"Ferd Burfel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Alexander Terekhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Ferd Burfel wrote:
>
> Something like the way no third-party can avoid being bound by the terms
> of the GPL in order to receive
"Alexander Terekhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Ferd Burfel wrote:
> [...]
>> A contract indeed can not bind a "non-party", but a "third-party" does
>> NOT
>> always equal "non-party". While a "third-party" that does not accept the
>> terms of the license (o
Ditto. I subscribe to this list because licensing issues in general
are intersting to me. And because I end up using a fair amount of fsf
software on a daily basis (gcc, emacs, etc). I am by no means a
'diehard' fsf member.
Alexander, you dont help to educate me on these matters. I gain
nothing f
Stephan Kuhagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello Alexander
>> Linking is irrelevant.
>
> But my sympathy for the GPL is relevant. Also relevant is that I'm going to
> use GPL-code from other people in my modules.
>
> I understand, that you do not like the GPL and I have no problem with that.
> B
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> If his mother was GPLed, then he and his sister are also GPLed.
Hm. I really like that idea. My genetic code would be a good starting point
for other programmers to learn how to avoid some common mistakes. Sadly I
can't ask my mother for the copyright, since her process
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But do not misunderstand me, I would appreciate your advice, if
>> you can give useful answers to my questions.
>
>GPL your wife and kinds as well.
>
> I suspect that the OP doesn't hold the copyright on his wife. But
> if the OP is in
Dear Alexander
> GPL your wife and kinds as well. Then invite RMS to deliver a speech
> to your Institute/Company' BETRIEBSHAUPTVERSAMMLUNG or some such. Book
> a Hilton (or some such) for him -- he likes good food.
Since you continue to give unuseful comments and start getting personal, I
will t
> But do not misunderstand me, I would appreciate your advice, if
> you can give useful answers to my questions.
GPL your wife and kinds as well.
I suspect that the OP doesn't hold the copyright on his wife. But if
the OP is indeed the GPL, the OP cannot copulate with his wife unless
sh
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> If his mother was GPLed, then he and his sister are also GPLed.
I gather that your dad GPL'd your mom. Hey ams, do you have a sister? :-)
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
h
--
Comment 1549: Acceptance is a dangerous concept
This Comment is resolved by:
This Comment is part of the discussion on:
Regarding the text: if you do not accept this License.
In section: gpl3.notacontract.p0.s4
Submitted by: sepreece on 2006-08-01 at 23:49 EDT
0 agree:
noted by sepreece on
Stephan Kuhagen wrote:
[...]
> But do not misunderstand me, I would appreciate your advice, if you can give
> useful answers to my questions.
GPL your wife and kinds as well. Then invite RMS to deliver a speech
to your Institute/Company' BETRIEBSHAUPTVERSAMMLUNG or some such. Book
a Hilton (or
Also relevant is that I'm going to use GPL-code from other people
in my modules.
The following will be relevant to you:
| 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 modific
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
> Uh, you forgot that he liked the GPL and its provisions.
Then he should GPL his sister and mom. And then
http://www.fsf.org/donate.
If his mother was GPLed, then he and his sister are also GPLed.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-d
Hello Alexander
> Linking is irrelevant.
But my sympathy for the GPL is relevant. Also relevant is that I'm going to
use GPL-code from other people in my modules.
I understand, that you do not like the GPL and I have no problem with that.
But your postings are not helpful and are not answers to
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Uh, you forgot that he liked the GPL and its provisions.
Then he should GPL his sister and mom. And then http://www.fsf.org/donate.
[...]
> A chance that the legal departments of Microsoft, IBM and a few other
> large players with deep pockets have happily passed on,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> He he.
>
> The GPL undoes everything... starting from laws and ending with
> hardware... in the GNU Republic, that is.
It certainly managed to undo your sanity, but hardly through a fault
of its own.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 447
It's about recent draft 2.
---
Comment 1548: how does "privately" bind?
Regarding the text: run privately modified
In section: gpl3.basicperms.p1.s1
Submitted by: sepreece on 2006-08-01 at 19:42 EDT
1 agree: crosbie
noted by sepreece on 2006-08-01 at 19:42 EDT:
Does this phrase mean "run
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stephan Kuhagen wrote:
> [...]
>> More important than that is, that at least some of my modules will
>> use other GPLed Libraries and Programs, so those modules have to be
>> GPL anyway.
>
> Linking is irrelevant. If your modules are not derivativ
Stephan Kuhagen wrote:
[...]
> More important than that is, that at least some of my modules will
> use other GPLed Libraries and Programs, so those modules have to be
> GPL anyway.
Linking is irrelevant. If your modules are not derivative works of
"GPLed Libraries and Programs" (seek the advi
Hello Alexander
> Stay away from the [L]GPL (aka All Your Base Are Belong To GNU) and
> stick to something non-idiotic like the CPL or (its derivative with
> minor modification regarding patent retaliation) EPL.
Thanks for your fast reply.
But your suggestion is not a good option for me. First
Stay away from the [L]GPL (aka All Your Base Are Belong To GNU) and
stick to something non-idiotic like the CPL or (its derivative with
minor modification regarding patent retaliation) EPL.
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php
21. If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under t
Hello
Subject says it all... I'm working for an Institute/Company which does
scientific and medical imaging software. We have some OpenSource-Addicts in
the house (with me as the most addicted...) and try to bring at least some
of our software to the OpenSource-World. Now there is our
"Premium"-So
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup writes:
> >> Well, the theory is that once you touch GPLed work, it jumps up and
> >> magically gobbles up all of your portfolio.
> >
> > That describes SCO's interpretation of the SysV source licence.
>
> Well
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>> Well, the theory is that once you touch GPLed work, it jumps up and
>> magically gobbles up all of your portfolio.
>
> That describes SCO's interpretation of the SysV source licence.
Well, it is hard to say just _what_ is supposed
David Kastrup writes:
> Well, the theory is that once you touch GPLed work, it jumps up and
> magically gobbles up all of your portfolio.
That describes SCO's interpretation of the SysV source licence.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
__
--
DRM "Misunderstood"
Authored by: OrlandoNative on Tuesday, August 01 2006 @ 05:00 PM EDT
Actually, PJ, your *right* to modify your software (assuming you have the
capability to do so, or the inclination) is not affected in *any* way. You can
still do that to your heart's content.
What *is*
What does online security have to do with it?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 01 2006 @ 10:16 PM EDT
Er..."online security" has nothing to do with the discussion, that's
what firewalls are for :-)
The conflict boils down to "can I force YOU to run MY binary to access MY
online s
---
The answer is "YES"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:25 AM EDT
The fundamental philosophical question is "Should a gadget designer
be allowed to use GPL code and forbid the users of this gadget to run
modified code on their gadgets?"
Your philisophical questio
---
Authored by: bloggsie on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:27 AM EDT
PJ: Please consider for one moment this situation. You are running an
organization which collects sensitive data from a large network of many
thousands of machines. They are set up to deliver the numbers, in a very
timely fas
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A small correction...
>
> Qua, 2006-08-02 às 09:32 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra escreveu:
>> Qua, 2006-08-02 às 09:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
>> > (consider that over time, under "bazaar model" with long chain of
>> > derivation
A small correction...
Qua, 2006-08-02 às 09:32 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra escreveu:
> Qua, 2006-08-02 às 09:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > (consider that over time, under "bazaar model" with long chain of
> > derivation in derivative works and additions to collective works by
> >
Qua, 2006-08-02 às 09:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> (consider that over time, under "bazaar model" with long chain of
> derivation in derivative works and additions to collective works by
> different authors, GPL'd IP becomes practically locked within the GPL
> pool)
Funny. Correcti
Ferd Burfel wrote:
[...]
> A contract indeed can not bind a "non-party", but a "third-party" does NOT
> always equal "non-party". While a "third-party" that does not accept the
> terms of the license (or is not even aware of it) would be a "non-party", a
> "third-party" that DOES accept the licen
34 matches
Mail list logo
