Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> would write:
> On Oct 14, 8:06 pm, Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sockets is a fine architecture. Learn it. Use it. Live free and prosper.
>> -
>
> Hmm
On Oct 16, 4:50 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Many people do, but usually more in useful collections of software :)
> and not so much about a particular tool (think distributions).
>
> Then, those that receive the money usually contribute back with more
> software, more
On Oct 16, 11:12 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 12:17:52PM -0400, rjack wrote:
> You lie about the GNU GPL. About law I don't know, but once you're a
> liar, one never really trusts your word...
Does that mean that if I were to be different from t
On Oct 16, 10:17 am, rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No contract ever binds anyone unless you accept it -- that's a
> tautology.
>
The GPL is not a contract, it is a grant of permission to do
things that would otherwise be forbidden by copyright law.
If your use falls outside of the scope of t
On Oct 15, 5:42 pm, rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > Sorry, but Eben Moglen has been in courts about the GPL, and virtually
> > all cases have been settled, with the infringing party agreeing to
> > comply or desist.
>
> > Rui
>
> Eben first says:
>
> "If you s
On Oct 15, 10:10 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:20:20AM -0400, rjack wrote:
> > John Hasler wrote:
> > >KomsBomb writes:
> > >>2, The source code can't be used in commercial program. That's to say,
> > >>the source code can't be used to make any
On Oct 14, 8:06 pm, Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> belched
> out:
> > Well the thing I was asking more about was making a system
> > that would be "real Unix" in the sense that it would be *capable
> > of passing
It's actually so factually wrong that it can only have been written
by people who are agains Free Software, and want to spread disinformation.
Some sentences just go way beyond reasonable ignorance and almost into
criminal negligence (to say the least).
Rui
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 07:33:05PM +01
I don't know who added that, but I will inquire and ask for a change.
Rui
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 07:37:31PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 12:17:52PM -0400, rjack wrote:
> > > No contract ever binds anyone unless you accept i
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 12:17:52PM -0400, rjack wrote:
> > No contract ever binds anyone unless you accept it -- that's a
> > tautology.
>
> Since licenses aren't contracts, ...
And the sky is green in the GNU Republic.
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licen%C3%A
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 12:17:52PM -0400, rjack wrote:
> No contract ever binds anyone unless you accept it -- that's a
> tautology.
Since licenses aren't contracts, there's nothing for you to see here.
Even if it was considered a contract, and since not signed not
valid, then effectively absolut
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 07:42:53PM -0400, rjack wrote:
Eben then further states:
“In the case of the GPL, no one is bound to anything in
particular unless she redistributes the software, modified or
unmodified.”
This is *not* true. No one can be bound by the G
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] et al., CC: g.m.d]
>
> Hi all,
>
> It is unfortunately too easy to make the mistake of feeding the robot
> troll. :|
Can you hear that, buddy rjack from insightbb division of troll brigade?
:-)
>
> As everyone knows, Google has been quite
Hi all,
It is unfortunately too easy to make the mistake of feeding the robot
troll. :|
As everyone knows, Google has been quite friendly towards Free Software,
but that doesn't mean all it makes is Free Software, which could
certainly be improved in the future (and I hope so).
My phrase below m
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:17:46PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > DiBona of Google (Open Source Programs Manager):
> >
> > "issue is that Richard wants the imagery that we ourselves do not own"
> >
> > http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:14528
>
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 03:20:35AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If some one compiles the monitor tool without any change and sells
> it for money, I think it's a little bit unfair to me.
>
> However, if the license forces the user distributes the tool's source
> code beside that tool, I think
On Oct 16, 5:46 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it's not important that it is Free Software, then go fetch legal
> advice. This is a group about Free Software.
I mean it's not important if it's redistributed as non-free software.
> > If the license forces the user to
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:56:10AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This item is not very important.
If it's not important that it is Free Software, then go fetch legal
advice. This is a group about Free Software.
> If the license forces the user to distribute the source code
> with the program,
On Oct 15, 10:24 pm, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> KomsBomb writes:
> > 2, The source code can't be used in commercial program. That's to say,
> > the source code can't be used to make any profit in both source code or
> > binary form.
>
> Then it isn't Free Software and so you are off-
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 07:42:53PM -0400, rjack wrote:
> Eben then further states:
>
> “In the case of the GPL, no one is bound to anything in
> particular unless she redistributes the software, modified or
> unmodified.”
>
> This is *not* true. No one can be bound by the GPL whether
> distrib
20 matches
Mail list logo
