Re: softwarecombinations paper Re: LGPL vs. GPL

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FSF's position, IIRC, IANAL, is that being a derived work is something that > is decided based on the author's actions and intentions at the time of > writing the software - not at the later times of someone running or l

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

David Kastrup wrote: > Well, message passing, the fundamental defining characteristic > of OOP (I mean, this is what made Smalltalk revolutionary with > regard to programming techniques and gave it its name) requires > you to switch sustained execution contexts, basically switching > to a differen

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Willem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> In other words: There cannot be any commercial applicaiton written in C, >> because in your view it is not well suited to one or two application >> types you can think of. > > I don't think that's what James meant. I think when h

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ) I don't think that's what James meant. I think when he said "commercial ) application", he really meant "business data processing application". C ) really *isn't* well suited to most BDP applications, so his statement is ) much more reasonable when interpreted that way.

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

Willem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In other words: There cannot be any commercial applicaiton written in C, > because in your view it is not well suited to one or two application > types you can think of. I don't think that's what James meant. I think when he said "commercial application", he

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

Rahul Dhesi wrote: I'm inclined to think that at least one of the parties would be harmed or embarrassed if the settlement became public -- otherwise they would have just posted it, on or near the same web page where the complaint was posted. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/bus

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Rahul Dhesi wrote: >> Somebody wants to hide something. Who -- the defendants or the SFLC? >> It's hard to tell. >Why do you think anyone is hiding anything? For example, > >says [press re

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

rjack wrote: Although no independently verifiable evidence of record, plaintiffs face-saving blog posts prove their claims after case is voluntarily > dismissed with prejudice! It is independently verifiable through the WaybackMachine and other websites that Verizon was distributing the Actiont

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

Hyman Rosen wrote: Rahul Dhesi wrote: Somebody wants to hide something. Who -- the defendants or the SFLC? It's hard to tell. Why do you think anyone is hiding anything? For example, says "As a result of the plaintiffs agree

NYC LOCAL: Tuesday 22 July 2008 NYLUG Python Workshop

From: NYLUG Announcements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: NYLUG Announcements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:20:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nylug-announce] NYLUG Python Workshop, (TOMORROW) July 22 6:00PM-8:00PM This is a reminder for the event detailed below. PYTHON WORKSHOP Date:

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

Rahul Dhesi wrote: Somebody wants to hide something. Who -- the defendants or the SFLC? It's hard to tell. Why do you think anyone is hiding anything? For example, says "As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the

Re: softwarecombinations paper Re: LGPL vs. GPL

Alexander Terekhov wrote: What are you talking about Hyman? There's no redirection involved with that URL. It yield binary file directly from download.verizon.net host. It's a URL. You don't know what Verizon's web server does with it. ___ gnu-misc-di

Re: softwarecombinations paper Re: LGPL vs. GPL

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Even in the Verizon case, on the page to which you always point, > , the actual > URL for the firmware download is >

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> SFLC does dismiss complaints automatically before defendants file any >> response to the complaint and any ruling from judge (actually before >> having him a chance to even read the GPL and complaint). >And afterwards, the GPLed software is found to be a

Re: softwarecombinations paper Re: LGPL vs. GPL

Alexander Terekhov wrote: > It's up to the FSF/SFLC to proof their belief. > Hyman Rosen wrote: The plaintiffs have to prove their beliefs only to the extent that the defendants challenge them. According to Hyman if I sue him and shortly dismiss the complaint prior ... then I'm surely has prov

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

Alexander Terekhov wrote: How come that Verizon still doesn't make GPLed software available "as required" Hyman? I guess that the plaintiffs decided that having the manufacturer of the routers comply with the GPL was good enough for them, because it would be difficult to explain in court that V

Re: softwarecombinations paper Re: LGPL vs. GPL

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > It's up to the FSF/SFLC to proof their belief. Thus far, all that > > we've seen is just a bunch of moronic complaints warranting automatic > > dismissal AND which were dismissed automatically by the SFLC. > > The plaintiffs have to prove t

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > SFLC complaints are to be dismissed automatically (due to lack of > > jurisdiction). > > > > SFLC does dismiss complaints automatically before defendants file any > > response to the complaint and any ruling from judge (actually before > > havi

Re: softwarecombinations paper Re: LGPL vs. GPL

Alexander Terekhov wrote: > It's up to the FSF/SFLC to proof their belief. Thus far, all that > we've seen is just a bunch of moronic complaints warranting automatic > dismissal AND which were dismissed automatically by the SFLC. The plaintiffs have to prove their beliefs only to the extent that

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

Alexander Terekhov wrote: SFLC complaints are to be dismissed automatically (due to lack of jurisdiction). SFLC does dismiss complaints automatically before defendants file any response to the complaint and any ruling from judge (actually before having him a chance to even read the GPL and compl

Re: softwarecombinations paper Re: LGPL vs. GPL

Stop shifting the burden of proof, GNUtian ciaran. Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Now read > > > > http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf > > I just skimmed it. > > I didn't find what the author is trying to prove, but I

softwarecombinations paper Re: LGPL vs. GPL

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now read > > http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf I just skimmed it. I didn't find what the author is trying to prove, but I know that most of your mails about the GPL are claims that it isn't enforceable or doesn't

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

Rahul Dhesi wrote: > > rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Here is a list of BusyBox developers from the BusyBox site. Who owns what > >copyrights in the BusyBox source code? > > Apparently no defendant has so far questioned the plaintiffs' ownership > of the copyright, so the question above

Re: LGPL vs. GPL

JohnF wrote: [...] > > You've probably read this, but just in case: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html > > > > Hope that helps. > > Thanks, Ciaran, for the discussion and very useful information. Now read http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf regard

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

Wolfgang Draxinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sherman Pendley wrote: > >> "Lorenzo Villari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> I'm maybe wrong, but I was under the impression that for >>> Firefox they use gtk+, which is written in C... >> >> Gtk+ is indeed written in C, but it's object-orient

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Here is a list of BusyBox developers from the BusyBox site. Who owns what >copyrights in the BusyBox source code? Apparently no defendant has so far questioned the plaintiffs' ownership of the copyright, so the question above is irrelevant to the lawsuits and to