Re: How do Free software developers get money?

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 02:15:06PM -0800, mike3 wrote:
> On Feb 3, 3:03 pm, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >    Yes, I want the questions taken seriously, since I want a real and
> > >    understandable answer so I can put the questions to bed, I want to
> > >    learn!
> >
> > > The best way is not to ask questions, but to find them yourself.
> >
> > It also helps to not ignore the answers people gave you (mike3) the
> > first 50 times you asked the same question...
> >
> 
> I guess so, but where did I ask about the development of proprietary
> software as a free software developer's job? If I had really asked it
> before, I wouldn't have asked it again. I can't remember this and it
> would
> help greatly if you would point out where I asked this specific
> question so much, as if I did I'll review the answers I got and dro
> this thread if they all make sense to me.

I advise you to consult a brain doctor, you may have something similar
to alzheimer's desease.

I quite distinctly remember replying to you on such a subject, if not
the same, at least one so similar as to be confused as being the same.

Rui

-- 
Hail Eris, Hack GNU/Linux!
Today is Setting Orange, the 35th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Round of GPL Violation Lawsuits

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 01:20:02PM -0400, rjack wrote:
> I have have never found any *verifiable* detail of *any* settlement of  
> these lawsuits other than the court records available on PACER.

You couldn't find any verifiable detail that you're an idiot even if you
inserted your own head up your own ass.

> I have read hearsay reports of settlements released from SFLC blog
> postings. . . these reports from SFLC lawyers who have spent the past  
> seven years claiming a copyright license is not a contract.
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

Of course it isn't. Copyright license -> Copyright law
Contract -> Contract law

DUH!

> These settlements concern BusyBox source code that has never been  
> registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The plaintiffs obviously have  
> no standing to file these frivolous suits:

Copyright does not require register at U.S. Copyright Office.

rjack obviously prefers to write frivolous accusations.

> Why believe *anything* from these SFLC crackpots?

Why believe anythhing from you, crackpot?

> THE SFLC WILL NEVER,  
> NEVER ALLOW A FEDERAL COURT TO REVIEW THE GPL ON ITS MERITS. They will  
> even dismiss WITH PREJUDICE against their own clients rather than see a  
> court actually review their moronic GPL license claims.

Your inverse logic would require people to go to court ALL THE TIME.

If the accused decides to settle, then there is no need to go all the
way. It would actually be frivolous, and following your advice could
probably bring wrath from the judges.

But hey, you're a crackpot.

Rui

-- 
Hail Eris, Hack GNU/Linux!
Today is Boomtime, the 16th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Roundof GPL Violation Lawsuits

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:33:07PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Copyright does not require register at U.S. Copyright Office.
> 
> Hey mini-me RMS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Me) you stupid, the
> rules of enforcement regarding US copyrights in US courts (specifically
> in New York/2nd Circuit
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit
> where SFLC resides) do require the registration work at US Copyright
> Office.

Interesting statement, specially if one considers that link to Wikipedia
where no mention of any kind of registry is contained.

There's a name for this kind of fallacy.

> http://infotechlawpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/01/second-circuit-vacates-settlement-of.html
> ---

Lot's of whishful thinking there. Specially for your conclusions.

Rui

-- 
Umlaut Zebra �ber alles!
Today is Boomtime, the 16th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Roundof GPL Violation Lawsuits

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:38:18AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > rjack  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > >I have have never found any *verifiable* detail of *any* settlement of
> > >these lawsuits other than the court records available on PACER.
> > 
> > I have never found any *verifiable* evidence that you're a real person.
> 
> That's because you've never compared his posts here with lawsuits in the
> 7th Circuit (stuff partly available on PACER) regarding the GPL.
> 
> Hint:
> 
> http://www.grinswim.org/addressbook.html
> 
> One out of five. :-)

What, the five tests of insanity? No need. You ARE mad. That's a link
for people who like to... swim?

Rui

-- 
Hail Eris!
Today is Boomtime, the 16th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Roundof GPL Violation Lawsuits

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 08:09:42AM -0400, rjack wrote:
>> http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html
>>  In December of 2007 the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) filed its
>> GPL lawsuit, which was settled in March of this year. The win was
>> hailed as a victory for open source by the SFLC and others.
>
> How does a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses his lawsuit WITH
> PREJUDICE "win" a victory against a defendant?

Winning out of court, of course. Or in your planet all there is to a
court case only happens inside the court?

Rui

-- 
Hail Eris, Hack GNU/Linux!
Today is Setting Orange, the 24th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: William Patry Copyright Blog

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 08:12:41PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > 
> > rjack wrote:
> > > http://williampatry.blogspot.com/
> > 
> > Apropos of nothing,
> > 
> > [begin quote]
> > On top of this there are the crazies, whom it is impossible
> > to reason with, who do not have a life of their own and so
> > insist on ruining the lives of others, and preferably as
> > many as possible.
> > [end quote]
> 
> Sounds like he got hit by devoted freetards not satisfied with (lack of)
> his pro-GPL performance. Ironic.

I distinctly remeber having thought of you, Lex, when I first read that
quote.

Rui

-- 
Fnord.
Today is Sweetmorn, the 70th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: devoted freetard's thought, remembered

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 11:16:25PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > I distinctly remeber having thought of you, Lex, when I first read that
> 
> Care to share that thought (in details), mini-RMS?

Full details: looks like Alexander Terekhov must've bugged him to (blog) death.

It took me as long as to write it down.

Rui

-- 
You are what you see.
Today is Sweetmorn, the 70th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: Open source licenses upheld

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:31:28AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> I'm looking forward to the day when Mr. Terekhov declares SCOTUS a pack of
> drunkards.

We'll get there... just you wait...

Rui

-- 
All Hail Discordia!
Today is Sweetmorn, the 7th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: JMRI case -- Implementation of the Federal Circuit's Opinion

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 02:28:52PM -0500, Rjack wrote:
> Unfortunately, many posters in this group do not appreciate your wisdom  
> Alex.

100% failure rate on anti-gpl cases definitely proves his "wisdom".

Rui

-- 
Frink!
Today is Setting Orange, the 31st day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: Catch this post?

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 04:00:57PM -0500, Rjack wrote:
> You should swear less, listen more and take your meds Salty. One of  
> Ransom's favorite ploys is to join a group with more than pseudonomous  
> account and play good cop - bad cop.
>
> Tim Ransom, Onelinepostguy, spoojraxlrod, mosnar, "Reverend Mosnar", Tim  
> Rancid, Day5dome plus about a hundred other Nyms are splattered across  
> cyberspace on various ISP's such as rogers.com, yahoo's servers,  
> Google's blog.com, petitmorte.net and a few more. Leaves a great trail  
> for law enforcement.

Oh, you found your twin soul?

   rjack, therekov, mike3, etc...

-- 
This statement is false.
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 35th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: Freedom. . . NOT

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 09:31:54AM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
>> "Forced" sharing through copyright misuse is illegal theft.
>
> 
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
> by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
> the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
> Discoveries.
>
> To borrow some usage from Terekhov,
>
> "exclusive"
>
> "exclusive"
>
> "exclusive"
>
> "exclusive"
>
> "exclusive"
>
> Copyright holders have exclusive rights to their work. Except for
> discrimination against protected classes, they have complete control
> over who is allowed to make copies and redistribute them, and setting
> conditions, even arbitrary ones, is well within the scope of their
> constitutional rights. In any case, no one is "forced" to share since
> no one is forced to use GPLed software. If a programmer chooses to use
> it, and distribute programs that include it, he has to abide by the
> conditions of its license.
>
> This is what the JMRI appeals court recognized, and what you fail to see.
> The world has changed around the existing law, which didn't envision a
> vibrant community of works distributed under free licenses which demand
> sharing and attribution rather than money. Case by case, and eventually
> by statute, you will see that the law will come to fully embrace these
> free licenses and their provisions.

http://laforge.gnumonks.org/weblog/2008/05/08#20080508-olg_muenchen-skype

The lawyer representing Skype still continued to argue for a bit into
that direction, which resulted one of the judges making up an
interesting analogy of something like: "If a publisher wants to publish
a book of an author that wants his book only to be published in a green
envelope, then that might seem odd to you, but still you will have to do
it as long as you want to publish the book and have no other agreement
in place".

It seems the world insists on defying Therekov/Rjack's perception of
reality. The World is a Vampire... :)

Rui

-- 

Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 40th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:54:58PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvDIEBOLD/COMPLAINT.pdf 
> 
> "For non-commercial use, Artifex licences Ghostscript to the public
> free of charge under the GNU GPL."

Sorry, but they are going to loose because they can't distinguish
between proprietary and commercial (at least if that's the basis of the
complaint).

Based on your track record, though, I predit you'll be calling the judge
a "drunkard", or something like that (as you so frequently do).

Rui

-- 
Wibble.
Today is Sweetmorn, the 39th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 02:15:58AM -0500, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> What does that ("honoring the terms of the GPL for standalone
>> Ghostscript") have to do with the copyright law, Hyman?
> > The GPL is not the copyright law, don't you agree with that, Hyman?
>
> Copyright law forbids Diebold from making copies of Ghostscript
> and distributing them. In order to do so legally, they must have
> permission from the copyright holder. That permission comes either
> from the GPL or from a separate license agreement with Artifex.

And if they are using the permission from the GNU GPL, they can even
make money out of it, their problem is a misjudgment between what is
commercial and what is proprietary.

Rui

-- 
Or not.
Today is Sweetmorn, the 39th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: TomTom to contest Microsoft patent lawsuit ..

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 11:47:50AM +, Doug Mentohl wrote:
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> In Microsoft's case against Tom-Tom, there are a bunch of patents
>> that don't have anything to do with Linux involved as well as
>> the FAT filename patents  ..

Get real, the Linux kernel supports FAT.

> What effect on the case would it be if Tom-Tom eliminated all  
> proprietary software and used a purely GPL solution?

What does the licensing mode of software have to do with software
patents? Both models are doomed as software patents rob the rights
holders from their value.

> Why isn't MS going after these third parties?

It's a message to anyone daring to use GNU/Linux instead of Microsoft.

> What effect on MSs entire patent portfolio would it be if MS lost this case?
>
> "If your company is being victimized by any entity seeking to assert its
> patent portfolio against Linux, please contact us so that we can aid you  
> in your battle with these dark forces"

Hopefully they'll loose millions in the case, and then loose the
patents.

Rui

-- 

Today is Sweetmorn, the 61st day of Chaos in the YOLD 3175
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: Eric Raymond: We don't need the GPL

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 06:37:18AM -0400, Rjack wrote:
> "The question I found myself asking is: if the market punished
> people for taking opensource closed, then why do our licenses need
> to punish people for taking open sourceclosed? That is why I don't
> think you really need GPL or a reciprocal licenses anymore
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEPg2M1qbEs

Eric who?


ps: an intelligent person will understand the question.

-- 
Pzat!
Today is Setting Orange, the 12th day of Discord in the YOLD 3175
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
>> The authors are relenquishing their rights within contractual
>> privity a concept which I know totally evades your understanding.
>
> Wikipedia to the rescue!
> 
> The doctrine of privity in contract law provides that a contract
> cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on
> any person or agent except the parties to it.
>
> OK, so? What does this have to do with relinquishing rights?
> 
> the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive
> rights to do and to authorize any of the following
>
> See? A rights holder has the exclusive right "to do" and
> "to authorize". Exercising the right "to authorize" is in
> no way a relinquishing of any right.

You know,

There's only so much skill fine tuning you can do when you fight dolls.

Rjack, Therekov, amicus something, and all those trolls will NEVER see
this or that. Their sole purpose is to make people loose time answering
them and to polute mailing lists.

They're paid for it.

There's only one solution for this kind of people:
 1. ignore
 2. zero tolerance

It's not a contradiction, the solution requires both.

In 1, you just have to gain a little more shielding, you're getting
affected by the line noise. Instead of increasing the strength don't add
up to the interference.

In 2, you can do lots of things: flag them as astroturfers, trolls,
whatever, or outright shut them up. I go for the flag as soon as the
typical signals are caught: either direct evidence, or a defiance of
logic that can only be explained with the arduous intentionality of
someone who's paid to do that.

As for me, I haven't read a single thread of interest in gnu misc
discuss for many years. Even those that could be interesting are quickly
polluted by the trolls.

I'm seriously tempted to just give this list away, but I'm still
(naively?) hoping the list admins would do anything, but I suspect even
they are long gone.

Rui

-- 
All Hail Discordia!
Today is Sweetmorn, the 13th day of Discord in the YOLD 3175
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:27:34AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra  wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> > You know,
> 
> > There's only so much skill fine tuning you can do when you fight dolls.
> 
> > Rjack, Therekov, amicus something, and all those trolls will NEVER see
> > this or that. Their sole purpose is to make people loose time answering
> > them and to polute mailing lists.
> 
> I'm not quite convinced of that - I suspect that one of them in
> particular got "caught out" by the GPL in the past, and hasn't stopped
> bawling like a 7 year old how he's really right.  Another stated some
> while back that being disparaging about GNU was his hobby.
> 
> > They're paid for it.
> 
> Any particular reason you say that?

I just can't believe a crazy person would be able to so relentelessly
bother people in such elaborate ways for such a long time.

> > I'm seriously tempted to just give this list away, but I'm still
> > (naively?) hoping the list admins would do anything, but I suspect even
> > they are long gone.
> 
> Oh no, we're still here.  :-)

Glad to know! :)

> I do moderation on some other GNU mailing
> lists, but not this one.  The moderation is purely to exclude advertising
> and, occasionally, excessive swearing.  Once you get into censorship, no
> matter how good the reasons, you are on a slippery slope to being no
> better than the people you're shutting out.  Paul Graham
> <http://www.paulgraham.com/> discussed this with regard to blocking
> lists for filtering mail; people set up a new clean blocking list because
> of the corruption in the one they left, and in their turn become corrupt
> themselves - the power goes to their head.

ok, how do you propose to protect legitimate users from the constant
harassing of either crazy or paid people? I'd like to know.

Best,
Rui

-- 
This statement is false.
Today is Pungenday, the 15th day of Discord in the YOLD 3175
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 01:15:36PM -0400, Rjack wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:27:34AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra  wrote:
>
>> ok, how do you propose to protect legitimate users from the constant
>> harassing of either crazy or paid people? I'd like to know.
>
> That's what the folks over at OpenBSD-Misc think about a self-righteous, 
> hypocritical little prick polluting their mailing list named "Rui 
> Miguel". If you know him you should send him a copy of your brilliant 
> lecture on protecting legitimate users from harassing posts. I'm sure 
> he'd appreciate it.
>
>
> BEGIN POST:
> ***
> To: OpenBSD-Misc 
> Subject: Richard Stallman...
> Date: Friday, January 4, 2008 - 10:05 am
>
>
> Hello,
>
> We're all tired of explaining to Richard Stallman about how he's wrong. 
> It somehow isn't registering with him, that, or he's not willing to 
> accept his position of being wrong.
>
> Either ways, by replying to his emails we are creating more noise than 
> required and giving him more importance than is due.
>
> Could we all please stop responding to his emails as well as emails
> from trollers like Rui Seabra? . . .
>
> 
> END POST.
>
> http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2008/1/6/541772/thread

How funny, I (who am a fan of OpenBSD) merely pointed out a couple of
errors and false statements, and was attacked by vicious vocal people
way, way beyond anything reasonable.

It is funny that you have it so at hand, when Therekov joined that
thread just to further entice the foul humours of some vocal morons.

More proof that you're just fabricated characters full of references at
hand to use professionally on mailing lists in order to harass
legitimate users?

Rui

-- 
You are what you see.
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 16th day of Discord in the YOLD 3175
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 04:29:29PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> Any particular reason you say that?
> >
> > I just can't believe a crazy person would be able to so relentelessly
> > bother people in such elaborate ways for such a long time.
> 
> You've never been to school?  In pretty much every larger social group,
> some people derive a sense of power and self-esteem from pettishly
> picking on others.  Just because you are mostly confronted with civil
> people does not mean that they are the only kind around.

I think it is quite innapropriate to compare with children. Petty
children are normal. Petty humans are normal.

Rjack, Therekov and their other aliases would redefine the meaning of
petty, if it wasn't intentional (and most assuredly paid) behaviour.

Rui

-- 

Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 16th day of Discord in the YOLD 3175
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?


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

Re: Computerworld.com/Infoworld.com: Does GPL still matter?

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 03:33:51PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136467/Does_GPL_still_matter_
> 
> "[ Editor's note: InfoWorld tried to interview Richard Stallman, who
> runs the Free Software Foundation that created and manages the GPL, on
> this issue, but he demanded control of what we published, so we
> declined. ]"

Well, ComputerWorld demands control of what they publish, so if Richard
Stallman wants to make sure they never "make" him say "open source" he
has to demand that (I've witnessed this kind of requests from him).

I read «(bla bla bla) opensource (bla bla bla) opensource» and I'm
pretty sure Richard would not want association with that.

Of course the InfoWorld article is just plain flamethrower all around.

Many Free Software coders are people who have certain employments, and
code as a hobby. The economic downturn has very likely prevented a lot
of this people from showing up, continue to code, etc... because they
were busy finding new jobs, stressing out over not finding them, and
so on.

Speaking for me, I'm the author of two GPLv3+ programs, one started last
year, the other this year. I'm sure there will be more, and I'm not a
very productive coder.

Rui


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

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Dear Antonis,

Beware the trolls on this list...

Rui

Em 02-02-2010 06:52, Antonis Christofides escreveu:

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:07:42 -0500
Hyman Rosen  wrote:

Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual C++  (or
Visual Basic) run-time library permitted under the GPL?


The program as you distribute it does not contain a copy
of the dynamic library integrated into it, so it is not
relevant that the library is used when the program runs.
Since copyright restricts only the copying and distribution
of covered works, you may distribute your program under the
terms of the GPL even if it dynamically links to non-free
libraries when executed. The system library exemption of the
GPL never comes into play.


I don't think that this is correct. When I distribute the program in
binary form, I also need to distribute the "Corresponding Source"
under the GPL-3, and this is defined as "all the source code needed
to ... run the object code", except for the System Libraries. Since the
dynamic library is needed to run my program, its source is part of the
Corresponding Source, unless it is a System Library.


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




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

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 17:01 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>Since recently, tuxrocks.com's coverage of "Wallace v. GPL" got
>pretty selective (the motto is "we won't let Wallace troll the
>community", I suppose; interestingly enough, the pro-GPL stance
>seems to impact publication of some FSF's briefs as well)...
> 
> Or it might simply be because Wallace, like you, are actually
> trolling.

And I also wonder how much rope the Judges plan to let Wallace hang
himself into before dismissing him with contempt.

I mean... price fixing? Let me see:
   Ubunto: zero EUR (+ network traffic costs)
   RHEL: over 1500 EUR for subscription

Just to count two immediate possibilities. There are hundreds more.

Rui


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

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 20:25 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Marketing to begin with. You should read and try to understand the 
> complaint, really.

Yes, really.

Basis of complaint: Wallace seems to think anti-trust law is there to
protect a business model instead of protecting consumers.

His case only makes sense if you think of Free Software as a monopoly.

Laudable effort of waste of time.

Rui


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

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 22:49 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: 
>http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf
> 
> Terekhov likes to quote material without having actually read it
> himself.  Wallace more or less claims that the GNU GPL allows for
> price fixing, more exactly, that it requires all parties to distribute
> copies of GPLed software for no fee.  This is obviously false.
(...) 
> I'm not a lawyer, but I am atleast capable of weilding a very powerful
> sword called "Reading", which Wallace and Terekhov are unable to.

One could almost argue that they're the same person, the similarities
being so strong.

Well, I guess they could be string-puppets under the same manipulative
hands...

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 22:49 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf
> 
> Terekhov likes to quote material without having actually read it
> himself.  Wallace more or less claims that the GNU GPL allows for
> price fixing, more exactly, that it requires all parties to distribute
> copies of GPLed software for no fee.  This is obviously false.
(...)
> I'm not a lawyer, but I am atleast capable of weilding a very powerful
> sword called "Reading", which Wallace and Terekhov are unable to.

One could almost argue that they're the same person, the similarities
being so strong.

Well, I guess they could be string-puppets under the same manipulative
hands...

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 22:49 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: 
>http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf
> 
> Terekhov likes to quote material without having actually read it
> himself.  Wallace more or less claims that the GNU GPL allows for
> price fixing, more exactly, that it requires all parties to distribute
> copies of GPLed software for no fee.  This is obviously false.
(...) 
> I'm not a lawyer, but I am atleast capable of weilding a very powerful
> sword called "Reading", which Wallace and Terekhov are unable to.

One could almost argue that they're the same person, the similarities
being so strong.

Well, I guess they could be string-puppets under the same manipulative
hands...

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

I'm sorry for spam, it was due to misusage of an agent.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Appropriate List for GPL Discussions?

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 14:21 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> David Kastrup wrote: ...
> 
> Hi dak, nice to see you again. Wanna be replonked for free (until next 
> Christmas?

Are you making a threat? I'm a willing witness ;)

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 10:31 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Alex,

Your mental diarrhea very closely touches the boundaries of of all those
"buy cialis" spam mails.

The only real difference is that the later make sense...

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 20:46 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > The only real difference is that the later make sense...
> 
> You're a brainwashed GNUtian. Of course it doesn't make sense to you.

Geez, I guess I must be... I don't remember the brainwashing sessions,
so there's your proof :)

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 11:43 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote:
> [...]
> > But that's not really a good analogy.  Combining two programs is not
> > just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a
> > copy of the other. 
> 
> What do you mean by "merge". They remain as two separate computer 
> programs (or parts thereof, if you like) under copyright law. No 
> protected expression was transformed/modified forming a derivative 
> work. Combined executable is just an aggregation of many computer 
> program works under copyright law. If you insist I can supply you 
> with maps that will allow you to extract all those distinct 
> components.

You can't include someone else's book into your own book unless they
allow so.

That's what is meant by "merge" and what happens in linking software.

Now, if you were offering a legitimate copy of someone else's book when
you offered your own, as two distinct items, than you would be talking
about your theory.

You keep confusing two books with one book composed of two books,
without either of which the book makes absolutely no sense.

It borderlines intentional misleading, if not at all.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 14:07 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any "I accept") directly 
> to a compilation on a tangible medium. In source code or object code 
> form (both forms are wildly available).

Of course, you don't have to agree when your rights are increased upon
copyright law, only when they are decreased. The decree of rights is
unilateral, you can only abide them or not at all.

> Archivers and linkers don't create derivative works.


Yes on the first case, not on the second. In the second case you make a
work that is the direct combination of two works, without either of
which nothing exists.

Either you are allowed to combine thus creating a derived work or not at
all.

> Nothing is merged "in linking software."

Of course not, in the domain of lies, mischiefs and circular
self-references.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 16:55 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> form, you can reproduce it in object code form (as an additional 
> copy per 17 USC 117) using compilation process (as in computing), 
> link it together with other stuff and run. It's all allowed per 
> statute.

Folks, read what he points to instead of taking his word.

Alex, you should know that that is about you giving _your_ copy to
someone else, and not about giving _a_new_copy_ of _your_copy_ to
someone else.

While on the first case you are right, on the second you made a copy,
which you can only as long as you respect the conditions stated by the
author.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.

Irrelevant. You still don't have the right to make copies and distribute
those copies unless you are authorized, even if you got the software as
a gift :)

If the author has authorized you because he licensed it as Free
Software, great. If not, you can't make any copies and distribute them.

Rui 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 22:00 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.
> > 
> > Irrelevant. You still don't have the right to make copies and distribute
> 
> The right to distribute lawfully made copies (without authority of the

Irrelevant. You're still confusing _your_copy_ with
_copies_of_your_copy_

And since it's not for lack of information, I can only assume that it's
either for lack of English Comprehension, because otherwise it would
have to be malice.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 11:28 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 22:00 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > > > You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant. You still don't have the right to make copies and distribute
> > >
> > > The right to distribute lawfully made copies (without authority of the
> > 
> > Irrelevant. You're still confusing _your_copy_ with
> > _copies_of_your_copy_
> 
> Ok. Think of two copies.

You keep insisting on irrelevant points, why? They don't help your case.

You're still confusing _your_copies_ with _copies_of_your_copies_

The quantity doesn't alter the fact, it's mere other instances of the
same case.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 19:10 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> I've got a bit tired of all that nonstop GNU nonsense, but ok.

Why don't you go away then? :)

> copying is a fair use. Directly attaching clipped out portions of the
> copyrighted work is not copying, 


> Now please go back and read again what I said (including copying under
> 17 USC 117 to make software "collage").

Funny Alex... however you still and yet again confuse what you do with
_your_copy_ and what you do with _copies_of_your_copy_ and produce
irrelevant garbage "disguised" of 17 USC 117.

Rui, who read 17 USC 117 instead of just believing treacherous Alex.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 22:20 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > _your_copy_ and what you do with _copies_of_your_copy_
> 
> Rue, Rue. You are a clinical case. 
> 
> Given: initially no copies at all (t0)
> 
> t1:  download a copy
> t2:  distribute that particular copy
> t3:  download a copy
> t4:  distribute that particular copy
> 
> Q) How many _copies_of_your_copy_ do we have here?

Two copies under fair use. But that's not what happens when you link
software. :)

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 19:45 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>>   A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an
>>   extended version of that program. The GPL says that any
>>   extended version of the program must be released under
>>   the GPL if it is released at all.
> 
>And it is not released.  That's the key.  Internal use.
> 
> If I give you a copy, it is distribution.  The whole concept of
> internal `use' is bogus.  I can claim that the whole world is internal
> for my use, and then simply refuse to release the source to anyone,
> since it is `internal use', if one would follow your thread.

Yes, Alfred, but a company is _one_ entity. If that company gives a copy
to a worker for _his_ private use then that would be distribution.

If it's use inside that company, then it hasn't left the entity at all.

Sad, but not recognized as distribution. That's why you have to "agree"
with the common proprietary licenses. They add restrictions like "you
can only install on one computer, or else no license".

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 23:00 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > Two copies under fair use.
> 
> Wrong again. No fair use at all.
> 
> > But that's not what happens when you link software. :)
> 
> Ah that. Well, copying and distribution under 17 USC 117 aside for a 
> moment, suppose that downloaded copies contain stuff already linked. 
> Think outsourcing. Suppose it's simply cheaper to link in China. 
> 
> Another legal person does it. I merely distribute.

You realize all this emails could probably be proof of your scheme to
break copyright law? A never ending search for ways to break it in your
profit?

What you just said could be quickly read as accessory to crime...


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 03:27 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>> If I give you a copy, it is distribution.  The whole concept of
>> internal `use' is bogus.  I can claim that the whole world is
>> internal for my use, and then simply refuse to release the source
>> to anyone, since it is `internal use', if one would follow your
>> thread.
> 
>Yes, Alfred, but a company is _one_ entity. If that company gives a
>copy to a worker for _his_ private use then that would be
>distribution.
> 
> The world is one entity.

Not legally.

>Sad, but not recognized as distribution. That's why you have to
>"agree" with the common proprietary licenses. They add restrictions
>like "you can only install on one computer, or else no license".
> 
> But according to David (and yourself?) the license does not apply in
> this entity, so such restrictions are not relevant.  This is simply
> not true.

Of course it's not true. What happens is that those licenses add
restrictions upon copyright. That's one of the reasons you have to
agree: they add restrictions on what you can do as if in a contract (and
thus many confuse copyright licenses with contracts, unfortunately).

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 11:06 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>>Sad, but not recognized as distribution. That's why you have to
>>"agree" with the common proprietary licenses. They add restrictions
>>like "you can only install on one computer, or else no license".
>>
>> But according to David (and yourself?) the license does not apply in
>> this entity, so such restrictions are not relevant.  This is simply
>> not true.
> 
>Of course it's not true. What happens is that those licenses add
>restrictions upon copyright. That's one of the reasons you have to
>agree: they add restrictions on what you can do as if in a contract
>(and thus many confuse copyright licenses with contracts,
>unfortunately).
> 
> Then please explain to me why David is insisting of the opposite.
> 
> That the CD is property, sure, but one cannot put additional
> restrictions on the licensed software on that CD without the
> permission of the copyright holder.  And copyright law still applies,
> so there is no possible way to claim that `since this is internal use
> copyright law doesn't apply'; which is exactly what David is claiming.

I can't explain that since I haven't read most posts on this thread, but
what you describe he's saying seems like an oversimplification of what I
said, and we all know oversimplifications always lead to a certain
degree of confusion.

The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft
explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they
were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that?

And if that was the law, would you have to click on "I agree"? Doesn't
make a lot of sense. The webs of cultural misappropriation of immaterial
goods reveal plots within plots.

My personal "conspiracy theory" is that "they" want to make access to
knowledge difficult in order to keep vast amounts of people who know no
better than to vote for whoever gives more candy, thus perverting
democracy in order to maintain the power oligopolies.

But I have to admit this is my own private "conspiracy theory" and I
believe everyone has one such.

Maybe Alex'es is that there can be an intellectual property... :)

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 11:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> 
> [... legal scheme to escape copyleft ...]

I resent the innuendo implicated by this cut, which could lead someone
to think I wrote a legal scheme to escape copyleft.

Another of your nice works of fraud, Alex?

> But here's a big secret for you, mini-RMS: copyright doesn't 
> contemplate copyleft. First sale, copyright misuse, and etc.

You hide behind "first sale", "copyright misuse", and etc, but you
constantly hide behind the confusion of what you do with _your_copy_ and
what you do with _copies_of_your_copy_.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 14:35 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Keep in mind that copyright law doesn't concern itself with 
> distribution of AUTHORIZED copies and that the act of distribution
> doesn't turn AUTHORIZED copies into unauthorized copies. 

Here you go again, confusing _your_copy_ with _copies_of_your_copy_

plonk

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 17:46 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft
> > explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they
> > were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that?
> 
> What they are stating is this: (MS EULA)
> 
> 
> * Installation and use.  You may install, use, access,
>   display and run one copy of the Product on a single
>   computer, 

yawn. You're boring. You try to say !a showcasing a.

> BTW, given the set-in-stone FSF's stance on legal status of the 
> GPL (everybody and his dog knows for certain that the GPL is a 
> unilateral-permission-not-a-contract) I have no idea what 
> contract the FSF hired lawyers in Indian are talking about. 
> 
> Hey mini-RMS, what do you think? C'mon share your thoughts on 
> that.

I don't think anything since I don't know not of what you're speaking.
But the anecdotal evidence portrayed by your posts leave you very little
credit as far as saying a truthful thing goes.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 18:28 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> - When you get GNU software by anonymous ftp, *there is no contract*
>   and you have no legal right to use it.  You are granted rights by the
>   GPL that you did not have, but these are not legal rights, because
>   you cannot enter into a binding contract without consideration.  So
>   although you are permitted to use the software, you have no
>   enforceable legal right to do so.

This is bullshit. Usage is not covered by copyright law[1], only
distribution of copies of the work outside fair use.

> - When you order a tape from the FSF, the situation is unclear.
>   If your payment is clearly only a handling free, then any contract
>   that exists is solely for the purpose of the tape being shipped to
>   you, and it does not govern the contents of the tape.  If the payment
>   is actually for the software itself, then there is a contract that
>   affects how you use it.

When you pay for a CD of Microsoft Windows, you only have warranties on
the _CD_ itself, not on the data it contains.

That's almost all you get as far as your money is concerned.
Then there's this license, that restricts your rights even more by
forbidding private copying (install on no more than one computer at a
time), and since it restricts beyond default copyright, you have to
"agree" to its terms.

Since not agreeing means you don't have even a single license, all you
get is a worthless piece of plastic.

With Free Software you get default copyright + extra rights.
In the case of the GNU GPL, distributing new copies is allowed under
certain unilateral restrictions. Nothing else gives you the right to do
that.

This is just plain copyright.

Rui

[1] except in what relates to DMCA and equivalent horror laws.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 21:21 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> [...]
> > Over and out.  Let the Terekhov quote-script have the last word.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sources.d/msg/3c633bf50d950b8c
> 
> (early Rahul Dhesi, before he was brainwashed by GNU)

You mean that people can't know better and learn in almost 20 years?

Geez... I guess that explains you...

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 23:59 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sources.d/msg/3c633bf50d950b8c
> > > 
> > > (early Rahul Dhesi, before he was brainwashed by GNU)
> >
> > You mean that people can't know better and learn in almost 20 years?
> 
> Know better what? The FSF hired lawyers are telling to the judge in 
> Indiana that "the contract controls". So once again, what contract 
> are they talking about? The judge in Indiana is gonna be real pissed 
> when he finds out that Ice Miller and the FSF were just joking about 
> the GPL being a contract so they could get Wallace's case dismissed. 

Portuguese Judges wouldn't show such a high level of tolerance against
people who make fun of the Judicial system as Wallace is doing.

They might act slower, though. Way slower. But maybe he'd have only two
attempts to rewrite.

In any case, they're not talking about the GNU GPL, so nice try Tereky.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 01:36 -0500, D.C. Parris wrote:
> I am curious to know what people think about Linus Torvalds' comments on the
> anti-DRM clause in the GPLv3 draft.  According to Linus, the GPLv3 (as is)
> could cause problems, i.e., when needing to run signed code in the kernel. 
> Giving up your private key would make signing the code a moot point.  

Linus did not, at the time of those statements, understand that clause.

The clause says that IF a CERTAIN private KEY is REQUIRED, then you have
to PROVIDE that KEY.

This is for the case of Digital Restrictions Management enabled hardware
that will only load software signed with that KEY.

What good is the software if you can modify it to satisfy your needs but
are unable to satisfy your needs because you can't run it without
signing it again?

The problem is that in DRM the owner of the machine doesn't control the
KEY. Someone else does.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 19:18 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Wallace on predatory pricing:
> 
> ---
> Predatory pricing
> 
> The GPL establishes a predatory pricing scheme. Setting the maximum
> price of intellectual property at “no charge” removes all motive to
> compete.

Error no.1: it's not "intellectual property" but copyright that's being
discussed
Error no.2: even Microsoft says licensing costs amount to about 4% or 6%
of the total cost of a solution, so there's 94% to 95% of motive to
compete.

Ah the idiots...

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:41 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > Error no.1: it's not "intellectual property" but copyright that's being
> > discussed
> 
> Copyright is a form of property

No. It is an artificial government granted temporary monopoly over a
work. This right can be bought or sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise
transferred. But it is not property.

If it was property it would not be temporary, and the government would
have no right to define an expiry date, or else we would be talking of a
totalitarian government.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:34 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > The clause says that IF a CERTAIN private KEY is REQUIRED, then you have
> > to PROVIDE that KEY.
> > 
> > This is for the case of Digital Restrictions Management enabled hardware
> > that will only load software signed with that KEY.
> > 
> > What good is the software if you can modify it to satisfy your needs but
> > are unable to satisfy your needs because you can't run it without
> > signing it again?
> 
> Run that modified software on some other competing DRM-less hardware?

That's the seller's problem, not the user's problem. The user should
never be "owned" by the seller.

> > The problem is that in DRM the owner of the machine doesn't control the
> > KEY. Someone else does.
> 
> For good reasons. Hack-resistant safety critical stuff and etc. And 
> for TiVos (and alike) both hardware and controlling software is a 
> loss leader. They want the boxes to be used as intended to generate 
> profits. My, what a felony it is in the GNU land.

This are not good reasons. "Hack resistance, safety critical stuff and
etc" do not equate with DRM. In fact, DRM harms this features since by
design someone else controls the key. In the case of computers there's a
master DRM certificate root. The user is never in full control of _his_
computer.

DRM is theft.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 12:57 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11969361.htm
> (Governments can seize private land, high court rules)

There are certain extreme situations where a Government can *seize*
(which is an extreme and unexpected case, not the result of a quite
known and expected pre-defined time-limit).

Copyright is a monopoly over the distribution of a work in order to
provide an economic advantage to the artist.

Copyright is temporary because the good of the society can not be held
hostage to the good of "one" (and usually only one) single person for an
indefinite amount of time.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 13:38 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Original:
> 
>   unsigned explosive_power = 0;
>   while (still_not_eliminated("FSF"))
> send_a_bomb("FSF", explosive_power += 10/*kiloton*/); 
> 
> Derivative:
> 
>   unsigned explosive_power = 0;
>   while (still_not_eliminated("FSF")) {
> fork(); 
> send_a_bomb("FSF", max((explosive_power += 10) + random(), 
> 666)/*kiloton*/);
>   }
> 
> regards,
> alexander.

Interesting. Are you now publicly writing violent aggression threats?

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 13:59 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > This are not good reasons. "Hack resistance, safety critical stuff
> > and etc" do not equate with DRM. In fact, DRM harms this features
> > since by design someone else controls the key. In the case of
> > computers there's a master DRM certificate root. The user is never
> > in full control of _his_ computer.
> >
> > DRM is theft.
> 
> Uh, only when afflicted without your agreement.  Other than that, it
> is merely crippling the quality of available choices.

(...)

> DRM is just putting into practice for software what has been the rule
> for hardware: built-in self-destruction.

Since Digital Restrictions Management doesn't affect only generic
computers but also the access to works (which can be revoked), I
disagree and maintain my generic view that DRM is theft.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 14:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > Copyright is a monopoly over the distribution of a work 
> 
> All property rights imply some form of ownership ("monopoly" in GNU 
> speak) on enjoyment and exploitation of property.

But copyright isn't a form of ownership (property), but a government
granted temporary monopoly.

>  But distribution 
> right is severely limited by first sale

We're talking about distributing copies of a copy, sorry for
misdirecting you with my abuse of language.

>  (which is nonexistent in the 
> GNU Republic).

Wrong, first sale, fair use and all are not covered by the GNU GPL but
by copyright law. The GNU GPL doesn't affect this rights of the user.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 16:52 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> 
> [... "monopoly" ...]
> 
> William M. Landes and Richard Posner:
> 
> -
> A property right is a legally enforceable power to exclude others 
> from using a resource, without need to contract with them. So if A 
> owns a pasture, he can forbid others to graze their cattle on it 

Yes, we all know that. But contrary to grass & cows, people can copy
digital content ad aeternum without loss of the source.

This fundamental difference establishes quite good boundaries.
Like why copyright isn't property.

In property, if I equally share a land with you, each of us has half a
land.

In idea expressions, if I share an idea with you, each of us has an
idea.

Its like the christian miracle of bread & fish.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 10:21 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Rui writes:
> > Since Digital Restrictions Management doesn't affect only generic
> > computers but also the access to works (which can be revoked), I disagree
> > and maintain my generic view that DRM is theft.
> 
> DRM backed up by law is abusive, but DRM alone is a private matter.

The law only protect circunvention. But suppose circunvention wasn't
technically feasible...

Regardless of law, DRM is theft. If there sould be a law, it should
forbid DRM.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Intellectual Property II

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 18:39 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>  The dynamic benefit of a property 
> right is the incentive that the right imparts to invest in the 
> creation or improvement of a resource .
> 
> .. For example, a firm is less 
> likely to expend resources on developing a new product if competing 
> firms that have not borne the expense of development can duplicate 
> the product and produce it at the same marginal cost as the 
> innovator; competition will drive price down to marginal cost, and 
> the sunk costs of invention will not be recouped.

Nicely put piece of non-sequitor FUD :)

If the history of Free Software proves anything, it's the opposite of
this "theory".

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Property according to Terekov

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 22:12 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > Quite so.  You can merely recoup damages for the breach of copyright,
> 
> What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first 
> sale.

Someone gave you a copy of Linux, let's call Linux A and your copy is B.

Let's analyse some situations:
1. You gave B to a friend
that's first sale
1.1 your friend sold B to someone else
that's first sale
1.2 your friend sold copies of B to other people (B1, B2, etc...)
that's no longer first sale, that's distribution of new copies
and that can only be done under the terms of the GNU GPL, the
only license that permits those copies. Otherwise, copyright
says your friend can't do that.

2. You sell B to someone else
that's just like 1.1
2.1 that someone else gives copies of B to other people (B1, B2, etc...)
that's just like 1.2

3. you give copies of B to other people (B1, B2, etc...)
that's just like 1.2

Rui



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: First sale according to Terekov

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 08:43 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > Let's analyse some situations:
> > 1. You gave B to a friend
> > that's first sale
> 
> Right.
> 
> > 1.1 your friend sold B to someone else
> > that's first sale
> 
> Right.
> 
> > 1.2 your friend sold copies of B to other people (B1, B2, etc...)
> > that's no longer first sale, that's distribution of new copies
> 
> Wrong. First sale is about distribution of authorized copies by their
> owners. The GPL entitles your friend to make copies and he owns them.
> So it does fall under first sale and only a contractual covenant can
> interfere with your friend's right to distribute all his copies as he
> sees fit under first sale and not the GPL.

It is you who are wrong (but I know you will disagree, there's no point
for you to reply). "Your friend" can only sell B not copies of B (B1,
B2, etc...). That's forbidden under copyright.

> > and that can only be done under the terms of the GNU GPL, the
> > only license that permits those copies. Otherwise, copyright
> > says your friend can't do that.
> > 
> > 2. You sell B to someone else
> > that's just like 1.1
>
> Right.
> 
> > 2.1 that someone else gives copies of B to other people (B1, B2, etc...)
> > that's just like 1.2
> 
> Except that 1.2 is wrong.

Except that *you* are wrong.

> > 3. you give copies of B to other people (B1, B2, etc...)
> > that's just like 1.2
> 
> Except that 1.2 is wrong.

Except that *you*`are wrong.

> > Rui
> 
> 4. Rui sold or gifted copies of B to Terekhov (B1, B2, etc...). Rui 
>was compliant with the GPL and provided access to source code to 
>Terekhov. Terekhov is not a party under the GPL agreement regarding 
>those copies to begin with, and he may resell those copies under 
>first sale ignoring the GPL altogether.

That's where you're wrong. You can't give copies of B under first sale,
just B (your copy).

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: First sale according to Terekov

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 09:42 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > 4. Rui sold or gifted copies of B to Terekhov (B1, B2, etc...). Rui
> > >was compliant with the GPL and provided access to source code to
> > >Terekhov. Terekhov is not a party under the GPL agreement regarding
> > >those copies to begin with, and he may resell those copies under
> > >first sale ignoring the GPL altogether.
> > 
> > That's where you're wrong. You can't give copies of B under first sale,
> > just B (your copy).
> 
> Hey retard, read again what I wrote above. All those (B1, B2, etc...) 
> copies which *you gave me* ARE MINE.

You so constantly confuse "your copy" with "copies of your copy" that
you automatically lead people into defending from your attack points.

Of course that calling someone a retard only shows your level :)

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: First sale according to COPYRIGHT LAW

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 10:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > Of course that calling someone a retard only shows your level :)
> 
> I'm calling you a retard because it's a fact: you are either being 
> intentionally obtuse or it is your natural and normal condition.
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00174.html

So you pollute debian-legal too...

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: EU antitrust and the GPL

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 12:48 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_frm/thread/6480c64e71ebb4fa
> 
> -
> On 2/15/06, Ville Oksanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> >
> > Dr. Mikko Välimäki has a quite nice article on the topic:
> >
> > Mikko Välimäki: Copyleft Licensing and EC Competition Law, forthcoming
> > in European Competition Law Review 3/2006
> > http://www.valimaki.com/org/open_source_competition.pdf
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> "So far, there is no evidence that open source licensors would use
> these obligations with malicious intention trying to turn all software
> into open source."


Other interesting quote from Mikko:

Does the zero-royalty requirement in copyleft clause qualify as
restricted price fixing (or the setting of a maximum price) in
terms of the block exemption? The following observations speak
against such a conclusion:
-A royalty-free requirement does not imply that the price of
the software must be zero. Software can be priced through other
means than copyright royalties as well.
-Copyleft clause does not affect all further “production of
goods and services”. It does not cover services at all and only
covers goods, which are “derivative works” of the licensed
software as further defined in copyright law.


> Oh really?
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/ea7b34ddbe4f175a

(... loads of useless self-quoting ...)

> 



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: EU antitrust and the GPL

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 17:21 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > -A royalty-free requirement does not imply that the price of
> > the software must be zero. 
> 
> Then what does it imply?
> 
> >Software can be priced through other
> > means than copyright royalties as well.
> 
> But other means would not price software, they would price 
> something else.

No. They price software too. Ever heard of Total Cost of Ownership? The
price of the license is usually a very small percent and usually not the
deciding factor.

Today I heard at the company I work at about betting on Nagios(tm),
which they "bought". They didn't buy it in the sense of licensing but in
the sense of the man-hours spent deploying and developing know-how.

> > -Copyleft clause does not affect all further “production of
> > goods and servicesâ€. 
> 
> But the regulation doesn't say that ALL further "production of
> goods and services" must be affected for a license to be in 
> violation.
> 
> Software is a good on its own.

But the cost of licensing is (usually) not _THE_ factor. And that's the
point.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: "Preferred form for making modifications"

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 11:32 +, Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> The reason I wonder is that there is still an awful lot of old software
> floating around that is still useful to some people, and for all I know
> the source code may be lost forever.  Supposing the copyright holder can
> be tracked down, and is willing to cooperate, is it conceivably possible
> to get all this stuff released under the GPL?

And this is probably why the reasoning is a moot point.

Can any of those programs actually do anything useful? Run at least?

In what architectures? On which computers? Oh which operating systems?

Don't run if you can't walk it's better to just use public domain, I
guess.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 14:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> The court in ProCD held that a "shrinkwrap" software license, that 
> is, a license that accompanies software limiting its use, is an 
> effective contract under the UCC against anyone who receives the 
> terms of the license and uses the software. Id. at 1452. The court 
> also held that state enforcement of such contracts under the UCC 
> would not be preempted by the Copyright Act or 17 U.S.C. § 301. Id. 
> The GPL, like the shrinkwrap license in ProCD, is a license
> applicable to anyone who receives its terms and chooses to use it, 
> and by using it, accepts the terms under which the software was 
> offered. Id.
> -
> 
> My, this is such a fun. Kudos to Wallace.

Lex... Lex... (Luthor?)

The GNU GPL has _ZERO_ clauses on use (running the program). So it is
not shrinkwrap. You can install and use any GPL'ed program without
agreeing to any license because:
a) your copy is unilaterally authorized and legitimate
b) there's a clause that explicitly tells you there's no use
   limitations.
Clause 0:
Activities other than copying, distribution and
modification are not covered by this License; they are
outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not
restricted, and the output from the Program is covered
only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the
Program). Whether that is true depends on what the
Program does.

But if you mean copying, distributing and/or modifying... then and only
then there's some restrictions you have to accept in order to be
authorized under Copyright Law.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: "Preferred form for making modifications"

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 08:56 +, Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> >Don't run if you can't walk it's better to just use public domain, I
> >guess.
> 
> John Hasler made a similar point about using the MIT licence.  That
> might not suit the copyright holder's whim; they might actually like the
> "viral" nature of the GPL, even for binary-only abandonware.  They might
> *like* the fact that licensees can't legally prevent further
> redistribution of an improved version they derived.  Translations should
> be easy enough to do, for example.

Maybe, but since there's no source code, there's little value in using
the GPL, and if it was used, a distributor could find himself in
infringement since he could not comply with the source related parts.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

One of Lex Terekhov's favorite "heroes" looses his "cause":

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060320201540127

Mr. Wallace's fourth Amended Complaint was dismissed and the
Free Software Foundation's Motion to Dismiss was granted. It's
the Order that tells Wallace to pay the Free Software
Foundation's costs. Judges do that when they'd like you to learn
a good lesson. It's a signal you shouldn't have brought the case
in the first place. 

Honestly, pro se lawsuits tend to be disasters. If you can't
find a lawyer willing to represent you, it usually means you
don't have a case. 

Regards.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 14:34 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> The plaintiff has alleged future personal injury because of elimination
> of market opportunity -- an injury that flows directly from the
> threatened market foreclosure:
> “… Said predatory price fixing scheme prevents Plaintiff Daniel Wallace
> from marketing his own computer operating system as a competitor.”;
> Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint
> 
> In the course of vending his competing operating system, the plaintiff
> has experienced firsthand the deleterious market effect of the GPL
> license when used by a cartel of competitors to distribute the Linux
> operating system.

The court found out otherwise, Lex:

[T]he GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition
and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits
of which directly pass to consumers. These benefits include
lower prices, better access and more innovation.

Or do you consider this judge is also drunk?

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2004-07/msg00238.html

Rui

PS: learn with me, will ya? quote somebody else, preferably not a close
ally, rather than yourself ;)


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 18:59 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > So you feel unable to face the facts.  
> 
> The fact is that the GPL price-fixes IP at zero.

Really?

Global File System: 2200 USD. GPL'ed.

https://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/rha/gfs/

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 12:54 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=355346
> http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=355344
> http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=355342

More self quotes. yawn.

You seem to forget the court dismissed the case for futility, so I find
it hard to believe any appeal won't wonder _why_ they considered it
futility...

As many have pointed that out to you in ways that only a fool couldn't
see, futility is the main gist of Wallace's "5 times amended" complaint.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 17:10 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Time to address this little bit of silly propaganda.

> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > 
> > One of Lex Terekhov's favorite "heroes" looses his "cause":
> > 
> > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060320201540127
> > 
> > Mr. Wallace's fourth Amended Complaint was dismissed and the
> > Free Software Foundation's Motion to Dismiss was granted. It's
> > the Order that tells Wallace to pay the Free Software
> > Foundation's costs. Judges do that when they'd like you to learn
> > a good lesson. It's a signal you shouldn't have brought the case
> > in the first place.
> 
> That seems to be at odds with what it says in FRCivP 54(d):
> 
> "... costs other than attorneys' fees shall be allowed as of course 
> to the prevailing party ..."
> 
> Interestingly enough, the FSF has not filed a bill of costs. And it 
> appears that the 14-day deadline for doing so has expired.
> 
> "... Failure to file such bill or motion or to obtain leave of Court 
> for extensions of time within which to file shall be deemed a waiver 
> of the right to recover taxable costs or attorney fees."

The FSF doesn't seek every penny out of a lunatic... 
The horror... the horror...

News at 11pm

Rui


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Sex, 2006-05-12 às 12:44 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> [...]
> > The GPL is not a contract, 
> 
> Sez who? )Besides you and other brainwashed GNUtians, that is.) 
> 
> Here's what the FSF own hired lawyers said in court of law.
> 
> http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the
> terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the
> complaint, the contract controls."
> 
>  
> 
> See? The CONTRACT controls.

You're misquoting. That sub-quote is in favour of Wallace's position:

Here's the full two paragraphs:

**Plaintiff's mischaracterization** of the GPL in his Response
has no bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to
Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o
the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with
the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls."
Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir.
2005).1
**Contrary to Plaintiff**, the GPL is indisputably a **vertical
agreement** between the licensee and the licensor of the
underlying software, **as the Court has already held** in
granting the FSF's prior motion to dismiss:

What remains to be seen is if that's either intentional misquoting, or
just plain stupidity.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Sex, 2006-05-12 às 15:19 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: 
> [...]
> > just plain stupidity.
> 
> *Agreements* between licensees and licensors are CONTRACTS, stupid.

No. Sorry (well, not really), but no.

We can agree to disagree, but I certainly haven't _ever_ made a contract
with you.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Sex, 2006-05-12 às 15:53 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> For the sake of nailing stupid mini-RMS once again.
> 
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > You're misquoting. 
> 
> I've been quoting FSF's (counter-) argument A The GPL is not a 
> "pooling" or a "cross-licensing" agreement. Here's full quote.

You just repeated my full quote while trying to rewrite reality.

*core*dumped*

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Sex, 2006-05-12 às 17:23 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> The FSF didn't dispute that the GPL is a contract. The FSF even told the 
> court that "the contract controls".

That's still not the FSF but a document referenced in favour of Wallace.

> ***) http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf (this case is
> still pending)

(...) bunch of something that's not said by the FSF and doesn't even
mention "contract" (...)

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Qua, 2006-05-17 às 14:17 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> I've been told that appeal fee is $250. I don't think that Wallace 
> needs any financial help from me.
> 
> www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
> 
> "GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of 
> competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but 
> neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You 
> and they will compete in other areas, while benefiting mutually in 
> this one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will 
> not like GNU, but that's tough on you. If your business is 
> something else, GNU can save you from being pushed into the 
> expensive business of selling operating systems."

Of course not, the court decided as such because anti-monopoly laws
exist to benefit _consumers_ and not companies that make business.

If someone can have a (arguably for some) better operating system at a
very competitive cost (zero for some GNU/Linux distributions, but not
all since it's frequently found at a price on commercial exploitations
such as Red Hat Enterprise and Suse Enterprise), if said software even
fosters a cooperation environment that facilitates innovations, then the
consumer did benefit.

Wallace further failed to prove cause for complaint... hence dismissed
for futility.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Qua, 2006-05-17 às 21:17 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Wallace brought forth the GPL. The GPL is his evidence.
> 
> ---
> Predatory pricing
> 
> The GPL establishes a predatory pricing scheme. Setting the maximum
> price of intellectual property at “no charge” removes all motive to
> compete. The Supreme Court has analyzed predatory pricing in a Sherman
> Act § 1 civil action:

Let's search for instances of "charge":

In the Preamble:
(...) Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that
you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and
charge for this service if you wish), (...)

In Section 1:
(...) You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring
a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in
exchange for a fee.

In Section 2, which is about distributing _DERIVATIVES_:
2. _You_may_modify_ your copy or copies of the Program or any
portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and
_copy_and_distribute_ _such_modifications_ or work
_under_the_terms_of_Section_1_ above, provided that you also
meet all of these conditions:

So this is direct: you can charge for giving out a copy! But you must at
no extra cost license the new copies under the same terms:

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that
in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or
any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all
third parties under the terms of this License.

If you want to distribute binaries then one of the ways you can do it is
to...
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a
medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

So no, you're wrong again (as the judge also concluded). What you can't
charge for, is for distributing under the GPL. But you can demand a
payment for the work of making that copy.

But of course, in Therekovian there's only one incentive for "life":
getting money.

Go traffic drugs, it's easier.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Sáb, 2006-05-20 às 15:56 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > You can't sell "intellectual property"
> 
> Bzzt. Copyright (refs to patents in Wallace's case aside for a moment) 
> is a form of property which, like physical property, can be bought or 
> sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise transferred, wholly or in part.

Copyright. Not work.

The right to a copy or the right to make copies. Not the work.

It's this legal "right" that can be bought, sold, inherited, licensed,
or otherwise transferred, wholly or in part.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Sáb, 2006-05-20 às 19:08 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > There is no identifiable market.  
> 
> That's not what the Judge said. Yeah, of course, to GNUtians, there's 
> no market in Wallace's case.
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market

Here you "lie" again, by hoping people add the last part of the URL with
your words, and intuitively think another thing entirely. And thus
"lies" about Free Software propagate.

Following the link one reads:
"Market"
It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the
software users in general, as a ``market''.

NOTE 1: so the FSF is referring to USERS and not to OPERATING SYSTEMS

This is not to say we're against markets. If you have a free
software support business, then you have clients, and you trade
with them in a market. As long as you respect their freedom, we
wish you success in your market.

NOTE 2: so the FSF wishes success on business made on a market whilst
respecting users' freedom.

But the free software movement is a social movement, not a
business, and the success it aims for is not a market success.
We are trying to serve the public by giving it freedom--not
NOTE 3: 
competing to take them away from a rival.

  To equate this
NOTE 4:   ^^
campaign for freedom to a business' campaign for mere success is

to diminish the significance of freedom.


As usual, Therekov's argumentation strategy lies on hoping people won't
notice:
a) how he self quotes himself (even three levels deep!)
b) how he hopes people won't actually read the contents but
   instead "trust him" because he provides links.
c) how he makes a fool of himself

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Sáb, 2006-05-20 às 19:52 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Operating system software. I'll make it simple for you. Suppose
> that all GPL'd software evaporates tomorrow. People will need 
> software in place of it. That's the market. Got it now? And, BTW, 
> what the Judge said is "Because he [Wallace] has not identified an 
> anticompetitive effect, Wallace has failed to allege a cognizable 
> antitrust injury." and he dismissed for that reason.

I don't think courts work in the
suppose-that-all-oxygen-burns-out-tomorrow scenario.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Ben wrote:
> 
> I've a program I want to release under the GPL, it relies on a number of
> jar libraries covered under other licences such as Apache 2.0.
> 
> Can I still distribute the software under the GPL 

The GNU GPL up to the current version is incompatible with the Apache
Software License 2.0 because this one adds certain restrictions (without
any judgement of value on them) and the GNU GPL does not permit added
restrictions.

This is a problem likely to be overcome when GNU GPL v3 comes out, but
for now you'd have to add an exception clause (google for GPL and
exception clause, I'm sure you'll find examples such as GNU ClassPath).

Seg, 2006-05-22 às 11:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Sure you can. Beware of eventual copyright impotence (penalty for 
> copyright misuse) though.

I advise you to avoid following any advice Alexander Terekhov gives you,
Ben, since his views do not seem to be supported by reality, but instead
by self-quoting (up to three levels deep!) and insults.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Again. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/224798.htm

The second decision came from a different judge in the Southern
District of Indiana and, like the first judge and the FSF
complaint, he found that Wallace didn't properly state a claim.
He said he accepted the allegations as true but that Wallace
didn't allege anticompetitive effects in an identifiable market
by arguing that it stopped him from marketing his own OS and
dismissed the case with prejudice figuring Wallace couldn't
remedy the deficiencies.

The judge wrote that "Antitrust laws are for 'the protection of
competition, not competitors.' In this case, the GPL benefits
consumers by allowing for the distribution of software at no
cost, other than the cost of the media on which the software is
distributed

*sigh* I guess judges just err and err, don't they Alex? You're the only
soldier boy saluting properly within thousands of bad performers in the
military parade, I suppose, to your parents.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Again. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Seg, 2006-05-22 às 20:23 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> 
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > 
> > http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/224798.htm
> > 
> > The second decision came from a different judge in the Southern
> > District of Indiana and, like the first judge and the FSF
> > complaint, he found that Wallace didn't properly state a claim.
> > He said he accepted the allegations as true but that Wallace
> > didn't allege anticompetitive effects in an identifiable market

At least grant me the right to have facts straight... I said...

Seg, 2006-05-22 às 17:30 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra escreveu:
>> *sigh* I guess judges just err and err, don't they Alex? You're the
>> only soldier boy saluting properly within thousands of bad performers
>> in the military parade, I suppose, to your parents.

I guess that really puts in a nice perspective what you replied to my email 
with:

> The District Court is clearly in error. Predatory pricing has the 
> requisite anticompetitive effect (ARCO). The Appellate Court will 
> correct the district court's mistake.

q.e.d.

RUi


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Seg, 2006-05-22 às 20:55 +0100, Ben escreveu:
> The risk lies in that the GPL may be make GPL the libraries my code uses 
> - that are under different licences.
> This would mean that any recipient of my GPL code could also assume 
> those associated libraries are GPL (when clearly they may not be)
> 
> This is what concerns me, unless you can prove otherwise.
> 
> For what its worth I'm also now looking at using the CPL instead.

That's a not very safe way of doing it.

I strongly suggest you use the GNU GPL with an additional exception
clause, for instance:

This program is licensend under the GNU GPL (bla bla...) and
I also allow you to link my program with library X, licensed
under the Apache Software License 2.0.

See? Easy, no? And the GNU GPL is better understood and will allow you
to link your software with other GPL'ed software (+- 80% of Free
Software, if you add to it the Lesser GPL'ed software), whilst with CPL
you will not be able to license your program at all with the ASL 2.0,
but _ALSO_ you will exclude your program from sharing code with +-80% of
Free Software.

That's not very sane. Here's another text you can read on why it's good
to have GNU GPL compatibility, by David Wheeler:

http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html

Rui

RUi


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Seg, 2006-05-22 às 22:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> IP licenses are not akin to state permits.

What, Internet Protocol is licensed? Please specify what you mean by IP.
Internet Protocol? Patents? Copyright? Trademarks? Something else?

>  They are contracts. The 
> licensor can also be sued for breach of contract.

If you mean Copyrights, you're the bullshitter. Copyright is it's own
law, completely independent of Contract law.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Ter, 2006-05-23 às 00:19 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> 
> [... snip GNUtian drivel ...]
> 
> http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=September&artYear=2004&EntryNo=1578

You mean to imply that a book that expresses an opinion of an author is
the law? Now there's a laugh...

That's not law, that's an excerpt from a book where someone's *opinion*
is that licenses on something that is not clearly defined anywhere
(intellectual "property"? what are they talking about? Copyright?
Patents? Trademarks? Other rights? They're so different that they can't
be legislated as a whole) would be a contract.

*tsk* you really don't have arguments, do you?

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Ter, 2006-05-23 às 00:52 +0100, Ben escreveu:
> Does this additional exception clause violate the GPL in any way? How 
> can it be compatible with the GPL if the clause states that they can 
> link some non-GPL jars, yet the GPL states all the linked in libraries 
> (distributed as a whole) must be GPL?

The GNU GPL does not say such a think.
  1) You can't change the license on the jars
  2) You can license the new work as a whole
  3) The exceptional clause is granting the user the additional right to
 link with certain libraries, so it's an added right instead of an
 added restriction.

> Its getting confusing... and I think some of this problem is down to my 
> misunderstanding but I think I'm almost there. If we can nail this issue 
> down its very likely I'll use GNU GPL 2 with an exception clause.

I suggest you use the wording: "GNU GPL version 2 or greater", as
suggested by the FSF, so you can be forward compatible with, for
instance, the GNU GPL v3, which should be compatible with Apache
Software License 2, alleviating you from the need to use the exceptional
clause from then on.

If you don't use the "or greater" and you accept code from others,
you'll need to contact them later on in order to change, and they might
not be accessible, so I suggest you provision for the future.

Regards, Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Ter, 2006-05-23 às 12:15 +0100, Benjamin escreveu:
> Again I'm on the fence with GPL and CPL. I like the assurances of GPL, 
> but its ambiguity is making me favour the CPL.

I don't see any ambiguity, and although not legally binding, doubts are
frequently gone when reading the FAQ. Otherwise, I suggest you consult
with a lawyer.

> I guess at the end of the day all I have to go on is the mostly pro GPL 
> answers on here, (no answer yet from GNU) or the assurances of the CPL 
> which has the backing of IBM.

CPL has the backing of Microsoft. IBM prefers IBM Public License or GNU
GPL or GNU Lesser GPL or BSD style.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Ter, 2006-06-20 às 00:25 -0700, Gottfried escreveu:
> I would like to offer LiMath_Optimierung as a shareware program i.e for
> some fee and without the source code. Please only discuss the license
> issue, don't tell me whether you like Windows or Bill Gates or
> something like that.

Why are you in search of ways around the GPL?

I think that it's better to just release it under the GPL and still ask
the user for a donation if he likes the program.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Ter, 2006-06-20 às 15:38 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Yeah, and all Windows programs "include" MS Windows. Piss off, dak.

Your verbosity can only give you credit... thanks for helping us.

EOT (as far as you are related)


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Qua, 2006-06-21 às 03:41 -0700, Gottfried escreveu:
> Hello Rui,
> 
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra schrieb:
> 
> > Ter, 2006-06-20 às 00:25 -0700, Gottfried escreveu:
> > > I would like to offer LiMath_Optimierung as a shareware program i.e for
> > > some fee and without the source code. Please only discuss the license
> > > issue, don't tell me whether you like Windows or Bill Gates or
> > > something like that.
> >
> > Why are you in search of ways around the GPL?
> I do not principally search of ways around the GPL. I only want to
> clarify whether I am obligated in this special case to do so. At the
> moment I would like to leave my program documentation and the download
> archive as it is and avoid the aditional work to read and implement all
> legal formalities associated with GLPK.

Why worry about being obligated if you're not trying to find a way
around the GNU GPL?

> > I think that it's better to just release it under the GPL and still ask
> > the user for a donation if he likes the program.
> As far as I remember in the GPL text is stated that it is not a
> question of money but of the freedom of users to get the source code.
> First I would like to test whether there are at all users who are
> interested in the program or the source code. I don't wont provide all
> the overhead and then see that nobody is interested in. In some sense I
> insist on the freedom of the author to decide further proceeding.

Seems, to me, that you'll have a lot less hassles if you just release it
all under the GNU GPL and never have to worry about theses problems
anymore.

You know that it's always best to solve a problem in advance instead of
creating potential problems in the future, and I see that your reasoning
for circunventing is established over lots of IFs.

I strongly suggest you to remove those IFs by simplifying the process.
Either:
  a) develop your own set of libraries
  b) use another set of liraries that has a license you like better
  c) forget virtually all legal problems by making it Free Software
 released under the GNU GPL.

Hoping for c)... ;)

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Qua, 2006-06-21 às 13:40 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Wei Mingzhi wrote:
> 
> [... respect freedom ...]
> 
> Possession of property is a mark of the free man. And intellectual 
> property is property.

Your mistake here is assuming that intellect can become property.

I say mistake, because otherwise you would be cooperating with WIPO and
similar entities in trying to subvert knowledge into something that can
be bought and sold like any good.

Main difference:
good) if you share an apple with me, we both eat a part of the
  apple
knowledge) if you share an idea with me, we both have the
   complete idea (modulo interpretation deviations)

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Qua, 2006-06-21 às 17:09 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Note also Wallace's own (in the other case currently under appeal):
> 
> -
> Not only competitors are harmed by the GPL scheme. Consumers lose
> because a lack of competition removes not just product choice but
> without competitive reward the incentive to improve product quality
> disappears. 
> -
> 
> http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf

That's the same Wallace whose single case was dismissed for futility,
right?
Also the same Wallace whose single case included a quote from the judge
saying the exact opposite of that, right?

Or do you think the judge was drunk (as you so famously insulted the
juridic system so often)?

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Qua, 2006-06-21 às 17:46 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > Your mistake here is assuming that intellect can become property.
> > 
> > I say mistake, because otherwise you would be cooperating with WIPO and
> > similar entities in trying to subvert knowledge into something that can
> > be bought and sold like any good.
> 
> What "subvertion" are you talking about? That's the state of affairs 
> on this planet (apart from North Korea... the GNU Republic instilled 
> in your mind by Stallman & Co. aside for a moment) already. You're 
> trying to subvert, not me.
> 
> http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ip/index.shtml

Yeah, right. You're trying to prove me that "ip" isn't a subversion by
taking quotes from an entity who has all to gain by promoting the
subversion? That's rich...

> --
> Intellectual property represents the property of your mind or 
> intellect. It can be an invention, trade mark, original design or 
> the practical application of a good idea.

Unfourtunately this isn't "property" but temporary monopolies.

This makes this...

> Confidential information (also referred to as trade secrets), 
> patents, registered designs, trade marks, copyright, circuit 
> layout rights and plant breeder's rights are all legally 
> classified as IP rights.
... a blatant lie. 

> I suggest you relocate to North Korea and enjoy "freedom" first 
> hand.

Hey Therekov, 1984 called, they want your shirt back. It reads:

"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

And in the back it reads:
   "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY EXISTS AND MUST BE PROTECTED AGAINST EVIL
PIRATES"

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Qua, 2006-06-21 às 18:28 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> of anticompetitive effect ("By making certain software programs 
> available to users at no charge, the GPL may be discouraging 

The GPL does no such thing. Some individual authors (and some people who
distribute copies) do.

Or are you _also_ against the concept of software that's available
gratis?

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Qua, 2006-06-21 às 22:24 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Try explaining what's wrong with Wallace's argument on injury. Can you?

Where's WallaceOS? Where can I buy it? Where can I download it?
Do I have to take a significant ammount of LSD to "get it"?

*giggle*


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Qua, 2006-06-21 às 23:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > 
> > Qua, 2006-06-21 Ã s 22:24 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > > Try explaining what's wrong with Wallace's argument on injury. Can you?
> > 
> > Where's WallaceOS? Where can I buy it? Where can I download it?
> > Do I have to take a significant ammount of LSD to "get it"?
> 
> Try danwal.com. Drop him an email. Give a call.

It seems there's no OS to buy there. The name suggests a personal web
site. The content suggests a BSD based command line system (so many came
up "every day").

Why doesn't Daniel attack OpenBSD? Or Dragonfly BSD? Or FreeBSD?

Anyway, there's nothing there of use, the site manager rejects all
robots and web.archive.org (as a well behaved robot) doesn't store
anything.

telnet www.danwal.com 80
Trying 72.41.57.74...
Connected to www.danwal.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.0
Host: www.danwal.com

However, that magnificent site isn't even althered ever since late 2005:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 06:49:35 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.31 (Unix) PHP/4.3.11 mod_ssl/2.8.18 OpenSSL/0.9.6b
FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_throttle/3.1.2
Last-Modified: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:41:39 GMT
ETag: "28901cb-249-439e26d3"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 585
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html

Nothing to see there, move along, just as about all about Daniel
Wallace...


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Qui, 2006-06-22 às 01:26 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Many contracts don't require signing. Google "manifestation of assent".
> One accepts the GPL contract by exercising exclusive right(s) granted 
> under it.

But the GNU GPL is a Copyright *license* not a contract.

*licenses* are bound by copyright law.
*contracts* are bound by contract law.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss