On 2009-03-06, Rjack wrote:
> Hadron wrote:
>> Tim Smith writes:
>>
>>> In article <1nr90uip7frcg$.10o3bb8tjpbjo@40tude.net>,
>>> Doctor Smith wrote:
>>>
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:04:50 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>> Would that exempt them from litigation? IANAL, so I
>>> find this su
Tim Smith writes:
> A lawsuit is very disruptive for both parties. Pretty much anyone, not
> matter what side they are on, would rather have a suit that takes 2
> years in a far away district like EDT than a suit that takes 4 years in
> a nearby district.
Why would I want a suit to be far aw
7 wrote:
Rjack wrote:
"The license under which JCK is currently available dictates
that the OpenJDK, GPL-licensed Java Virtual Machines can use
the JCK free of charge. Commercial developers however, still
have to pay for the right to use the JCK license.
The rub for Apache, however, is it does
Hadron wrote:
Tim Smith writes:
In article <1nr90uip7frcg$.10o3bb8tjpbjo@40tude.net>,
Doctor Smith wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:04:50 +0100, Hadron wrote:
Would that exempt them from litigation? IANAL, so I
find this suggestion curious.
...
Also, what on earth is I ANAL ??? And why
In article ,
Tim Smith wrote:
>
> Before EDT was the big patent case district, it was some district in the
> vicinity of Virginia--I forget which one. That one became a big patent
Known as the "Rocket Docket", if this is the district I've heard about.
___
Hadron wrote:
> Tim Smith writes:
>
>> In article <1nr90uip7frcg$.10o3bb8tjpbjo@40tude.net>,
>> Doctor Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:04:50 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>> >>> Would that exempt them from litigation? IANAL, so I find this
>>> >>> suggestion curious.
>>
>> ...
>>> > Als
Tim Smith writes:
> In article <1nr90uip7frcg$.10o3bb8tjpbjo@40tude.net>,
> Doctor Smith wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:04:50 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>> >>> Would that exempt them from litigation? IANAL, so I find this suggestion
>> >>> curious.
>
> ...
>> > Also, what on earth is I ANAL
In article <11452185.99fscqf...@schestowitz.com>,
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> / Alan Mackenzie on Thursday 05 March 2009 16:35 : \
>
> > In gnu.misc.discuss Doug Mentohl wrote:
> >> 'Software Tree LLC claims that JBoss infringes on its
In article <1nr90uip7frcg$.10o3bb8tjpbjo@40tude.net>,
Doctor Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:04:50 +0100, Hadron wrote:
> >>> Would that exempt them from litigation? IANAL, so I find this suggestion
> >>> curious.
...
> > Also, what on earth is I ANAL ??? And why is Roy discussing it
Rjack wrote:
> "The license under which JCK is currently available dictates that
> the OpenJDK, GPL-licensed Java Virtual Machines can use the JCK free
> of charge. Commercial developers however, still have to pay for the
> right to use the JCK license.
>
> The rub for Apache, however, is it does
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 23:14:41 + (UTC), Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron wrote:
>> Doctor Smith writes:
>
>>> On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:40:58 +, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>
Would that exempt them from litigation? IANAL, so I find this suggestion
curious.
>
>> Als
In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron wrote:
> Doctor Smith writes:
>> On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:40:58 +, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> Would that exempt them from litigation? IANAL, so I find this suggestion
>>> curious.
> Also, what on earth is I ANAL ???
IANAL is a standard Usenet abbreviation for "I
"The license under which JCK is currently available dictates that
the OpenJDK, GPL-licensed Java Virtual Machines can use the JCK free
of charge. Commercial developers however, still have to pay for the
right to use the JCK license.
The rub for Apache, however, is it doesn't use the GPL for Apach
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:55:58 GMT, 7 wrote:
Boy becomes girl?
Roy Schestowitz has already done that.
Oh, sorry that was Racine.
Oh well, it's only one letter off
http://www.archivum.info/comp.os.linux.advocacy/2007-12/msg00354.html
___
gnu-misc-di
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:30:49 -0500, Rjack wrote:
> The GNU community is fuming about Microsoft's hidden agenda:
>
> "Microsoft's secret plan behind the TomTom suit?
> . . .
> "Tom Tom are the first company to publicly refuse to engage in this
> ugly little protection racket, and so they got sued.
Rjack wrote:
>
> The GNU community is fuming about Microsoft's hidden agenda:
>
> "Microsoft's secret plan behind the TomTom suit?
> . . .
> "Tom Tom are the first company to publicly refuse to engage in this
> ugly little protection racket, and so they got sued. Had Tom Tom
> silently agreed to
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:04:50 +0100, Hadron wrote:
> Doctor Smith writes:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:40:58 +, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Would that exempt them from litigation? IANAL, so I find this suggestion
>>> curious.
>>
>> The simple things seem to baffle you Roy Schestowitz.
>>
The GNU community is fuming about Microsoft's hidden agenda:
"Microsoft's secret plan behind the TomTom suit?
. . .
"Tom Tom are the first company to publicly refuse to engage in this
ugly little protection racket, and so they got sued. Had Tom Tom
silently agreed to violate the GPL, as so many
Hi, Roy!
In gnu.misc.discuss Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> / Alan Mackenzie on Thursday 05 March 2009 16:35 : \
>> Just as an aside, wouldn't it be a smart move for high tech companies to
>> avoid doing business in Eastern Texas, so that they
Doctor Smith writes:
> On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:40:58 +, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>
>> Would that exempt them from litigation? IANAL, so I find this suggestion
>> curious.
>
> The simple things seem to baffle you Roy Schestowitz.
>
>
>
>
>> - --
>> ~~ Best of wishes
>>
>> Ro
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:40:58 +, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Would that exempt them from litigation? IANAL, so I find this suggestion
> curious.
The simple things seem to baffle you Roy Schestowitz.
> - --
> ~~ Best of wishes
>
> Roy S. Schestowitz | Get the most out
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:30:39 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 19:53:21 + (UTC), Vincent Fritters wrote:
>
>> On 2009-03-02, Doug Mentohl wrote:
>>
>>> They were a company involved in data compression, before they got fucked
>>> over by MS ..
>>
>> And they are not the on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
/ Alan Mackenzie on Thursday 05 March 2009 16:35 : \
> In gnu.misc.discuss Doug Mentohl wrote:
>> 'Software Tree LLC claims that JBoss infringes on its database patent
>> for "exchanging data and commands between an object oriented system and
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:43:09 + (UTC), Vincent Fritters wrote:
> On 2009-03-03, Hadron wrote:
>> Vincent Fritters writes:
>
>>
>> Wrong. Presentation manager was indeed in OS/2 2.x And Warp.
>>
>> http://www.firstandsecond.com/store/books/info/bookinfo.asp?txtSearch=237799
>>
>>>
>>> 2.x had
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 19:53:21 + (UTC), Vincent Fritters wrote:
> On 2009-03-02, Doug Mentohl wrote:
>
>> They were a company involved in data compression, before they got fucked
>> over by MS ..
>
> And they are not the only ones.
> Even IBM got burned while playing nice with Microsoft.
> Wh
Rjack wrote:
GNUtians never lose -- they just move the goalposts.
It is only the desperate arguments of the GPL skeptics that flit
about in search of vindication that never comes. The SFLC pursues
its enforcements steadfastly, each and every time resulting in the
GPLed sources being
Rjack wrote:
GNUtians never lose -- they just move the goalposts.
It is only the desperate arguments of the GPL skeptics that flit
about in search of vindication that never comes. The SFLC pursues
its enforcements steadfastly, each and every time resulting in the
GPLed sources being
Rjack wrote:
GNUtians never lose -- they just move the goalposts.
It is only the desperate arguments of the GPL skeptics that flit
about in search of vindication that never comes. The SFLC pursues
its enforcements steadfastly, each and every time resulting in the
GPLed sources being
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
GNUtians never lose -- they just move the goalposts.
It is only the desperate arguments of the GPL skeptics that flit
about in search of vindication that never comes. The SFLC pursues
its enforcements steadfastly, each and every time resulting in the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
It up to the courts to rule on these matters.
Only if the parties fail to reach agreement among themselves.
That hasn't happened yet.
GNUtians never lose -- they just move the goalposts.
___
gnu-misc-discu
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
A GPL suit comes with an automatic voluntary dismissal
Followed, in every case, by compliance with the GPL.
GNUtians never lose -- they just move the goalposts.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-d
http://www.isoc-ny.org
Open Infrastructure Alliance
http://www.newnetworks.com";
note-on-diction="Broadband is not the Net.
Broadband is a bundle of services
provided to customers of a few large companies.
The Net is
In gnu.misc.discuss Doug Mentohl wrote:
> 'Software Tree LLC claims that JBoss infringes on its database patent
> for "exchanging data and commands between an object oriented system and
> a relational system." Software Tree's partners include Microsoft, and
> that the suit was filed in Eastern
Rjack wrote:
GNUtians never lose -- they just move the goalposts.
It is only the desperate arguments of the GPL skeptics that flit
about in search of vindication that never comes. The SFLC pursues
its enforcements steadfastly, each and every time resulting in the
GPLed sources being
Rjack wrote:
A GPL suit comes with an automatic voluntary dismissal
Followed, in every case, by compliance with the GPL.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rjack wrote:
It up to the courts to rule on these matters.
Only if the parties fail to reach agreement among themselves.
That hasn't happened yet.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-mis
36 matches
Mail list logo
