John Hasler wrote:
> mike4ty4 writes:
> > You can't distribute the original program w/o the GPLed code vs the
> > combined program w/the GPLed code together _in any way_ singificantly
> > different from GPL...
>
> The fact that you have distributed copies of your code under the GPL
> does not prev
John Hasler wrote:
> mike4ty4 writes:
> > I take original code O and combine it with MORE original code P. Then do
> > I have to distribute O+P under GPL as well even though it contains _no_
> > code of 3rd party origin? You seem to say yes but everyone else seems to
> > have said no.
>
> He is al
John Hasler wrote:
> mike4ty4 writes:
> > You may use the GPLed code in your programs if you agree to make the
> > entire original program GPL as well (ie. "pay for the code" with your
> > original creation), no matter how small the code fragment you use is (at
> > least to the minimum amount that
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Even utterly proprietary and closed software can benefiting
> > society.
>
> Sure, and so does war. That does not mean that it is a good idea to
> create circumstances where this is the case.
Yeah right, and so, to braindamaged GNUtians like you, all-rights-
reser
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> Sighs, it has been said by four people by now, me included: you retain
> all the rights to your code! Period, end of story, nothing more to
> discuss. Be it original, or deriviate, it is your code, you are the
> copyright holder. End of story.
End of ams' bu
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > No. I simply see no problems with unilateral decisions to release
>> > something straight into the public domain in our modern civilization
>> > with IP market economy.
>>
>> So behavior benefiting society and prog
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > No. I simply see no problems with unilateral decisions to release
> > something straight into the public domain in our modern civilization
> > with IP market economy.
>
> So behavior benefiting society and progress should become optional.
Even utterly proprietary a
Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> You admitted perhaps the most obvious one - sourceforge. On sourceforge
> you can pretty much select any type of open-source license. They will
> even consider a completly different licence.
Nowadays SourceForge is just getting more and more slow and flooded
with ads (
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> So you say that civilization should be considered ended with the
>> advent of copyright?
>
> No. I simply see no problems with unilateral decisions to release
> something straight into the public domain in our modern
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> So you say that civilization should be considered ended with the
> advent of copyright?
No. I simply see no problems with unilateral decisions to release
something straight into the public domain in our modern civilization
with IP market economy.
>
> You might be
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> versed expression of Homer's Ilias and Odyssey,
>
> Homer is in public domain.
So you say that civilization should be considered ended with the
advent of copyright?
You might be close to Stallman with that sentimen
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> versed expression of Homer's Ilias and Odyssey,
Homer is in public domain.
[...]
> > (instead of removing economic incentive to create derivative works
> > by making profit in a free market by trading derivative works) and
> > I'd have no problem with that. That is
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Richard writes:
> > There seems to be a substantial profit for the "buyer" here: they get a
> > program for nothing.
>
> They get a copy of the program (what they want) for whatever price they and
> one of the supliers thereof agree on.
Yeah, and it's totally unforeseen
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard Tobin wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> There seems to be a substantial profit for the "buyer" here: they get
>> >> a program for nothing.
>>
>> >I was talking about a
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Google is one company. Are you claiming that the return of investment
> time plan and turn out for all IPOs are the same?
I'll let you keep guessing that. You might also want learn what
various financial metrics actually mean.
regards,
alexander.
__
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> 3. I then have to distribute the combined work C = O+G under GPL
> because that's the terms.
That's not the terms. That's merely GNUtian crackpot theory of
derivative works to mislead you. Don't expect to hear this
crackpot theory in court of law. The FSF already
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> So are you saying
I was quoting Stallman. And the link was to Moglen's dotCommunist
manifesto. Feel free to ask them. Regarding dak's comment, I bet
they won't endorse Red Hat and OSDL (current home of Torvalds,
IPOs scam millionare).
regards,
alexander.
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> There seems to be a substantial profit for the "buyer" here: they get
> >> a program for nothing.
>
> >I was talking about a profit for seller
>
> You were pretending to answer Davi
18 matches
Mail list logo
