Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak

[RJack]

David Kastrup wrote:

RJack  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

[RJack]

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

[Hyman Rosen]

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.
___
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]

RJack  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

[RJack]

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 
 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

[Hyman Rosen]

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. 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

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.
___
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]

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

[David Kastrup]

RJack  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]

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]

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. Only
in your Marxist land of GNU are copyright laws written that way.

Your socialist interpretation of copyright law certainly compliments
your "The Captain's scared them out of the water!" theory on lawsuit
settlements. I will give you credit for being consistent Hyman. It seems
that you're WRONG 100% on the time.

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]

On 2/7/2010 7:19 AM, RJack wrote:

If "authorizing" is reserved as "exclusive" for the "author"

> of a work how does a "non-owner" do any authorizing?

Because the original author has authorized him to do so.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak

[David Kastrup]

RJack  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

[RJack]

David Kastrup wrote:

Alexander Terekhov  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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  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

The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak

[Alexander Terekhov]

How come that

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

says

"Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as "you". 



regards,
alexander.

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