Re: GNU licenses

But GPL software due to the nature of the license requires the code be released and that's what I mean by open-source. Again, please stop confusing the Free Software movement with the Open Source movement. They are two different movements, with two different goals; and we do not wish to be

Re: GNU licenses

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: 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 |

Re: GNU licenses

Boy oh boy we love to pick on semantics! I should have said the evil motive _behind_ the GPL. There is no evil motive behind the GNU GPL. It keeps users like you, me and John free to run, use, modify and distribute programs. It keeps users free to do what they have a right to do. That is

Re: GNU licenses

Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Boy oh boy we love to pick on semantics! I should have said the evil motive _behind_ the GPL. There is no evil motive behind the GNU GPL. It keeps users like you, me and John free to run, use, modify and distribute programs. It keeps users

Re: GNU licenses

John Hasler wrote: [...] You do not give up any rights by distributing under the GPL. You need to contact IBM's legal counsel and set them straight before they further embarrass themselves, uncle Hasler. Wallace (to the Appellate Judges): IBM et al. state [IBM Brief at 15, ¶1] “The

Re: GNU licenses

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] Sure, why not. RedHat makes a couple millions a year. RedHat doesn't sell software, idiot. RedHat's CEO is on record explaining that. See also their SEC fillings, retard. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GNU licenses

Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Hasler wrote: [...] You do not give up any rights by distributing under the GPL. You need to contact IBM's legal counsel and set them straight before they further embarrass themselves, uncle Hasler. Wallace (to the Appellate Judges):

Re: GNU licenses

Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] Sure, why not. RedHat makes a couple millions a year. RedHat doesn't sell software, idiot. RedHat's CEO is on record explaining that. See also their SEC fillings, retard. Well, the last filing is at

Re: GNU licenses

Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Well, the last filing is at URL:http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060710/rhat10-q.html, and lo-and-behold, See Full Filing, not summary, retard. Quotes from latest 10-Q: The quotes don't change that the software subscriptions are

Re: GNU licenses

David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Well, the last filing is at URL:http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060710/rhat10-q.html, and lo-and-behold, See Full Filing, not summary, retard. Quotes from latest 10-Q: The quotes don't change

Re: GNU licenses

Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Well, the last filing is at URL:http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060710/rhat10-q.html, and lo-and-behold, See Full Filing, not summary, retard. Quotes

Re: GNU licenses

David Kastrup wrote: [...] Not at all, since they don't prohibit copying software, but rather refuse servicing such copies. Uh, lazy retard dak. Quoting Red Hat's Subscription Agreement: quote The term Installed Systems means the number of Systems on which Customer installs or executes the

Re: GNU licenses

David Kastrup wrote: [...] have no vendor lockin on their customers, and indeed, this is the one thing one hasn't when dealing with GPLed software. You're being incredibly stupid. The lockin is done using certification schemes with partners. Oracle (Red Hat's large investor), for example,

Re: GNU licenses

Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Microsoft would not sell software, they only sell the delivery in form of CDs you are allowed to install. You can buy copies online. The point is that you don't have to enter into any services contracts with

Re: GNU licenses

David Kastrup wrote: [...] Well, you can also get whitebox Linux or something like that (don't remember the name right now) which is basically the RedHat enterprise software without the service. http://www.centos.org freeware. Major pain in Red Hat's ass. Sponsored by SUN. :-)

Re: GNU licenses

Well, you can also get whitebox Linux or something like that... White Box Linux and Centos. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org

Re: GNU licenses

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: But GPL software due to the nature of the license requires the code be released and that's what I mean by open-source. Again, please stop confusing the Free Software movement with the Open Source movement. They are two different movements, with two different

Re: GNU licenses

Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Hasler wrote: Well, you can also get whitebox Linux or something like that... [Red Hat's free-riders] White Box Linux and Centos. WBL is not well supported. Centos has more friends (Sun Microsystems and OpenSolaris Project). At some

Re: GNU licenses

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: Boy oh boy we love to pick on semantics! I should have said the evil motive _behind_ the GPL. There is no evil motive behind the GNU GPL. It keeps users like you, me and John free to run, use, modify and distribute programs. It keeps users free to do what they

Re: GNU licenses

Boy oh boy we love to pick on semantics! I should have said the evil motive _behind_ the GPL. There is no evil motive behind the GNU GPL. It keeps users like you, me and John free to run, use, modify and distribute programs. It keeps users free to do what they have

Re: GNU licenses

Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] So then I guess I _can_ do the following? Yay!: 1. Make non-GPL program. 2. Combine a little bit of someone else's GPL program. 3. Release the _combined work_ under GPL. 4. Take a bit of my _original work_

Re: GNU licenses

David Kastrup wrote: [...] Not at all. He can still _fully_ assert his copyright on those parts. That means he can demand that recipients _obey_ his license terms Hey stupid dak, _obey_ his license terms is a contract claim, not copyright infringement. And assert his copyright means suing

Re: GNU licenses

David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] The GPL creates its own software pool of intellectual property price fixed below the cost of its creation. Well, that is what is called civilization and culture. Not having to reinvent

Re: GNU licenses

Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Not at all. He can still _fully_ assert his copyright on those parts. That means he can demand that recipients _obey_ his license terms Hey stupid dak, _obey_ his license terms is a contract claim, not copyright

Re: GNU licenses

John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alexander Terekhov writes: Man oh man. Profit = buyer's cost to obtain - seller's cost to create. The marginal cost of creating a copy of a piece of software is close enough to zero as makes no difference. And it is a _copy_ that the seller buys.