David Kastrup wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > John Hasler wrote:
> >> David Kastrup writes:
> >> > But the one thing that you can't do is take his material and do with
> >> > it as you like without heeding its license.
> >>
> >> mike4ty4 writes:
> >> > But why forbid it?
> >>
> >> To incr
David Kastrup wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Wei Mingzhi wrote:
> >> If you don't allow me using your code, then I don't allow you using
> >> our code too. That's just fair.
> >
> > I don't know. To me it seems like a way to slowly strip owners of
> > their rights to their original works
David Kastrup wrote:
> "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Oh, so it's not just to keep the GNU'd software free, but it's
> >also, and this seems more important, to create NEW free software by
> >"force" if you will. If you want to use GNU code in your program
> >t
David Kastrup wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >>
> >> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >> >>
>
> [...]
>
> >> >> > Same thing goes for software. If I include 2 lines of GNU code
> >> >> > (yes, just two lines)
On 2006-09-03, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program
>| (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your
>| acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and
>| conditions for copying, distribut
Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2006-09-03, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Merijn de Weerd writes:
>>> If someone accepts a license, then does not adhere to the terms,
>>> your sole action is to sue for breach. You can't say he is
>>> infringing, since you licensed him
On 2006-09-03, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Breach of a copyright license is copyright infringement.
Doing an act *which is not licensed* is copyright infringement.
If I authorize you to copy my work verbatim, and you change it,
you infringe my copyright.
Doing a licensed act bu
On 2006-09-03, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Merijn de Weerd writes:
>> If someone accepts a license, then does not adhere to the terms, your
>> sole action is to sue for breach. You can't say he is infringing, since
>> you licensed him to do the acts. He just does not adhere to your
>>
And you are spreading FUD, to boot.
The only person spreading FUD is you, you still haven't groked
anything that was written. By modifying or distributing a program you
accept the license. If you still insist on breaking the law, you can
get sued by the copyright holder. None of this so call
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>For example, if somebody combines a GPLed program and proprietary
>stuff and distributes the combination to you, you can't spout "by
>distributing the GPLed program, he explicitly accepted the
>license, so I got this under the GPL and
> There is no "unintentional" or "automatic" licensening involved,
> you _explcitly_ accepted the license at the point where you
> either modified the program or distributed it.
No. If somebody mixes GPLed software with his own and distributes
the result under a proprietary license
Merijn de Weerd writes:
> The big question is: with the paragraph above, is the sole cause of
> action "breach of license" or is a separate action for copyright
> infringement also possible?
Action for copyright infringement is the only action.
> If someone accepts a license, then does not adhere
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>But there is no such thing as an unintentional or automatic
>licensing under the GPL. It may be the only _legal_ option, but it
>is not automatic and can't be defaulted.
>
> You have trouble reading, I never said that or even implied it.
> Acceptance doesn't happen automatically, it happens when you
> modify or distribute the program. If he doesn't accept the
> license, he is breaking the law. Simple.
Sure. The big question is: with the paragraph above, is the sole
cause of action "breach of license" or is a separ
But there is no such thing as an unintentional or automatic
licensing under the GPL. It may be the only _legal_ option, but it
is not automatic and can't be defaulted.
You have trouble reading, I never said that or even implied it. By
modifying or distributing the code you have _explici
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Nonsense. He can be _held_ to the terms of the license if he does
>so. You would not need to sue for compliance if acceptance
>happened automatically.
>
> Section 5:
>
> | Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any
On 2006-09-03, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Section 5:
>
>| Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any
>| work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of
>| this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for
>| copying, dist
David Kastrup writes:
> You just can't use free software of the GPL variety for making non-free
> software.
To clarify, you can _use_ GPL software such as gcc as a tool to make
non-free software. You cannot include GPL software in software that you
distribute under non-free terms.
This is really
mike4ty4 writes:
> Well, I can make both free and non-free software, at least I should be
> able to.
Yes, of course you can.
> Which raises another question: What happens if I learn something from the
> GNU software, like a "trick" or a more efficient way of programming some
> algorithm? If I use
Nonsense. He can be _held_ to the terms of the license if he does
so. You would not need to sue for compliance if acceptance
happened automatically.
Section 5:
| Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any
| work based on the Program), you indicate your accept
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If you use GPL code in your program, then you have accepted the
>> GNU GPL (see section 5 of the GNU GPL).
>
>Nonsense. You can't magically have accepted something behind your
>back.
>
> _If_you_use_GPL_code_in_your_program_, which
> If you use GPL code in your program, then you have accepted the
> GNU GPL (see section 5 of the GNU GPL).
Nonsense. You can't magically have accepted something behind your
back.
_If_you_use_GPL_code_in_your_program_, which is exactly what section 5
talks about "nothing else grants
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Oh, so it's not just to keep the GNU'd software free, but it's
>also, and this seems more important, to create NEW free software by
>"force" if you will. If you want to use GNU code in your program
>then ALL of your ORIGINAL WORK rel
> Why do you want to make people give you money as a "price" for
> using your code?
Because I need the money, for one. One can't do much without money.
One can make money with free software, nothing prohibits you from
doing that. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.
___
Oh, so it's not just to keep the GNU'd software free, but it's
also, and this seems more important, to create NEW free software by
"force" if you will. If you want to use GNU code in your program
then ALL of your ORIGINAL WORK related to that program has to be
GNU as well, you can't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> John Hasler wrote:
>> David Kastrup writes:
>> > But the one thing that you can't do is take his material and do with
>> > it as you like without heeding its license.
>>
>> mike4ty4 writes:
>> > But why forbid it?
>>
>> To increase the amount of Free software in the wor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Wei Mingzhi wrote:
>> If you don't allow me using your code, then I don't allow you using
>> our code too. That's just fair.
>
> I don't know. To me it seems like a way to slowly strip owners of
> their rights to their original works.
There is nothing "slow" involved h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> >>
[...]
>> >> > Same thing goes for software. If I include 2 lines of GNU code
>> >> > (yes, just two lines) in my big fat 300,000 line program, does
>>
John Hasler wrote:
> David Kastrup writes:
> > But the one thing that you can't do is take his material and do with
> > it as you like without heeding its license.
>
> mike4ty4 writes:
> > But why forbid it?
>
> To increase the amount of Free software in the world. You may choose not
> to partici
Wei Mingzhi wrote:
> If you don't allow me using your code, then I don't allow you using
> our code too. That's just fair.
I don't know. To me it seems like a way to slowly strip owners of their
rights to their original works. I can let you use my own code, but that
does not mean I have to requir
David Kastrup wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >>
> >> > I've been wondering about the GNU software and documentation license.
> >> > For one thing, although the goals are decent, I don't like what I
> >> > percieve as it's "viral" natu
31 matches
Mail list logo
