Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The only person with standing to sue anybody over non-compliance with
the GPL is the copyright holder himself.
Each party to the GPL contract can sue for non-compliance, retard.
Non-compliance with which obligations,
Seg, 2006-08-14 às 11:15 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
It clearly misstates the copyright law (by ignoring 17 USC 109 and 117).
But what it means apart from misstatement, is that the GPL acceptance
is manifested by exercising exclusive rights granted under it.
There is only a misstate
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
My dearest Alexander, what would constitute the copyright holder and
licensor breaching the contract? There are no obligations to her
spelled out at all in the contract. So how would she breach them?
By failing to provide source code, idiot.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
My dearest Alexander, what would constitute the copyright holder and
licensor breaching the contract? There are no obligations to her
spelled out at all in the contract. So how would she breach them?
By failing to
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
There is only a misstate if your intention is to foil the copyright
license by trying to bypass it alledging other dubious things.
17 USC 109 and 117 are statutory rights. They are treated as dubious
things only in the GNU Republic (because copyleft is
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Could you please cite the passage of the GPL where the licensor, as
opposed to the licensee, is required to provide source code?
And from where is the licensee (as opposed to the licensor) supposed
to get the source
Hey moron, point me a to a German web site of yours with object code
only GPL distribution of some creative work of yours. You'll get a
letter from my lawyer regarding your bogus distribution within a week
or two. I have Vertrags-Rechtsschutz, it won't cost me anything.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hey moron, point me a to a German web site of yours with object code
only GPL distribution of some creative work of yours. You'll get a
letter from my lawyer regarding your bogus distribution within a
week or two. I have Vertrags-Rechtsschutz, it
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Vertrags-Rechtsschutz for something which you downloaded by your own
volition without recompensation?
Many by your own volition contracts don't require recompensation in
(direct) monetary sense, stupid. Licensee's obligations under the GPL is
your recompensation.
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Vertrags-Rechtsschutz for something which you downloaded by your own
volition without recompensation?
Many by your own volition contracts don't require recompensation
in (direct) monetary sense, stupid. Licensee's
10 matches
Mail list logo
