1. Party A makes a GPL'ed program available, on two CDs. One
has the program in binary form, and one has the source.
2. Party B obtains these CDs, and having no interest in the
source code, gives the source CD away, or perhaps discards it.
3. Later, Party B no
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> Party B is distributing a verbatim copy, that it is or isn't a a new
> copy isn't relevant. ^^^
^^^
That may well be true in the GNU Republic under its Copyleft Act.
How about a link to this legislati
> Moglen makes extraordinary claims about the GPL, so why doesn't he come
> forward with the appropriate legal citations?
There are not any - no one so far has had the guts to say to Eb - 'see
you in court'.
> Moglen is a J.D. with a
> Ph.D. in history and not an LL.M.
So how did he get admitted
ROFL.
Uh.
peterwn wrote:
>
> > Moglen makes extraordinary claims about the GPL, so why doesn't he come
> > forward with the appropriate legal citations?
>
> There are not any - no one so far has had the guts to say to Eb - 'see
> you in court'.
>
> > Moglen is a J.D. with a
> > Ph.D. in histo
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> peterwn wrote:
[...]
>> >He would not even be accepted as qualified for Professorship at
>> >many institutions.
>>
>> Name a few examples - Yale? Harvard? No, it cannot be Harvard - he
>> had a visiting professorship there. Perhaps some third ra
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Can't be all, or you'd be lecturing all over the landscape instead of
> venting off your frustration here about your theories getting trounced
> in the courts.
And to which theories of mine/court actions are you referring?
regards,
alexander.
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:34:35 +0200 (CEST)
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > 1. Party A makes a GPL'ed program available, on two CDs. One
> > has the program in binary form, and one has the source.
> >
> > 2. Party B obtains the
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Can't be all, or you'd be lecturing all over the landscape instead of
>> venting off your frustration here about your theories getting trounced
>> in the courts.
>
> And to which theories of mine/court actions are you
Apropos preemption...
Looks like Wallace is going to end up in the Supreme Court with that.
--
In addition to statutory preemption, preemption under the Supremacy
Clause of the Constitution must be examined. Even if a particular cause
of action survives a 301 preemption analysis...it still
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Apropos preemption...
>
> Looks like Wallace is going to end up in the Supreme Court with that.
We'll see about that. Your predictions have not really been too much
on the spot.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
__
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Your GPL theories, of course. The very few cases where people indeed
> go before court in relation to the GPL (instead of settling) end up in
> ways where you all bristle about how the judges must have been drunk.
Uh. Thus far, no court had a chance to address the GP
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Apropos preemption...
> >
> > Looks like Wallace is going to end up in the Supreme Court with that.
>
> We'll see about that. Your predictions have not really been too much
> on the spot.
I've predicted that he woul
begin oe_protect.scr
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> espoused:
> ROFL.
>
> Uh.
>
> peterwn wrote:
>>
> "It is well known that the Free Software Foundation does not hold
> copyright in the Linux system kernel program. "
>
> Liar.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sco/sco-v-ibm.html
>
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[... "first sale" ...]
> In the absence of clear definitions, the interpretations of the courts
> become crucial.
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
"There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
form. Physical co
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Apropos preemption...
>> >
>> > Looks like Wallace is going to end up in the Supreme Court with that.
>>
>> We'll see about that. Your predictions have not really
Mark Kent wrote:
[...]
> IBM assigning kernel modifications for the S/390 to the FSF is not the
> same as Linus Torvalds assigning the kernel to the FSF.
Linus Torvalds can't assign the kernel to the FSF. He doesn't own complete
copyright to (all works comprising) the kernel. He can probably ass
What is relevant is first sale. That is, the owner of a lawful copy has
the right to sell that copy. Thus, the sale can take place without
accepting the license.
Are you sure?
| 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
|signed it. However, nothing else gra
How about a link to this legislation, GNUtian ams?
Sure, copyright law. But I doubt that you are familiar with that.
> | 3. You may copy and distribute the Program
Full stop.
Party B does NOT "copy and distribute".
| 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> >> We'll see about that. Your predictions have not really been too much
> >> on the spot.
> >
> > I've predicted that he would go to appeal if both district courts
> > dismiss on standing grounds, and he did.
>
> Uh no, you _hoped_ for it. [... blah blah ...] Your m
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:31:18 +0200
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>
> [... "first sale" ...]
>
> > In the absence of clear definitions, the interpretations of the
> > courts become crucial.
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-re
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:22:32 +0200 (CEST)
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alfred, please don't send me copies of messages that are also sent to
the group. Unless you mark the post "Posted and Mailed" or suchlike,
it's against netiquette.
>What is relevant is first sale. That is,
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> > "There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
> > form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or
> > DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical
> > copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tang
Qui, 2006-06-29 às 19:35 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > Downloading the same program 500 times with the purpose of distributing
> > these copies (and which results in exactly the same situation as if one
> > downloaded once and copied 499 times) would not result in 500 lawful
> > copies,
Alfred, please don't send me copies of messages that are also sent
to the group. Unless you mark the post "Posted and Mailed" or
suchlike, it's against netiquette.
It is commont netiquette to CC everyone, and it is specially done so
on GNU mailing lists since non-subscribers can post to t
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> Qui, 2006-06-29 Ã s 19:35 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > > Downloading the same program 500 times with the purpose of distributing
> > > these copies (and which results in exactly the same situation as if one
> > > downloaded once and copied 499 times)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> [...]
>> > "There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
>> > form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs
>> > or DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical
>> > co
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
>Yes. If you buy a book, you can sell your copy. That is what first
>sale is about - the copyright holder can control copying, but once
>a copy has been sold (lawfully acquired), the copyright holder
>cannot control what is done with that copy.
>
>
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > "There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
> >> > form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs
> >> > or DVDs, are subject to section
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:52:37 +0200 (CEST)
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Alfred, please don't send me copies of messages that are also sent
>to the group. Unless you mark the post "Posted and Mailed" or
>suchlike, it's against netiquette.
>
> It is commont netiquette t
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> > "There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
>> >> > form. Physical copies of works in a digital for
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:35:50 +0200
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> [...]
> > > "There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
> > > form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs
> > > or DVDs, are subject to sectio
After takin' a swig o' grog, Alexander Terekhov belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> The idea of the FSF is that you get access to the source together with
>> the binaries.
>
> That's an idea, but its implementation is totally busted (outside the
> GNU Republic).
>
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> >> I suppose that you look up "archive" in a dictionary of your choice.
> >
> > Uh, "the material preserved". (See also 17 USC 117.)
>
> Yes, and a preparatory step for creating a CD can hardly be called a
> preservational measure.
I don't see why. A CD may have a de
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> In the case of the purchase of a copy, it should be rather obvious that
> paying for a single copy does not entitle you to the downloading of as
> many copies as your bandwidth permits, even if the server doesn't stop
That's not what I'm saying. You purchase 500 c
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> >> I suppose that you look up "archive" in a dictionary of your choice.
>> >
>> > Uh, "the material preserved". (See also 17 USC 117.)
>>
>> Yes, and a preparatory step for creating a CD can hardly be called a
>> pre
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> >> Yes, and a preparatory step for creating a CD can hardly be called a
> >> preservational measure.
> >
> > I don't see why.
>
> Because it is a copy on the way to a CD.
But it may not end up on a CD unless I "prepare archival copies of it
to guard against destruct
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> >> Yes, and a preparatory step for creating a CD can hardly be called a
>> >> preservational measure.
>> >
>> > I don't see why.
>>
>> Because it is a copy on the way to a CD.
>
> But it may not end up on a CD unless
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:44:55 +0200
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> [...]
> > In the case of the purchase of a copy, it should be rather obvious
> > that paying for a single copy does not entitle you to the
> > downloading of as many copies as your band
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>1. Party A makes a GPL'ed program available, on two CDs. One
>has the program in binary form, and one has the source.
>
>2. Party B obtains these CDs, and having no interest in the
>source code, gives the sou
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alfred
M. Szmidt wrote:
>How about a link to this legislation, GNUtian ams?
>
> Sure, copyright law. But I doubt that you are familiar with that.
Try 17 USC 109.
This is the codification of the first sale doctrine. Basically, it says
that if you have a legal
40 matches
Mail list logo
