You wanna write an app for our OS? Ask our permission first. Thank
you.
If you license your code under a Free Software license, then you
recived that permission[0]. The FSF doesn't care for people who wish
to restrict users of their freedom; it has the opposite goal, to
protect those freedo
You are obviously not interested in having discussions with anyone,
and on purpose try to misunderstand people so that you can continue
agenda of spreading lies.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/lis
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:59:23 +0100
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Tell me to respect the wishes of the author, and I'm all with you,
> > even if these wishes seem - at first sight - rather outlandish. But
> > this lunatic fight to g
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>>I don't recall receiving any private messages from you. You're
>>a victim of my spam filtering, I'm afraid.
>>
>> That is hard to belive, since you answered one message and
>> ignored the other.
>
>I answered your public message on us
>I don't recall receiving any private messages from you. You're
>a victim of my spam filtering, I'm afraid.
>
> That is hard to belive, since you answered one message and
> ignored the other.
I answered your public message on usenet (group gnu.misc.discuss;
see the he
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> People that are clamoring against the consequences of the GPL are
> clamoring against the consequences of copyright laws.
For the record, I'm against consequences of the "GNU copyright laws"
which is nothing but perverse parody having little to no connection
with r
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tell me to respect the wishes of the author, and I'm all with you,
> even if these wishes seem - at first sight - rather outlandish. But
> this lunatic fight to get the scope of copyright extended, by
> exactly those people who originally wanted to
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:16:42 +0100
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:31:15 +0100
> > David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > A book that refers
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:31:15 +0100
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > A book that refers the user to a dictionary for
>> > the definition of a number of words is not a derivative
>>
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:31:15 +0100
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > A book that refers the user to a dictionary for
> > the definition of a number of words is not a derivative
> > work of that dictionary.
>
> So why are there numerous
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> So why are there numerous court decisions that "deep linking" of web
> site material constitutes copyright infringement?
Deep Linking: Legal Certainty in Germany While Debate Continues in the
United States
September 11, 2003
With a recent decision, the Ger
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:37:43 +0100
> Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I find it unconvincing to argue that a program is not a derivative work
>> of a dynamic library just because this case is not properly covered by a
>> non-limitative
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:37:43 +0100
Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find it unconvincing to argue that a program is not a derivative work
> of a dynamic library just because this case is not properly covered by a
> non-limitative list of illustrations.
The enumeration illustrates the
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>I don't recall receiving any private messages from you. You're a
>victim of my spam filtering, I'm afraid.
>
> That is hard to belive, since you answered one message and ignored the
> other.
I answered your public message on usenet (group gnu.misc.discuss;
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is also quite clear to anyone reading the American (USA) copyright
> statutes that requiring a library, or anything, to run is _not_ a
> criterion for a derivative work.
It is not clear to me at all.
> I further believe that pretending this is t
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's the definition of a derivative work, taken
> (without permission, but fair use (still) applies :-) from
> 101 USC 17:
>
> | A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting
> | works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
16 matches
Mail list logo
