Ferd Burfel writes:
> No, he doesn't. But all a win in IBM et.al. would do for him would be to
> have an injunction against IBM et.al., "strangers may do as they
> please,". He may regret pointing that out.
> To get at the GPL, he would have to win against FSF.
That would only get him an injunc
"Ferd Burfel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What you don't seem to "get", is that the fact that people disagree
> with Wallace, and yourself, is not an indication that they don't
> understand the arguments. On the contrary, they do understand them,
> they just disagree with them. I personally ha
"Alexander Terekhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Ferd Burfel wrote:
> [...]
>> Ah, so we finally hit upon your disagreement with the GPL: It doesn't
>> allow
>> people to take the work of others (that they obtained for no charge) and
>> turn around and make a
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Well, did you read what you quoted? It says exactly what everybody is
>> telling you: copyright misuse is not a question ^
>
> Piss off, stupid dak.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discu
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Well, did you read what you quoted? It says exactly what everybody is
> telling you: copyright misuse is not a question ^
Piss off, stupid dak.
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/d5b004fb9a42c44c
I impose a day long plonk on you.
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hey lazy GNUtian dak, why don't you simply read the paper before
> starting to exibit your stupidity as usual?
>
> --
> 2. GPL Terminology and Interpretation
>
> a) “Works based on the Program”
>
> The first operative Section of the GPL (Section
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The Prof. seems to be totally unaware of "Wallace v GPL"
>
> Uh, nobody who wants to be taken seriously will sully himself by
> mentioning a lawsuit from a private person without legal support who
> is incapable of ev
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Hasler wrote:
>>
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>> > Last time I looked, he was not out for selling his copyright, so he is
>> > _not_ intending to charge for his IP, but for _licensing_ his IP.
>>
>> It's hard to tell for sure, but it appears to me
Hey lazy GNUtian dak, why don't you simply read the paper before
starting to exibit your stupidity as usual?
--
2. GPL Terminology and Interpretation
a) Works based on the Program
The first operative Section of the GPL (Section 0) reads as follows:
This License applies to any program or o
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Prof. seems to be totally unaware of "Wallace v GPL"
Uh, nobody who wants to be taken seriously will sully himself by
mentioning a lawsuit from a private person without legal support who
is incapable of even stating a claim in multiple attempts
John Hasler wrote:
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
> > Last time I looked, he was not out for selling his copyright, so he is
> > _not_ intending to charge for his IP, but for _licensing_ his IP.
>
> It's hard to tell for sure, but it appears to me that what he wants to do
> is sell copies and _not_ li
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ---
> b) Copyright Misuse
>
> By imposing GPL § 2(b) on licensees, copyright owners try to magnify
> their rights beyond those sanctioned by the Copyright Act in two
> different ways. First, Section 103 of the Copyright Act allocates
> ownership
The Prof. seems to be totally unaware of "Wallace v GPL" and yet he notes:
---
a) Competition Law
As previously observed, the applicability and effects of competition law
depend largely on the situation (i.e., on the affected markets and the
parties' market power.)271 Thus, competition laws
David Kastrup wrote:
> Last time I looked, he was not out for selling his copyright, so he is
> _not_ intending to charge for his IP, but for _licensing_ his IP.
It's hard to tell for sure, but it appears to me that what he wants to do
is sell copies and _not_ license his IP.
> The problem is tha
---
b) Copyright Misuse
By imposing GPL § 2(b) on licensees, copyright owners try to magnify
their rights beyond those sanctioned by the Copyright Act in two
different ways. First, Section 103 of the Copyright Act allocates
ownership rights to authorized derivative works to the author to
incen
Hey GNUtians,
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
>
> -
> PRELIMINARY DRAFT 2006/4/3 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
> Accepted for Publication in Issue 21:4 (Fall 2006) of the
> BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL
>
> DANGEROUS LIAISON
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
-
PRELIMINARY DRAFT 2006/4/3 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Accepted for Publication in Issue 21:4 (Fall 2006) of the
BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL
DANGEROUS LIAISONS SOFTWARE COMBINATIONS AS DERIVATIVE WORKS?
Distribution
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Last time I looked, he was not out for selling his copyright, so he is
> _not_ intending to charge for his IP, but for _licensing_ his IP.
Uh. You're a real idiot. Copyright is a BUNDLE of rights. The outright
transfers of ownership of ALL rights (copyright) is not a
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Yes, that is what "the physical act of transferring a copy" is all
>
> That is what 17 USC 109 is a about, stupid.
>
> Wallace wants to charge royalties for IP, not "the physical act of
> transferring a copy".
Last
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Yes, that is what "the physical act of transferring a copy" is all
That is what 17 USC 109 is a about, stupid.
Wallace wants to charge royalties for IP, not "the physical act of
transferring a copy".
regards,
alexander.
_
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Hasler wrote:
>>
>> Ferd Burfel writes:
>> > Ah, so we finally hit upon your disagreement with the GPL: It doesn't
>> > allow people to take the work of others (that they obtained for no
>> > charge) and turn around and make a commerical produ
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Ferd Burfel writes:
> > Ah, so we finally hit upon your disagreement with the GPL: It doesn't
> > allow people to take the work of others (that they obtained for no
> > charge) and turn around and make a commerical product out of it.
>
> Yes it does. What it does not allo
Ferd Burfel wrote:
[...]
> Ah, so we finally hit upon your disagreement with the GPL: It doesn't allow
> people to take the work of others (that they obtained for no charge) and
> turn around and make a commerical product out of it. And I suppose you
Yep.
> think that if Wallace is somehow suc
23 matches
Mail list logo
