(Update.)
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
1. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
2. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
3. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
4. Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice.
5. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
6. DEFAULT JUDGMENT (defendants must send
(Update.)
Yet another delay...
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this
action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
WOW!
Am I blind or is the court's clerk got concerned regarding (missing)
Registration of
webmaster wrote:
We are in search of someone to
help fund for these engines since we are all self funded and cant seem
to afford it.
Do you need these specific game engines? There are lots of free
alternatives. The one used by Disney for Toontown and Pirates of the
Caribbean Online is
Mike Jervis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I'm a little disconcerted to see that they have batch
processed all source code and claimed copyright to all files, with a
note that it's based on work from the original project which was
copyright by {list of original authors}.
My gut feeling
Gary Nym?
-Miles
--
Freebooter, n. A conqueror in a small way of business, whose annexations lack
of the sanctifying merit of magnitude.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
I think you missed the part where HyProg users were copying libGNU as
the HyProg author's agents.
It's not illegal to copy libGNU as authorized by the GPL.
If I wanted to, I could ship, perhaps on separate media,
a copy of libGNU and its sources along with HyProg.
Barry Margolin wrote:
It's not the scheduler that's a derivative, it's the new Linux kernel
that results from replacing the scheduler in the old kernel. I.e.
Linux - schedulerA + schedulerB = derivative of Linux.
But the new scheduler itself is not entangled with the copyright
of Linux. And
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
I think you missed the part where HyProg users were copying libGNU as
the HyProg author's agents.
It's not illegal to copy libGNU as authorized by the GPL.
If I wanted to, I could ship, perhaps on separate media,
a copy of libGNU and its
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Why did you change the example? Is it because the previous example
didn't work correctly?
No, it's to try to remove as many extraneous issues as possible.
Again, I assert that a program written to dynamically link with
a GPLed library, which requires that library for its
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Barry Margolin wrote:
It's not the scheduler that's a derivative, it's the new Linux
kernel that results from replacing the scheduler in the old kernel.
I.e.
Linux - schedulerA + schedulerB = derivative of Linux.
But the new scheduler itself is not
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Rjack, we need some out-of-context quotes to support my
arguments here. Where are you when we need you?)
Rahul, we need something out of you besides whining out of context
quotes as your criticism of the various posts to a thread.
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Again, I assert that a program written to dynamically link with
a GPLed library, which requires that library for its operation,
may be distributed on any terms its author chooses. The FSF says
that such a program must be distributed under the GPL. Wondering
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
It's not the scheduler that's a derivative, it's the new Linux kernel
that results from replacing the scheduler in the old kernel. I.e.
Linux - schedulerA + schedulerB = derivative of Linux.
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rahul, we need something out of you besides whining out of context
quotes as your criticism of the various posts to a thread
...
1) Post the additional context to illustrate why readers' citations
are out of context.
Rjack, you repeatedly post on the same
14 matches
Mail list logo
