"amicus_curious" writes:
> "Ben Pfaff" wrote in message
> news:87iqn153fs@blp.benpfaff.org...
>> "amicus_curious" writes:
>>
>>> "Ben Pfaff" wrote in message
>>> news:87myce5s72@blp.benpfaff.org...
"amicus_curious" writes:
> No one takes apart complex applications in ord
Peter Köhlmann writes:
> amicus_curious wrote:
> > ...
> Yep, you get dumber by the second. Heavy ingestion of alcoholic
> beverages? Drug abuse?
Excessive Windows use?
-Miles
--
Would you like fries with that?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack writes:
Unfortunately your "fallback" provision, that a failed contract
cannot supply grounds for claims of promissory estoppel, is a
figment of Richard Stallman's fertile imagination...
How do you get promissory estoppel without a promise?
Ummm. . . do you *real
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack writes:
"A copyright is a right against the world. Contracts, by
contrast, generally affect only their parties...
...
The GPL is a contract... As such it involves rights "in rem"
that affects all persons. Congress forbid this kind of
copyright control...
[ various
Rjack writes:
>Unfortunately your "fallback" provision, that a failed contract
>cannot supply grounds for claims of promissory estoppel, is a
>figment of Richard Stallman's fertile imagination...
How do you get promissory estoppel without a promise?
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
Rjack writes:
>"A copyright is a right against the world. Contracts, by contrast,
>generally affect only their parties...
...
>The GPL is a contract...
>As such it involves rights "in rem" that affects all
>persons. Congress forbid this kind of copyright control...
[ various other arguments omit
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
"2(b)
This provision is not in GPLv3, for what that's worth.
Congress forbid this kind of copyright control
For some unfathomable reason, you keep pointing to the preemption
clause as if it means something to the incorrect ideas you
propose. It doesn't. In
Rjack wrote:
"2(b)
This provision is not in GPLv3, for what that's worth.
> Congress forbid this kind of copyright control
For some unfathomable reason, you keep pointing to the preemption
clause as if it means something to the incorrect ideas you propose.
It doesn't. In any case, the fallbac
"Rjack" wrote in message
news:gnidnunzui7ukz7unz2dnuvz_guwn...@giganews.com...
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
That is something else entirely. You neglected that little
tidbit that they distributed GPLed binaries. By not
distributing the source, they were breach
"Alan Mackenzie" wrote in message
news:gnv0cu$28j...@colin2.muc.de...
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious wrote:
"Alan Mackenzie" wrote in message
news:gnujma$19h...@colin2.muc.de...
Well, thanks, and all that, yet again! I'm happy for people to learn
about my code, and modify it. I wo
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Why not stop the rhetorical bullshit about "freedom" and admit
the FSF wants to control how society treats the concept of
intellectual property?
Because the FSF believes that users should have the freedom to
run, read, modify, and share software. Copyright la
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
That is something else entirely. You neglected that little
tidbit that they distributed GPLed binaries. By not
distributing the source, they were breaching the sole licence
which allowed them to distribute the binaries in the first
pla
amicus_curious wrote:
Those millions of users obtain free software and do nothing to earn the
privilege. That is an unbalanced system to be sure.
The creators of the software have not required that their
users do anything to "earn" the software. That is their
privilege. They do require that tho
Rjack wrote:
Why not stop the rhetorical bullshit about "freedom" and admit the
FSF wants to control how society treats the concept of intellectual
property?
Because the FSF believes that users should have the freedom to
run, read, modify, and share software. Copyright law grants the
right to c
Rjack wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> That is something else entirely. You neglected that little tidbit
>> that they distributed GPLed binaries. By not distributing the
>> source, they were breaching the sole licence which allowed them
>> to distribute the binaries in the first place
>>
>> A
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
That is something else entirely. You neglected that little tidbit
that they distributed GPLed binaries. By not distributing the
source, they were breaching the sole licence which allowed them
to distribute the binaries in the first place
And *that* is every little bit grou
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious wrote:
> "Alan Mackenzie" wrote in message
> news:gnujma$19h...@colin2.muc.de...
>> Well, thanks, and all that, yet again! I'm happy for people to learn
>> about my code, and modify it. I would NOT be happy about somebody
>> starting off from my code and bu
"Hyman Rosen" wrote in message
news:fycol.15218$si4.12...@newsfe22.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
There are a thousand contributors to Linux, but there are tens
> of millions of users. That seems unbalanced to me.
Those millions of users all share in the freedom offered by the
GPL. What is t
Rjack wrote:
The GPL is not about freedom [flatties] Hymen -- it's all about control.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to *CLAIM* *RIGHTS* or
*contest* *your* *rights* to work written entirely by you; rather, the
intent is to exercise the right to control *the* *distribution* of
d
Hyman Rosen wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
It would seem to me that anyone wanting to be of service to the
world, as the FOSS advocates claim that they want to be, would
not be so resentful of the rest. If you resent someone else
making money, what is the solution? That no one make any money?
amicus_curious wrote:
The FSF is a whole different issue. Here we are talking about the two
fellas who authored BusyBox. Did you come in late?
Unless you have evidence to the contrary, the logical
assumption is that people who adopt a license with
ideological underpinnings share the goals of
amicus_curious wrote:
It would seem to me that anyone wanting to be of service to the world,
as the FOSS advocates claim that they want to be, would not be so
resentful of the rest. If you resent someone else making money, what is
the solution? That no one make any money? That is not good in
"Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
news:49a2e461$0$32663$9b4e6...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:42:49 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
Then I cannot fathom what your point is, aside from some vague desire
on your part to see software copyright revoked
"Hyman Rosen" wrote in message
news:qizol.69959$qt3.68...@newsfe10.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
I simply made the comment long ago that the BusyBox authors and their
lawsuits were useless activities that gave FOSS a bad name. All that
anyone has been able to assert, yourself included, is th
"Thufir Hawat" wrote in message
news:fnbol.22967$az3.22...@newsfe01.iad...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:35:04 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
"Thufir Hawat" wrote in message
news:9psol.15170$si4.8...@newsfe22.iad...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:55:44 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
The mere fact that you
"Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
news:49a2b55e$0$31327$9b4e6...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
amicus_curious wrote:
"Thufir Hawat" wrote in message
news:vlsol.15169$si4.13...@newsfe22.iad...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:52:22 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
You're begging the question. Your "
"Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
news:49a2b813$0$31336$9b4e6...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
amicus_curious wrote:
"Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
news:49a251c4$0$32682$9b4e6...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
amicus_curious wrote:
"Thufir Hawat" wrote in message
news:ekjol.24698$
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious wrote:
We are keeping you busy today, aren't we? ;-)
> My point is not that the data might be useful if it were available, and
> it is, but that the totality of those taking advantage of knowing is
> zero or close to it.
In proportion to the number who could,
"Thufir Hawat" wrote in message
news:wlbol.22964$az3.8...@newsfe01.iad...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:20:07 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
Do you think anyone, other than the odd hobbyist, is interested in
Visi-calc? What could you possibly learn from the source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L
"Thufir Hawat" wrote in message
news:vibol.22963$az3.17...@newsfe01.iad...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:20:07 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
Are you aware that (old versions) of Windows source are out there?
Your wish is just pie-in-the sky. This whole thing goes back to
visicalc, I believe.
That
"Alan Mackenzie" wrote in message
news:gnujma$19h...@colin2.muc.de...
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious wrote:
"Alan Mackenzie" wrote in message
news:gnrq0u$8t...@colin2.muc.de...
It seems to me, you're in favour of ignoring the GPL's conditions, yet
are in favour of conforming to the
Thufir Hawat wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:42:49 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>>> Then I cannot fathom what your point is, aside from some vague desire
>>> on your part to see software copyright revoked.
>>>
>> I simply made the comment long ago that the BusyBox authors and their
>> lawsuits
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:42:49 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>> Then I cannot fathom what your point is, aside from some vague desire
>> on your part to see software copyright revoked.
>>
> I simply made the comment long ago that the BusyBox authors and their
> lawsuits were useless activities that g
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:35:04 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
> "Thufir Hawat" wrote in message
> news:9psol.15170$si4.8...@newsfe22.iad...
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:55:44 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
The mere fact that you are distributing the software (usually the
binaries, or as firmw
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:20:07 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
> Do you think anyone, other than the odd hobbyist, is interested in
> Visi-calc? What could you possibly learn from the source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_1-2-3#Rivals
-Thufir
___
g
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:20:07 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>> Are you aware that (old versions) of Windows source are out there?
>> Your wish is just pie-in-the sky. This whole thing goes back to
>> visicalc, I believe.
>>
> That is more handwaving, I think. Can you point to a site that actually
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious wrote:
> "Alan Mackenzie" wrote in message
> news:gnrq0u$8t...@colin2.muc.de...
>> It seems to me, you're in favour of ignoring the GPL's conditions, yet
>> are in favour of conforming to the conditions of proprietary licenses.
>> Why?
> As I stated elsewher
amicus_curious wrote:
I simply made the comment long ago that the BusyBox authors and their
lawsuits were useless activities that gave FOSS a bad name. All that
anyone has been able to assert, yourself included, is that the GPL
demands that a user follow its exact rules to the letter.
Author
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
You are obviously not just totally dishonest, you are also
incredibly stupid. You simply don't even try to think your
"arguments" through before posting that garbage
Many of us who are not gifted with your perfect honesty and genius,
do recognize your impending elevation
"Thufir Hawat" wrote in message
news:dtsol.15173$si4.8...@newsfe22.iad...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:03:47 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
You seem to be fixated on the text of the GPL. I don't disagree with
what it says. I disagree with the notion that it has any practical
value.
Then I cann
"Mart van de Wege" wrote in message
news:86ocwtbse3@gareth.avalon.lan...
"amicus_curious" writes:
"Mart van de Wege" wrote in message
news:86skm6bdgk@gareth.avalon.lan...
"amicus_curious" writes:
"Mart van de Wege" wrote in message
news:86wsbic07e@gareth.avalon.lan...
"am
"Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
news:ahwol.7478$i9.4...@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
After takin' a swig o' grog, Mart van de Wege belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
"amicus_curious" writes:
Even so how likely is it that the target of this exploit is savvy
enough to have combed through the s
"Thufir Hawat" wrote in message
news:vlsol.15169$si4.13...@newsfe22.iad...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:52:22 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
You're begging the question. Your "conclusion" is that the source need
only be available if it's been modified, and, since the source wasn't
modified, then it
"Thufir Hawat" wrote in message
news:wrsol.15172$si4.3...@newsfe22.iad...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:34:48 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
I said that I think that it should not have copyright protection not
that it doesn't have it. That would require a change to the law, eh?
But then there wouldn
"Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
news:49a251c4$0$32682$9b4e6...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
amicus_curious wrote:
"Thufir Hawat" wrote in message
news:ekjol.24698$ug1.18...@newsfe16.iad...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:05:02 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
I have read through it previously a
"Thufir Hawat" wrote in message
news:9psol.15170$si4.8...@newsfe22.iad...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:55:44 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
The mere fact that you are distributing the software (usually the
binaries, or as firmware) requires the distributor to make the source
(and the very *same* sou
"Ben Pfaff" wrote in message
news:87iqn153fs@blp.benpfaff.org...
"amicus_curious" writes:
"Ben Pfaff" wrote in message
news:87myce5s72@blp.benpfaff.org...
"amicus_curious" writes:
No one takes apart complex applications in order to change
them, there is no value in having all t
After takin' a swig o' grog, Thufir Hawat belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:52:22 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>>> You're begging the question. Your "conclusion" is that the source need
>>> only be available if it's been modified, and, since the source wasn't
>>> modifi
After takin' a swig o' grog, Mart van de Wege belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> "amicus_curious" writes:
>
>> Even so how likely is it that the target of this exploit is savvy
>> enough to have combed through the source and implemented his own fix
>> enable by knowing which library version of B
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:03:47 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
> You seem to be fixated on the text of the GPL. I don't disagree with
> what it says. I disagree with the notion that it has any practical
> value.
Then I cannot fathom what your point is, aside from some vague desire on
your part to
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:34:48 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
> I said that I think that it should not have copyright protection not
> that it doesn't have it. That would require a change to the law, eh?
> But then there wouldn't be any issue for the SFLC to sue over either.
> If you somehow got a
51 matches
Mail list logo
