Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
On 2/8/2010 10:55 AM, RJack wrote: authorizing others to authorize simply doesn't appear in 17 USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of copyrights. Only in your Marxist land of GNU are copyright laws written that way. It's amazing that you GPL skeptics don't realize how absurd your arguments are. Were you correct, which you are not, any printing house working for a publisher would be violating the copyright of an author who had contracted with the publisher to publish his book. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/7/2010 7:19 AM, RJack wrote: If authorizing is reserved as exclusive for the author of a work how does a non-owner do any authorizing? Because the original author has authorized him to do so. Sorry Hyman, only the U.S. Congress has the power to write the copyright laws and authorizing others to authorize simply doesn't appear in 17 USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of copyrights. You mean, the author does not have the right to let a publisher create copies authorized for reading? Or that authorization to read is so utterly different from authorization to copy that the latter can't be delegated to a different party? Only in your Marxist land of GNU are copyright laws written that way. Authorization for legal acts is not particular to copyright law. Your socialist interpretation of copyright law Yaddy, yadda, yadda. Don't you have better things to do with your time than to spout ridiculous nonsense? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 10:55 AM, RJack wrote: authorizing others to authorize simply doesn't appear in 17 USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of copyrights. Only in your Marxist land of GNU are copyright laws written that way. It's amazing that you GPL skeptics don't realize how absurd your arguments are. Were you correct, which you are not, any printing house working for a publisher would be violating the copyright of an author who had contracted with the publisher to publish his book. Bullshit Hyman. An author licenses a publisher and its agents to copy and distribute his work. The means by which this is accomplished is covered under the legal concept of agency. Agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a contractual or quasi-contractual tripartite, or non-contractual set of relationships when an agent is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the Principal) to create a legal relationship with a Third Party.[1] Succinctly, it may be referred to as the relationship between a principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or impliedly, authorizes the agent to work under his control and on his behalf. The agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the principal or bring him and third parties into contractual relationship. This branch of law separates and regulates the relationships between: * Agents and Principals; * Agents and the Third Parties with whom they deal on their Principals' behalf; and * Principals and the Third Parties when the Agents purport to deal on their behalf. For a technical legal deconstruction see the American Law Institutes' Restatement of the Law (Third), Agency. Keep spinnin' Hyman -- it won't help -- but keep spinnin' anyway. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 11:28 AM, RJack wrote: On 2/8/2010 10:55 AM, RJack wrote: authorizing others to authorize simply doesn't appear in 17 USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of copyrights. An author licenses a publisher and its agents to copy and distribute his work. The means by which this is accomplished is covered under the legal concept of agency. But the legal concept of agency does not appear in 17 USC 106 either. Neither does it explicitly mention the concept of contracts but all copyright licenses are contracts. What's your point Hyman? Denial? Obsfucation? So on the one hand you say that authorize to authorize is not permitted by the law, and on the other hand you say that authorize to authorize is permitted by the law. In any case, the GPL says http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. so all recipients of GPLed code are receiving authorization from the rights holder. Sigh... I guess I'll just leave that argument to you and your agents to try on a federal judge in a copyright infringement case Hyman. Keep spinnin' Hyman -- it won't help -- but keep spinnin' anyway. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 11:28 AM, RJack wrote: On 2/8/2010 10:55 AM, RJack wrote: authorizing others to authorize simply doesn't appear in 17 USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of copyrights. An author licenses a publisher and its agents to copy and distribute his work. The means by which this is accomplished is covered under the legal concept of agency. But the legal concept of agency does not appear in 17 USC 106 either. Neither does it explicitly mention the concept of contracts but all copyright licenses are contracts. Nonsense. The GPL is not a contract since the recipient of software is not required to sign, accept, or even take notice of it. If he wants to make use of this license, adherence to its conditions is held to the same standards as with contracts. But he is under no obligation to make use of the license. He can chuck it in the bin and perfectly legally act like he never saw it. You can't do that with a contract. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 11:49 AM, RJack wrote: Sigh... I guess I'll just leave that argument to you and your agents to try on a federal judge in a copyright infringement case Hyman. Yes, exactly. Even if you were correct about downstream distributors not having authorization to distribute, which you are not, before this could be a court issue the rights holders would have to sue the downstream distributors for copyright infringement. Since the rights holders want this distribution to occur, as evidenced by using the GPL as the license, this will never happen. Hm... Keep spinnin' Hyman -- it won't help -- but keep spinnin' anyway. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 11:28 AM, RJack wrote: On 2/8/2010 10:55 AM, RJack wrote: authorizing others to authorize simply doesn't appear in 17 USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of copyrights. An author licenses a publisher and its agents to copy and distribute his work. The means by which this is accomplished is covered under the legal concept of agency. But the legal concept of agency does not appear in 17 USC 106 either. Neither does it explicitly mention the concept of contracts but all copyright licenses are contracts. Nonsense. The GPL is not a contract since the recipient of software is not required to sign, accept, or even take notice of it. If he wants to make use of this license, adherence to its conditions is held to the same standards as with contracts. But he is under no obligation to make use of the license. He can chuck it in the bin and perfectly legally act like he never saw it. You can't do that with a contract. Your tautology is brilliant dak. Keep it up. You're a veritable Logician. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: How come that http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html says Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as you. That does not make the licensee able to act as licensor with all the possibilities upstream has. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: How come that http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html says Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as you. That does not make the licensee able to act as licensor with all the possibilities upstream has. You will never convince Free Softies that a non-exclusive license CANNOT empower a licensee to further authorize copyright permissions for downstream licensees. With a non-exclusive license such as the GPL the only thing a licensee can do is effect a transfer of his contractual interest. The Copyright Act, 17 USC 106, states that Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: Unfortunately, Free Softies are so wacked-out on Moglen's Freedom Kool-Aid that they are incapable of rational understanding of the words exclusive and author as used in the Copyright Act. If authorizing is reserved as exclusive for the author of a work how does a non-owner do any authorizing? Mentioning little contradictions in logic such as this simply causes Free Softies eyes to glaze over and total deafness sets in. In 24 hours time they are back out in the Blogosphere blathering about the GPL authorizing downstream licensees as if there were actually a linear downstream set of distinct licensees existing. Pity the poor Free Softies. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
RJack u...@example.net writes: The Copyright Act, 17 USC 106, states that Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: Unfortunately, Free Softies are so wacked-out on Moglen's Freedom Kool-Aid that they are incapable of rational understanding of the words exclusive and author as used in the Copyright Act. It means that the author has the exclusive right to grant others the freedom to sublicense and modify something exactly like they were licensed it. It is the author's exclusive right to pick his own software's terms of modification and redistribution, including the GPL. If he does pick the GPL, it does not make a difference to the rights of the recipient whether he or somebody else is distributing and modifying the software and passing modified versions on. That's what the public in public license means. If authorizing is reserved as exclusive for the author of a work how does a non-owner do any authorizing? By being licensed for such authorization. He does not have a _choice_ of what terms he can attach to such an authorization, unless the original author himself. Only the original author can change license terms at will. But as long as he stays with the GPL, upstream and downstream can authorize and do the same changes. Mentioning little contradictions in logic such as this simply causes Free Softies eyes to glaze over and total deafness sets in. Yes, total deafness sets in because you ignore all explanations of what you pretend not to understand. It is _you_ who feigns deafness. Pity the poor Free Softies. My pity is better spent on bileful old men like you who don't have anything constructive to offer to the world. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
On 2/7/2010 7:19 AM, RJack wrote: If authorizing is reserved as exclusive for the author of a work how does a non-owner do any authorizing? Because the original author has authorized him to do so. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
