
> the Lesser GPL.

There's nothing ironic about it.  The FSF seeks to maximize freedom,
so licenses code whichever way works best.  Libraries sometimes have
different needs from applications.

Andrew.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On 2010-03-25 06:06:09 -0400, Andrew Haley said:


There's nothing ironic about it.  The FSF seeks to maximize freedom,
so licenses code whichever way works best.  Libraries sometimes have
different needs from applications.


Which is why I suggest that Pascal's lisp libraries would be more 
useful licensed under the LLGPL than the GPL. It's ironic because the 
FSF is the creator of the GPL, and even they recognized that the GPL 
was a poor fit for libraries which is why they created the Library (now 
Lesser) GPL.

--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Tamas K Papp]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:44:14 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:

> On 2010-03-25 06:06:09 -0400, Andrew Haley said:
> 
>> There's nothing ironic about it.  The FSF seeks to maximize freedom, so
>> licenses code whichever way works best.  Libraries sometimes have
>> different needs from applications.
> 
> Which is why I suggest that Pascal's lisp libraries would be more useful
> licensed under the LLGPL than the GPL. It's ironic because the FSF is
> the creator of the GPL, and even they recognized that the GPL was a poor
> fit for libraries which is why they created the Library (now Lesser)
> GPL.

I disagree -- I don't think that the FSF considers the GPL a "poor
fit" for libraries.  Quite the opposite (see [1]).  They just
recognized that in certain situations, some people would prefer
something like the LGPL, and I guess that they wanted to give them the
choice.  But the GPL is still the option they recommend, even for
libraries.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

Regarding the broader issue (of how people license their libraries): I
think this is an optimization problem where people have heterogeneous
objective functions, and thus trying to convince people to pick
another license is not always a worthwhile.

It is possible that someone using a GPL/LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/... license
is perfectly aware of the advantages and disadvantages, it is just that
they decided to make a different choice.  In which case, threads like these 
are unlikely to be fruitful.

Regards,

Tamas
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On 2010-03-25 09:51:04 -0400, Hyman Rosen said:


The FSF does not believe that the GPL is a poor fit for
libraries.


The release of the Library GPL is an implicit recognition of the fact 
that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries. Renaming it to the Lesser GPL 
isn't likely to convince anyone old enough to remember, or intelligent 
enough to do a little research.


warmest regards,

Ralph

--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Peter Keller]

In comp.lang.lisp Hyman Rosen  wrote:
> On 3/25/2010 10:05 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Licenses covering a work "as a whole" are hard to press
> > when the material they cover is functionally a drop-in
> > replacement of existing non-free libraries. That makes
> > "mere aggregation" a really good defense.
> 
> This is completely wrong. The GPL applies to work as a whole
> only when the GPL-covered work is made part of a combined
> work and that combined work is copied and distributed.
> 
> Your statement sounds as if you continue to believe incorrectly
> that a program which uses a dynamically linked library covered
> by the GPL is subject to the GPL even when it is copied and
> distributed without that library. That is not so. Copyright law
> is about copying, and when a GPL-covered work is not being copied
> and distributed, the GPL cannot come into play. What the program
> does when it runs is not relevant for falling under the GPL because
> the GPL does not restrict running covered works.
> 
> Similarly, mere aggregation is irrelevant to libraries which
> are statically linked into programs. Such a combined work is
> not a mere aggregation of the library and the other components.
> Mere aggregation refers to including a covered work on a medium
> of distribution along with other works.

Not that I really care, and I probably won't post in this thread again,
but the GPL V2 has to say:

"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need
not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of
the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable."

So, that covers one not having to ship the glibc sources with your
project just because you linked with it. However, if you have a modified
version of the glibc in your package, then you'd have to make the modified
sources available.

Then it goes on to say:

"This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs.  If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library.  If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
Public License instead of this License."

It is that "permit linking proprietary applications" phrase which is the rub.
It doesn't mention static or dynamic, so one must assume both. Hence, the
LGPL.

If you're still curious, then read the faq:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html

It has a few different scenarios about what it means to link with a GPL library.

Later,
-pete


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On 2010-03-25 09:59:52 -0400, Tamas K Papp said:


I disagree -- I don't think that the FSF considers the GPL a "poor
fit" for libraries.  Quite the opposite (see [1]).  They just
recognized that in certain situations, some people would prefer
something like the LGPL, and I guess that they wanted to give them the
choice.  But the GPL is still the option they recommend, even for
libraries.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html


I don't put much stock in such rationalizations. IOW, having released 
the Library GPL, they realized that it was in many ways superior to the 
GPL from both the user and the open source perspective. They've been 
backpedaling ever since, and the frankly silly renaming of the Library 
GPL to the Lesser GPL is a clear sign of this ongoing attempt at damage 
control.


I.e., when I say they recognize that the GPL is a poor fit for 
libraries, I'm saying that their actions (release of the LGPL and 
subsequent renaming) speak louder and more convincingly than their 
words (the link you provide).




Regarding the broader issue (of how people license their libraries): I
think this is an optimization problem where people have heterogeneous
objective functions, and thus trying to convince people to pick
another license is not always a worthwhile.

It is possible that someone using a GPL/LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/... license
is perfectly aware of the advantages and disadvantages, it is just that
they decided to make a different choice.  In which case, threads like these
are unlikely to be fruitful.


I don't think their objective functions differ much from mine. I think 
they don't appreciate how the license plays out in the real world. 
Those who support the GPL for libraries think that by doing so they 
maximize the promotion of open source. I contend that the LGPL or 
Apache or APSL license lead to greater amounts of open source because a 
GPL library excludes one of the largest pools of possible contributors 
- professional developers who work on closed source projects. These 
potential contributors will instead either


1. reinvent that particular wheel in a closed source fashion (loss to 
free software)
2. use a library with a license that doesn't require any publication 
such as the bsd, or mit. (possible loss to free software)
3. use a library with a license that requires publication only of 
covered code such as the LGPL, APSL, Apache, etc. Only this last case 
inevitably results in more open source.


So by releasing a library under the GPL one provides as many ways for 
open source to lose as to win. Choosing the winning path in the first 
place by releasing the library under the LGPL/LLGPL/Apache etc. license 
leads to the biggest gains for open source. Again, the recognition of 
this reality is what led to the Library GPL in the first place. So 
people who support the GPL for libraries are unwittingly advocating for 
freedom in a way that actually results in less open source.


Even if I don't convince my correspondents here, I do hope that some of 
those reading this thread will develop a more nuanced view of open 
source licenses. I've said what I have to say, so (undoubtedly much to 
your relief), I'll stop.


warmest regards,

Ralph
--
Raffael Cavallaro

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Peter Keller]

In comp.lang.lisp Alexander Terekhov  wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> On 3/29/2010 3:07 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> > Hyman Rosen wrote:

fix(f) != f

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: "GNU GPL Version 3: The Law Making Process"

[Andrew]

On 29 Mar, 14:00, Hyman Rosen  wrote:
> On 3/26/2010 1:29 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>  >http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2007/03/delusions_of_gr.html
>
> Wow. A website dedicated to glorifying the denial of freedom to
> software users is whining about GPLv3. Shocking, just shocking.

And one from a site funded by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, yet
another right-wing think tank.  The Progress and Freedom Foundation is
in turn funded by, among others, AT&T, Microsoft, Verizon, etc., etc.

See "When Think Tanks Attack",
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/06/tanks.php :

"Why are all these think tanks so down on Open Source? Well, the Small
Business Survival Committee is concerned that using open source will
expose small business to the risk of lawsuits. Citizens Against
Government Waste is concerned that the Government might waste money on
Open Source. Defenders of Property Rights is concerned that Open
Source might be a threat to intellectual property rights. However, I
was able to detect a common theme to all their criticism. They all
seem to be funded by Microsoft."

Andrew.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO]

OK I'm so fucking tired of this.

I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.

BSD is free. GPL is free.


Alexander, please stop drinking de Raadt's Kool Aid.

Or Shut up and Hack. Come to this list when PCC is good enough
to be on OpenBSD by default.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 5 May 2010 NYCBUG: Kevin Figueroa on packet manipulation with Scapy

[secretary]

 Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 23:20:36 -0400
 To: annou...@lists.nycbug.org
 From: NYC*BUG Announcements 
 Subject: [announce] NYC*BUG this week
 Reply-To: annou...@lists.nycbug.org

 *  Upcoming meetings

 *  LOPSA PIC Conference

 *  BSDCan

 *  *   *   *

 May 05, 2010
 Scapy

 6:45 PM, Suspenders Restaurant
 http://www.suspendersbar.com/location.php

 Scapy is one of the most powerful packet manipulation programs currently 
 available. One of its powerful features lies within its capability in 
 creating and decoding packets using numerous different types of 
 protocols. In addition, it also has the ability send and receive 
 packets, plus performing a number of useful penetration testing tasks, 
 such as, handling tasks like scanning, tracerouting, network discovery 
 and certain attacks. It serves duties like sending invalid frames, and 
 creating double encapsulated packets in order to perform VLAN hopping. 
 Perform Nmap-like scan much faster, inject 802.11 wireless frames, and 
 combine different types of custom manipulation techniques within a 
 single packet.

 Kevin Figueroa has been a life-long resident of the Bronx. Over the last 
 13 years he has developed skills on a wide range of cyber security, 
 which lead him to various certifications as, A+, Network +, Security +, 
 and CEH. He has spoken at the several Cyber Security Conference in the 
 world. Kevin is the President and Senior Security Analyst for K & T 
 International Consulting, Inc, which provides a spectrum of cyber 
 security services like, security analysis, penetration testing, 
 compliance audit, wireless security assessment, and reverse engineering 
 analysis. K & T International Consulting, Inc. has successfully managed 
 projects for clients like, The Federal Reserve Bank, CitiGroup, 
 MacQuesten Inc. and many Fortune 500 companies. He is also the founder 
 of Bronx Academy of Intelligent Technologists (BAIT). This academy 
 focuses on teaching cyber security, certification courses, and 
 preforming IT security research and Development. By grooming children 
 and young adults on future technologies and how to secure these 
 technology the students will be a great asset in securing the future of 
 Corporations and national infrastructure.

 June 2 2010, Nikolai on an Introduction to GDB for System Administrators 
 and Programmers

 http://www.nycbug.org/index.php?NAV=Home;SUBM=10265

 *  *   *   *

 May 07, 2010

 LOPSA PICC Conference (sysadmins and all invited!)

 Sysadmins and IT professionals!

 Training! Talks! Fun!

 Hyatt Regency, New Brunswick, NJ. (1 hour by train from Penn Station; 
 then a 3 block walk: 
 
http://lopsanj.org/events/picc10/a-special-note-for-people-from-new-york-city-and-philly.html
 
 )

 Non-profit, community-oriented. Unix/Windows/Storage/Networking!

 "Regional Conferences are your best conference value!"

 *  *   *   *

 BSDCan is coming!

 May 11-14 in Ottawa, Canada

 http://www.bsdcan.org
 ___
 announce mailing list
 annou...@lists.nycbug.org
 http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/announce
  



Distributed poC TINC:

Jay Sulzberger 
Corresponding Secretary LXNY
LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization.
http://www.lxny.org
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[RJack]

VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:

OK I'm so fucking tired of this.

I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.

BSD is free. GPL is free.



Don't worry. The GPL license and the "Free Software" religion will soon
reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends.



Alexander, please stop drinking de Raadt's Kool Aid.


De Raadt's "Kool Aid" resides in the World of Reality. His philosophical
"Kool Aid" consists of "Use it for anything you want, just be honest
about where it came from".



Or Shut up and Hack. Come to this list when PCC is good enough to be
 on OpenBSD by default.



PCC doesn't need more hackers. PCC and the BSD's need more donations and
support from commercial vendors for drivers.

I put my money where my mouth is and proudly donate.

http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html

http://bsdfund.org/projects/pcc/

Sincerely,
RJack :)


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[David Kastrup]

RJack  writes:

> VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
>> OK I'm so fucking tired of this.
>>
>> I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.
>>
>> BSD is free. GPL is free.
>>
>
> Don't worry. The GPL license and the "Free Software" religion will
> soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends.

A few people told RMS when he started.  Now it is a whole hissing and
yelling bunch.  That they bother is the best proof that they are wrong.
And they know it.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[David Kastrup]

RJack  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> RJack  writes:
>>
>>> VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
 OK I'm so fucking tired of this.

 I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.

 BSD is free. GPL is free.

>>> Don't worry. The GPL license and the "Free Software" religion will
>>>  soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends.
>>
>> A few people told RMS when he started.  Now it is a whole hissing and
>>  yelling bunch.  That they bother is the best proof that they are
>> wrong. And they know it.
>>
>
> There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe the
> GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that copyright
> permissions be licensed at "no charge to all third parties".

More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who
believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its
permissions.

And that's what counts, regardless of where you think your nut-jobs may
be hanging out.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[RJack]

David Kastrup wrote:

RJack  writes:


VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:

OK I'm so fucking tired of this.

I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.

BSD is free. GPL is free.


Don't worry. The GPL license and the "Free Software" religion will
 soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends.


A few people told RMS when he started.  Now it is a whole hissing and
 yelling bunch.  That they bother is the best proof that they are 
wrong. And they know it.




There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe the
GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that copyright
permissions be licensed at "no charge to all third parties".

The United States Supreme Court held in the famous Sony Betamax case:

"[A]" use that has no demonstrable effect upon the potential market for,
or the value of, the copyrighted work need not be prohibited in order to
protect the author's incentive to create. The prohibition of such
noncommercial uses would merely inhibit access to ideas without any
countervailing benefit." Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City
Studios, Inc., 464 US 417.

When Stallman worshipers like DAK read this citation, their eyelids slam
shut and they retreat into their tidy world of denial and make-believe.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[RJack]

David Kastrup wrote:

RJack  writes:


David Kastrup wrote:

RJack  writes:


VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:

OK I'm so fucking tired of this.

I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.

BSD is free. GPL is free.

Don't worry. The GPL license and the "Free Software" religion 
will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban 
Legends.

A few people told RMS when he started.  Now it is a whole hissing
 and yelling bunch.  That they bother is the best proof that they
 are wrong. And they know it.

There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe 
the GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that 
copyright permissions be licensed at "no charge to all third 
parties".


More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who 
believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its 
permissions.


Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* "believe
the terms of the GPL can be ignored." I await with 'bated breath for
your documentation.


And that's what counts, regardless of where you think your nut-jobs 
may be hanging out.




Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[David Kastrup]

RJack  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> RJack  writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup wrote:
 RJack  writes:

> VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
>> OK I'm so fucking tired of this.
>>
>> I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.
>>
>> BSD is free. GPL is free.
>>
> Don't worry. The GPL license and the "Free Software" religion
> will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban
> Legends.
 A few people told RMS when he started.  Now it is a whole hissing
  and yelling bunch.  That they bother is the best proof that they
  are wrong. And they know it.

>>> There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe
>>> the GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that
>>> copyright permissions be licensed at "no charge to all third
>>> parties".
>>
>> More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who
>> believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its
>> permissions.
>
> Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* "believe
> the terms of the GPL can be ignored."

You are changing the topic: of course you are free to ignore the terms
of the GPL and it explicitly says so itself.  What you are not free to
do is ignore its terms _while_ making use of its permissions.

> I await with 'bated breath for your documentation.

You are changing the topic, namely judges who *do* believe.  So please
name a few judges who believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored
_while_ making use of its permissions.

You won't find any.  And that's the point.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> You won't find any.  And that's the point.

Since it is YOU GNUtians who are crying "copyright violation",
"copyright violation"... which is a tort and on a large scale it is even
a crime, IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE THE CLAIM YOU IDIOT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

"It is a logical fallacy to presume that mere lack of evidence of
innocence of a crime is instead evidence of guilt. Similarly, mere lack
of evidence of guilt cannot be taken as evidence of innocence. For this
reason (among others), Western legal systems err on the side of caution.
Simply the act of taking a defendant before a court is not adequate
evidence to presume anything. Courts require evidence of guilt to be
presented first, adequate for the court to find that the charge has been
substantiated—i.e., that the prosecution's evidential burden has been
met—and only after this burden is met is the defense obliged to present
counter-evidence of innocence. If the burden of proof is not met, that
does not imply that the defendant is innocent. Hence, in such a case,
the defendant is found "not guilty", except in Scotland, where the jury
also has the option to return a verdict of not proven.

Also, as a hypothetical example of an "argument from personal
incredulity," defined above, suppose someone were to argue:

- I cannot imagine any way for Person P to have executed action X
without committing a crime Y

- Therefore, Person P must be guilty of crime Y.

Merely because the person making the argument cannot imagine how
scenario "A" might have happened does not necessarily mean that the
person's preferred conclusion (scenario "B") is correct. As with other
forms of the argument from ignorance, the arguer in this instance has
arrived at a conclusion without any evidence supporting the preferred
hypothesis, merely for lack of being able to imagine the alternative.

The same principles of logic apply to the civil law, although the
required burdens of proof generally are different. As well, these
principles of logic apply to the introduction of a given component of a
legal case by either a complainant or a defendant. That is, the mere
lack of evidence in favor of a proposition put forth by a party in a
legal proceeding (e.g., the assertion "she couldn't have left the house
and returned in time to do X..." is offered without evidence in support)
would not properly be taken as evidence in favor of an alternative
explanation (e.g., "she did leave the house and return in time to do
X...")."

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Hyman Rosen]

On 5/5/2010 8:11 AM, RJack wrote:

Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* "believe
the terms of the GPL can be ignored." I await with 'bated breath for
your documentation.


Sure, here you are:

PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
MYSQL AB, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
SARIS, District Judge.
...
With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MYSQL has
not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits or irreparable harm. Affidavits submitted by the parties'
experts raise a factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini
program is a derivative or an independent and separate work
under GPL ¶ 2. After hearing, MySQL seems to have the better
argument here, but the matter is one of fair dispute. Moreover,
I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the
Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the breach.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Hyman Rosen]

On 5/5/2010 10:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

the case was about alleged contract breach


It doesn't matter what the case was about. Your fellow crank
asked for links to "US federal judges who *do not* believe
the terms of the GPL can be ignored", and I provided a link
to a US judge who shows in her order that she does not believe
that the terms of the GPL can be ignored.

Of course you and your fellow cranks will disregard evidence
which contradicts your cherished but incorrect beliefs even
when this evidence is exactly what you asked for. That's what
makes you cranks after all.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 5/5/2010 8:11 AM, RJack wrote:
> > Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* "believe
> > the terms of the GPL can be ignored." I await with 'bated breath for
> > your documentation.
> 
> Sure, here you are:
> 
>  PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
>  v.
>  MYSQL AB, et al., Defendants.
>  ORDER
>  SARIS, District Judge.
>  ...
>  With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MYSQL has
>  not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

[...]
>  I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the
>  Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the breach.
   ^^

Yes, the case was about alleged contract breach, you retard. NOT
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MORON.

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf
("COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)")

"  COUNT VIII 
  Breach of Contract (GPL License)"
  ^^


Take your meds Hyman, take your meds.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> 
>> On 5/5/2010 8:11 AM, RJack wrote:
>> > Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* "believe
>> > the terms of the GPL can be ignored." I await with 'bated breath for
>> > your documentation.
>> 
>> Sure, here you are:
>> 
>>  PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
>>  v.
>>  MYSQL AB, et al., Defendants.
>>  ORDER
>>  SARIS, District Judge.
>>  ...
>>  With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MYSQL has
>>  not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
>
> [...]
>>  I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the
>>  Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the breach.
>^^
>
> Yes, the case was about alleged contract breach, you retard. NOT
> COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MORON.
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf
> ("COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)")
>
> "  COUNT VIII 
>   Breach of Contract (GPL License)"
>   ^^

I read "Count VIII" here, so let us look at the other counts:

COUNT I
(Federal Trademark Infringement)

COUNT II
(Federal Unfair Competition: False Designation)

COUNT III
(Violation of Federal Trademark Dilution Statute)

COUNT IV
(Common Law Trademark Infringement)

COUNT V
(Breach of Contract) [not the GPL, but rather a trade agreement]

COUNT VI
(Unjust Enrichment)

COUNT VII
(Quantum Meruit)

Count VIII
Breach of Contract (GPL License)

Count IX
Violation of M.G.L.c. 93A§11

The relief asks for:

A(iv): Progress/NuSphere violated the GPL License and thus, their rights
under the GPL were automatically terminated.

B Primarily and permanently enjoin
(iii) Progress/Nusphere from  copying, modifying, sublicensing or
distributing the MySQL program.

D Award compensatory and _punitive_ damages [...] (punitive damages for
contract violation of a contract without punitive terms?)


I mean, you are pretty much cherry-picking again, aren't you?

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> You won't find any.  And that's the point.
>
> Since it is YOU GNUtians who are crying "copyright violation",
> "copyright violation"... which is a tort and on a large scale it is even
> a crime, IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE THE CLAIM YOU IDIOT.

Well, I didn't find any.  And you don't find any even though you wish
you would.  And all those that wish they'd find such a judge don't.

So yes, we have

More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who
believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its
permissions.

And that's what counts, regardless of where you think your nut-jobs
may be hanging out.

Now of course this is not mathematical evidence since obviously, judges
being not bound by logic but only by their own choices (which usually
include not being displaced for incompetence).  So there is no "proof"
but merely statistics.  And the statistics so far support your opinion
with a staggering 0%.  You are still waiting for your outlier to appear
that you can then declare the only existing verdict.  The way you argue,
that will be enough to proudly parade this around long after it has been
overturned.  So far, you are batting exactly zero.  Should you ever get
a single hit, you'll declare your batting average to be 1.0 for all
future.  And probably even believe it.  But you are not there yet.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 5/5/2010 10:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > the case was about alleged contract breach
> 
> It doesn't matter what the case was about. Your fellow crank

The fact that Judge Saris *rejected the plea for injunction* regarding
alleged breach of the GPL while she was not supposed/allowed to rule
*sua sponte* that certain provisions of the GPL are unenforceable is NOT
a proof that she believes that certain terms of the GPL can NOT be
ignored. Got it now, retard?

Go contact her asking to clarify her ruling *rejected the plea for
injunction* for you utter idiot.

http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/boston/saris.htm

Take your meds Hyman, take your meds.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> A(iv): Progress/NuSphere violated the GPL License and thus, their rights
> under the GPL were automatically terminated.
> 
> B Primarily and permanently enjoin
> (iii) Progress/Nusphere from  copying, modifying, sublicensing or
> distributing the MySQL program.

"DENIED"

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510

Uh moron dak.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[John Hasler]

David Kastrup writes:
> Award compensatory and _punitive_ damages [...] (punitive damages
> for contract violation of a contract without punitive terms?)

Presumably based on the noncontract claims.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Hyman Rosen]

On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored


That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank
universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge
who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I gave
him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be
ignored ("I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ...
source code ... didn't cure the breach.") None of your twisting
and spinning can change the simple and obvious fact that here is
a judge who does not believe that the terms of the GPL can be
ignored.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Hyman Rosen]

On 5/5/2010 10:56 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

"DENIED"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510


That's because the standards required for a preliminary
injunction are high. In the judge's words:

In any event, even if MySQL has shown a likelihood of success on
these points, it has not demonstrated that it will suffer any
irreparable harm during the pendency of the suit, particularly in
light of the sworn statement that all source code for Gemini has
been disclosed and the stipulation, given by Progress during the
hearing, that the end use license for commercial users will be
withdrawn. Finally, because the product line using MySQL is a
significant portion of NuSphere's business, Progress has
demonstrated that the balance of harms tips in its favor regarding
the use of the MySQL program under the GPL.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> If she considers a breach ...

She did NOT rule that there was a breach, you retard. She ruled quite
the opposite:

"With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MYSQL has
not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits or irreparable harm."

HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED

*HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED*, YOU IDIOT.

And yes, the case was about alleged contract breach, you retard. NOT
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MORON.

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf
("COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)")

"  COUNT VIII 
  Breach of Contract (GPL License)"
  ^^


regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> If she considers a breach ...
>
> She did NOT rule that there was a breach, you retard. She ruled quite
> the opposite:
>
> "With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MYSQL has
> not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
> merits or irreparable harm."

You are confusing the decision about the preliminary injunction with the
ruling.  And you _did_ forget again what the discussion was about.  But
I admit that you did not use "moron" or "idiot" in your reply.

> *HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED*, YOU IDIOT.

Ah well, at least not in its first sentence.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Sonny! Uncle Hasler has spoken! 

John Hasler wrote:
> 
> David Kastrup writes:
> > Award compensatory and _punitive_ damages [...] (punitive damages
> > for contract violation of a contract without punitive terms?)
> 
> Presumably based on the noncontract claims.

MySQL's case/claim *regarding the GPL* was a contract case, NOT
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. MySQL complained about other non-contract (tort)
matters as well in addition to the GPL contract claim.

Judge Saris was not supposed/allowed to rule sua sponte that certain
provisions of the GPL are unenforceable and she simply denied the plea
for injunction regarding alleged breach of the GPL on other grounds.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 5/5/2010 10:56 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > "DENIED"
> > http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510
> 
> That's because the standards required for a preliminary
> injunction are high. In the judge's words:
> 

"With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MYSQL has
not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits or irreparable harm."

HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED

*HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED*, YOU IDIOT.

And yes, the case was about alleged contract breach, you retard. NOT
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MORON.

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf
("COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)")

"  COUNT VIII 
  Breach of Contract (GPL License)"
  ^^


Take your meds Hyman, take your meds.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored
> 
> That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank
> universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge
> who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I gave
> him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be
> ignored ("I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ...
> source code ... didn't cure the breach.") None of your twisting

She is simply saying that the GPL provision of "automatic termination"
on a slightest breach is UNENFORCEABLE you idiot.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> 
>> On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> > rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored
>> 
>> That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank
>> universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge
>> who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I gave
>> him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be
>> ignored ("I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ...
>> source code ... didn't cure the breach.") None of your twisting
>
> She is simply saying that the GPL provision of "automatic termination"
> on a slightest breach is UNENFORCEABLE you idiot.

Do you still remember what we were talking about?  We were talking about
the non-existence of judges who are of the opinion that you can make use
of the GPLs permissions without heeding its terms.

If she considers a breach likely healed because the terms _have_ been
heeded after substantial delay, does that mean that she thinks one needs
not heed the terms?

I have no doubt that you'll form a sentence containing "idiot" or
"moron" as a reply, but please do try to remember what the topic was.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov  writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> If she considers a breach ...
> >
> > She did NOT rule that there was a breach, you retard. She ruled quite
> > the opposite:
> >
> > "With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MYSQL has
> > not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
> > merits or irreparable harm."
> 
> You are confusing the decision about the preliminary injunction with the

I'm confusing noting, silly dak.

"With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MYSQL has
not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits or irreparable harm."

HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED

*HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED*, YOU IDIOT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

And yes, the case was about alleged contract breach, you retard. NOT
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MORON.

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf
("COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)")

"  COUNT VIII 
  Breach of Contract (GPL License)"
  ^^


regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 5/5/2010 10:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

the case was about alleged contract breach


It doesn't matter what the case was about. Your fellow crank asked
for links to "US federal judges who *do not* believe the terms of the
GPL can be ignored", and I provided a link to a US judge who shows in
her order that she does not believe that the terms of the GPL can be
ignored.


"With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MYSQL has not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or
irreparable harm. . . but the matter is one of fair dispute."

Even Glenn Beck couldn't spin this to mean an affirmation of the
validity of GPL terms. ROFL.



Of course you and your fellow cranks will disregard evidence which
contradicts your cherished but incorrect beliefs even when this
evidence is exactly what you asked for. That's what makes you cranks
after all.


ROFL. This, from a GNUtian moron who claims a copyright license is not a
contract.

Sincerely,
RJack :)



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored


That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank 
universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge who

does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored.


The judge never interpreted the terms of the GPL. She merely
acknowledged the existence of a contract which some GNUtians
hope to deny is a contract.

I gave him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be 
ignored ("I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ... source

code ... didn't cure the breach.") None of your twisting and spinning
can change the simple and obvious fact that here is a judge who does
not believe that the terms of the GPL can be ignored.


You're playing semantic games. "[A} judge who does not believe the terms
of the GPL can be ignored" means a judge who interprets the GPL terms to
be enforceable. No federal judge has ever construed the terms of the GPL
at all. Moove the goalposts Hyman -- it won't help --
but mooove them anyway if it makes you feel better.

This is an identical situation to those who claim nonexistent GPL
settlement victories.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Justice draws nigh

[RJack]

All this bantering about prior cases is moot.

The SFLC has just filed a request for a pre-conference motion for 
summary judgment against Westinghouse. The near future now holds all the 
answers about GPL enforcement. I'm sure Judge Scheindlin will suffers no 
fools in this action.


Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Justice draws nigh

[RJack]

RJack wrote:

All this bantering about prior cases is moot.

The SFLC has just filed a request for a pre-conference motion for 
summary judgment against Westinghouse. The near future now holds all the 
answers about GPL enforcement. I'm sure Judge Scheindlin will suffers no 
fools in this action.





Seems Westinghouse has undergone an assignment for the benefit of
creditors in California.

http://bankruptcy.cooley.com/2008/03/articles/the-financially-troubled-compa/assignments-for-the-benefit-of-creditors-simple-as-abc/

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Sufficient motivation?

[Hyman Rosen]

As of a week or so ago, I am now the owner of a refurbished
Insignia NS-WBRDVD BluRay disk player. Revised firmware for
it may be downloaded here:


As it happens, other people and I have trouble connecting
to the internet wirelessly with this player:


Once BestBuy settles with the SFLC, I may be sufficiently
motivated to go and build the firmware for myself and see
what I can figure out.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Justice draws nigh

[Alexander Terekhov]

RJack wrote:
> 
> RJack wrote:
> > All this bantering about prior cases is moot.
> >
> > The SFLC has just filed a request for a pre-conference motion for
> > summary judgment against Westinghouse. The near future now holds all the
> > answers about GPL enforcement. I'm sure Judge Scheindlin will suffers no
> > fools in this action.
> >
> 
> Seems Westinghouse has undergone an assignment for the benefit of
> creditors in California.
> 
> http://bankruptcy.cooley.com/2008/03/articles/the-financially-troubled-compa/assignments-for-the-benefit-of-creditors-simple-as-abc/

SFLC rats footnoted it:

"On April 27, Plaintiffs attempted to confer with counsel for
Westinghouse regarding the discovery request, but were told that
Westinghouse has undergone an assignment for the benefit of creditors in
California and is unlikely to continue to defend itself in this matter"

"is unlikely to continue to defend itself in this matter"

"is unlikely to continue to defend itself in this matter"

So when the defendant told SFLC rats that the defendant is "unlikely to
continue to defend itself in this matter" SFLC rats "contemplate" two
motions:

"Plaintiffs in this action for copyright infringement write to request a
pre-motion conference in contemplation of two motions against defendant
Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC ("Westinghouse"), The first
contemplated motion is for summary judgment of infringement and an award
of appropriate remedies. The second contemplated motion is to compel
discovery. Plaintiffs propose a single pre-motion conference be held
during the week of May 17, or otherwise at the Court's earliest
convenience."

LOL!

SFLC rats "contemplate" two motions...

http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-108.pdf

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Hyman Rosen]

On 5/5/2010 4:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz


Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Hyman Rosen]

On 5/5/2010 2:26 PM, RJack wrote:

This is an identical situation to those who claim nonexistent GPL
settlement victories.


Yes, it is. In both situations anti-GPL cranks cannot
bring themselves to believe what has long been obvious
to anyone else, so they twist and spin to avoid facing
the truth.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 5/5/2010 2:26 PM, RJack wrote:
> > This is an identical situation to those who claim nonexistent GPL
> > settlement victories.
> 
> Yes, it is. In both situations anti-GPL cranks cannot

http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz

> bring themselves to believe what has long been obvious
> to anyone else, so they twist and spin to avoid facing
> the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

"Commonly in an argument from ignorance or argument from personal
incredulity, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false,
implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this
gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of his or
her choice. Examples of these fallacies are often found in statements of
opinion which begin: "It is hard to see how...," "I cannot understand
how...," or "it is obvious that..." (if "obvious" is being used to
introduce a conclusion rather than specific evidence in support of a
particular view)"

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[Hyman Rosen]

On 5/5/2010 5:31 PM, RJack wrote:

Sayeth Hyman Rosen:
"Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link."

Sayeth Hyman Rosen:
"Commonly in an argument from ignorance or argument from personal
incredulity, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false,
implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this
gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of his or
her choice."


Wishful Thinking: 
Form:
I want P to be true.
Therefore, P is true.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 5/5/2010 4:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz






Sayeth Hyman Rosen:
"Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link."

Sayeth Hyman Rosen:
"Commonly in an argument from ignorance or argument from personal
incredulity, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false,
implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this
gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of his or
her choice."



Sayeth RJack:
ROFL.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss