that cares about
attribution. The copyleft licenses care about keeping the software
alive and in fully useful form for the device in question, at the users'
disposition.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
but you need not expect that either the workers or law
officers find that overly amusing.
Ignoring laws comes at a price.
>>> They just complain to the manufacturer and maybe their needs are
>>> taken care of in a subsequent release, maybe not. Who can afford to
>>> le
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
> news:851vtr64ch@lola.goethe.zz...
>> "amicus_curious" writes:
>>
>>> "David Kastrup" wrote:
>>>> "amicus_curious" writes:
>>>
(or its replacement) has a particular
weakness without being able to look at the source code?
Disassembly is quite more cumbersome.
> If it fails early, it gets returned to the store or to the
> manufacturer for credit.
If your whole computing centre gets compromised because a packet logger
could be inserted into the router, return to the store is your least
problem. Being able to determine possible scope of a security breach is
certainly important.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote:
>> "amicus_curious" writes:
>>
>>> but that is meaningless to me.
>>
>> Laws don't depend on you seeing a meaning in them.
>>
> Who is talking about the law?
The
gt; other people's contributions to projects.
Sure you could name a few examples.
> The old adage "there's a little bit of good in everything" seems to be
> true concerning the SFLC's frivolous and obnoxious lawsuits.
Not to mention your frivolous and obnoxious
that it speaks ill of those egomaniacs who want to create such
> a ruckus just so that the world might see how smart they are.
> Pathetic.
Pathetic is not the worst description of your self-contradictory
ill-informed ill-judged postings.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
are not talking about either of those specific
situations, it is hard to see what your problem is.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rjack writes:
> I have heard rumors that several defendants in GPL cases have received
> attorney fees due to the frivolous nature of the SFLS's cases. The
> SFLC has had to voluntarily dismiss *all* of their suits.
Hearing rumours which you spread yourself does not count.
--
Hyman Rosen writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> The GPL can't be enforced at all because it is a license
>
> Don't be silly. "GPL enforcement" means getting people who
> distribute GPLed programs to honor the terms of the license.
Or else. As opposed to a
end up with a net loss
> due to having paid damages to the copyright owner that exceed their
> benefit for the period of violation.
You can't violate the GPL when you never agreed to it in the first
place. You can merely get into the situation that you are without
anything b
120 times after half
the scheduled time.
So a victory is reclaimed not if the beating stops, but if the beater
can be persuaded to promise merely to keep up his beating rate, and he
does not break the promise all too glaringly.
That's common sense for you. Sorry fo
er overoptimistic with regard to the actual uptake and
effects. Probably as one consequence he seems to have become quite less
outspoken about the clash of philosophies than he once was.
The optimist thinks that he lives in the best of all possible worlds.
The pessimist knows it.
urce code licensing. By no stretch of the
> imagination did the CSRG co-opt the closed socialist goals of RMS --
> that's simply revisionist bullshit from Stallman worshippers.
>
> Sincerely,
> Rjack :)
Well, either this "Sincerely" is quite the opposite, or you are
incredibly shoddy and/or stupid in fact-finding.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ht license is the very definition of copyright
> misuse.
Namecalling is not a definition.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
tter
educated to watch what work they are contributing to their company and
under what conditions.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
int. The
main point is that judges tend to collapse loophole reasoning if nothing
except wordsmithing seems to be involved.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
for something which they did not do, but failed to say so
until brought before court. So what? That has so absolutely nothing to
do with the GPL that it is not even boring.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
te source, I have a million
> legitimate copies that I can dispose of any way that I please, either
> give them away or sell them if I can. The GPL does not restrict that.
Again, "legitimate source" for unconditional copying is a brainchild of
yours, not of the GPL and not of copyrigh
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
> news:85ab99zkw2@lola.goethe.zz...
>> "amicus_curious" writes:
>>
>>> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
>>> news:85k58d226h....@lola.goethe.zz...
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
> news:85k58d226h@lola.goethe.zz...
>> "amicus_curious" writes:
>>
>>> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
>>> news:85ocxrkkfj@lola.goethe.zz...
>
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> We are not talking about a two-sided contract with an exchange of
>> >> consideration, but a unil
es generally relevant and not just for
the GPL, it maintains the ground for free software by winning, and wins
ground by losing.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> We are not talking about a two-sided contract with an exchange of
>> consideration, but a unilateral grant.
>
> Hey dak, could you please translate the following from German to English
> for the sake
f.
But the stop the few from doing their work, and the system breaks down
for everybody.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ZnU writes:
> In article <8563jzm30h@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup
> wrote:
>
>> Uh no. If a provision of the kind "you may freely redistribute if
>> you heed the following conditions" is not legally valid, and you have
>> no other right to
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
> news:498107b6$0$31864$9b4e6...@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
>>> news:85ocxrkkfj@
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
> news:85ocxrkkfj@lola.goethe.zz...
>>
>> Try reading the GPL sometime.
>>
> Well, is it valid?
That's entirely the choice of the recipient. If he considers it
invalid, he do
support or warranty protection for a fee.
[...]
d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
Corresponding Source in the same way throug
eal is more like you get the keys to the car in order to test
drive it, along with a contractual promise that you may buy the car for
a certain amount of money if you like it.
You then choose to just make away with the car, making use of the
promise but without paying.
The car is not collateral that
ZnU writes:
> In article <85bptrnsam@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup
> wrote:
>
>> Rjack writes:
>>
>> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> >> Rjack wrote:
>> >>> It is a verifiable fact that ever completed suit filed by the SFLC
>>
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup"
>
>> Since when? If I send a personal letter to someone, I don't charge a
>> fee for it. He still is not authorized for redistributing my letter or
>> using its content in publications of his.
>>
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
> news:85bptrnsam@lola.goethe.zz...
>
>>
>> The recipient of GPLed software is free to declare the GPL void and
>> revert to default copyright rules.
>>
> What is at issue t
opyright law is involved). All cases so far in
U.S. jurisdiction have been cut&dry to a degree where no defendant was
stupid enough to even try that course.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rjack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Rjack writes:
>>
>>> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>>> Rjack wrote:
>>>>> The GPL is a legal delusion in Richard Stallman's marxist mind.
>>>> It seems to be a solid enough delusion that Micro
>> license.
>
> Why would Microsoft ever want to give away their intellectual
> property under a voidable contract like the GPL?
>
> Duh.
Hm? They already distribute GPLed software.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu>
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
chrisv writes:
> Rjack wrote:
>
>>Cancer is a real disease. The GPL is a legal delusion in Richard
>>Stallman's marxist mind.
>
> *plonk*
>
>>Sincerely,
>>Rjack :)
>
> Go fsck yourself,
I thought that was pretty much what he ha
feasible.
That's just some of the stuff I did personally, but in today's networked
world it is much more important that _anybody_ who could be interested
in working on a problem can actually do so rather than that I personally
have this sort of acce
ource code for the firmware was already available in
> dozens of places. What good is one more snapshot?
It needs to be the corresponding snapshot if you want to debug stuff
and/or do incremental changes.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
P/M, we might still be using
> WordPerfect albeit on Vista. But that is not the case and WordPerfect
> is dead as a dodo.
AFAIR, WordPerfect on CP/M was particularly useless because it did not
even exist. As opposed to, say, WordStar on CP/M.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochu
source advocates
> are ideologically blinded to these facts.
The GPL was not written by Open Source advocates but by Free Software
advocates. Free Software advocates are not bothered about Microsoft
except when its business practices complicate acquiring platforms fit
for running Free Software.
e where people
actually want to go. And Vista pretty much is a failure on most points.
At some point of time they need to go "we are preparing the roads to
places where you'll want to go tomorrow once you see them".
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_
offerings".
And if Microsoft has one thing to go in its advantage is that they are
free to throw lots of basically anonymous manpower at problems that can
be tackled in that manner. If they are running out of such problems,
their cash and company resources stop being
osed to actually _achieve_ something, its
effects need to much more immediate. Just jotting down a scalding entry
into a Doomsday book record is not going to change a thing.
If every administration change just changes the proposed penalties but
never actually get
Rick writes:
> Are there examples of GTK+ applications that can run natively on
> Windows? Can I download them and run them?
http://www.gimp.org/windows/>
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
t and contract.
>
> If a downloader don't know about the license or doesn't agree to the
> license terms then DON'T DOWNLOAD THE DAMN MATERIAL. OK?
>
> What's so hard about that?
Congrats, you have just now abolished shrink-wra
ads of GPLed software don't require any such thing.
I have downloaded a _lot_ of software, checked its conditions, and then
removed the software again. Certainly not a manifestation of assent.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ZnU writes:
> In article <85r63dpho3@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup
> wrote:
>>
>> To have the GPL evaluated on "its merits", the defendant has to state
>> that he considers being in compliance with the GPL. Up to now, none
>> of the defen
Rjack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> To have the GPL evaluated on "its merits", the defendant has to state
>> that he considers being in compliance with the GPL.
>
> And so, just why does the defendant *have* to state "that he considers
> being in
e consistently rule in
the manner that gets our good Alexander up in ruffles and calls of
inebriation, we have not seen significant GPL coverage there, however.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Actually, I am with Terekhov on that one. The technical details of the
>> underlying traffic don't change the legal nature of who makes available
>> something that much.
>
> But who says that "making available&q
ear mostly concerned with guns and people, and not
all that much with the bullets and other technical details behind a
shot.
While being in contradiction with Alexander places one on the sane side
of an argument usually, there are no guarantees.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_
ls of the
underlying traffic don't change the legal nature of who makes available
something that much.
I have no details about the underlying case, but if the SFLC does not
pursue all fringe cases, this means more about focusing their resources
than it does about condon
quot;, of course a
settlement is likely.
That's the way this works.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
For license breaches, you
can demand damages, but not penalties.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
"amicus_curious" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Kastrup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The GPL is not a contract but a license. It spells the conditions
>> you have to meet.
>>
> I am not aware of any real distinction in th
Rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> The GPL is not a contract but a license. It spells the conditions you
>> have to meet.
>
> "Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
> reasonable compensation, must, of c
"amicus_curious" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Hyman Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Why? Then the software would not be redistributable
>>
>> No, you don't und
e, so what point would
that serve even to him?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
h ignoring the license. Of course, only
a lunatic would claim that this delusion was a "promise" planned for by
the licensor. But it is less expensive to make a fool of oneself and
get laughed at in Usenet than in court.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
hen set back and watch Artifex be forced to
> actually cite prevailing law that supports Artifex's specious claims
> -- something no GPL supporter has ever been capable of doing.
Because the defendants fold in lack of a tenable defense before that and
settle. But IIRC, at least in Germany
emands the freedom to facilitate the propagation of
non-freedom. The GPL does not grant this freedom, and for good reason.
That's its main point.
Writing dozens of enfuriated paragraphs about that does not show much
more than that you don't have a clue. It's like comp
oherent, cogent posts,
You want to base an argument on that premise?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
mplicated for you? Is it
> somehow unfair in your estimation?
It is a highly inaccurate description of the situation.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
a secondary consideration.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
#x27;s brain, and didn't give it back.
Not everybody keeps track of small change.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
It is an independent work. You get into inappropriate conditions very
fast that road, since the compiler has dependencies of its own.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
quot;
>
> Cut the crap Hymen! The brave GNU World wants to control your
> compiler.
"it" obviously means the proprietary, third-party compiler. Your
reading comprehension appears a bit sub-standard.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_
y are you a Communist? That is a completely discredited
> ideology.
More like a discredited label. Reminds me of the famous quote "Mr
Gandhi, what do you think of Western civilization?" -- "I think it would
be a good idea."
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
oviding an alternative
> form of horrific entertainment.
Oh please. There are times when a clown is just a clown.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
t a proper right for egomaniacs as well, where would
Microsoft be nowadays?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
t is a pretty impressive
> capture rate and it all occurred in the same timeframe that Linux was
> evolving. Linux has made gains, to be sure, but almost all at the
> expense of traditional Unix system sales.
So what does that tell you about the superiority of the traditio
ls to state a case, that hardly can be considered a
precedent for anything. By anybody.
It was an amusement for FOSS, not anything of relevance or importance.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
separate lawsuit).
If one can get all one's objectives accomplished by being constantly
"defeated", that's a comfortable position to be in.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
on. And likely on the
jurisdiction in question. It is more a case of "this is a sufficiently
involved area that you will want to get a legal opinion about your
particular case, and hopefully from your lawyer instead of somebody
else".
"Tread carefully" is not the same as "y
o culture is no longer something that can grow outside of greenhouses,
in the wild.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> prgm clearly is a derivative work of all the various modules.
>
> No it isn't. A derivative work is a transformed form of an
> original work that accomplishes the same purpose.
All the library pa
s a relevant buzzphrase in this context,
and trying your favorite search engine will show you that there is much
talk and very little hard evidence in one direction or the other.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss m
ve their source.
Well, but then you are wearing your user hat with respect to the
library, not your programmer hat...
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ash make” and
> sees if produces the same executables and uh.
>
> So you're right, just eliminating copyright would not make software
> free.
>
> AM5: Um libre
>
> RMS: Right.
> -
>
> LOL.
Do you think the FSF would refuse to get a better world if it can't ge
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> You got a bad case of slandries.
>
> From <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080909014304275>,
> quoting from the decision:
>
> By condensing, synthesizing, and reorganizing the pre
Rowling decision should be
> interesting (and dismaying) reading for GPL uber-
> advocates who favor the FSF view that just looking
> at GPL code funny makes something a derivative work.
You got a bad case of slandries. Perhaps you should cut down on the
Alexander dosage you are exhibiting
ised if you considered dumping your household garbage in a cemetery
to be perfectly feasible since their policies of only burying dead
persons amounts to asking for murder and thus any of their conditions
and tariffs need not be heeded.
> Anyone remember Yogi Berra's "It ain't over
works meet neither the Debian nor the FSF free software
guidelines. However, Debian has chosen to just apply one standard to
both documentation and software. Thus it considers GFDLed documentation
with invariant passages as non-free software. I don't think that the
FSF would come to a differe
This group is harmless in contrast. A strictly limited number of
recognizable trolls, and valuable advice in between.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
I put in myself, and you don't follow the GPL license
conditions, you put yourself out of your possibility as a licensed
recipient to sue me for it.
That's all.
> It does not negate the existence of the contract or the binding
> contractual relationship of the parties.'); Wells Far
, that would be acting
against bad faith ("good faith" seems an inappropriate term regarding
reliance on being able to ignore licensing conditions).
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
| Eerie |
> | Morph |
> `----'
You want some equivalent to Firefox' "Open All in Tabs" here I think.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_
its face.
Your idea of what constitutes "fact" is not unlike your ideas about what
constitutes "law".
> That background scene is far away though.
Quite so. And if it were to draw closer, I think you'd see quite a few
details turn out other than you thoug
"LIKE")?
>>
>> What if the license lacks consideration?
>
> If it lacks consideration it is not a contract. If it is not a
> contract it is not a license.
And if it is not circular, it isn't reasoning. Or something.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Boc
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> LOL.
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
> (carefully snipping the links to word "vertrag" aka "contract" in
> relation to the GPL)
>
> [... in legal matters, the decisions of the courts ...]
>
&
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Since they share this property with the courts and their decisions
>> quite
>
> Please (re)visit the link below, you amusingly crazy clownish GNU GPL
> true believer dak.
[...]
>
that's fine. Laws are interpreted not by Terekhov's
notions of sane, funny, crazy and drunk, but by the courts.
And actually, the courts are not really interested in whether you follow
the law for sane or for crazy reasons or out of pure coincidence.
--
David Kastrup
out the GPL FAQ?
> I think Free software is about Freedom for the users, and not anything
> to do with making or not making money.
And nothing new with that.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu
t; Do either of them have a vested interest in this, financial or otherwise
>> or is this just a matter of winning an argument/making a point?
>
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I would say that "making a
> point" is an example of a vested interest.
In the
ue also
regarding their own products.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we."
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
uot;others'" refers to. If it means respecting other
> *peoples'* lives, then, no, I wouldn't accept that message from a
> cannibal. But I think you've yet again "jumped the shark" with that
> analogy vis-a-vis free software.
For the record: plants are a
Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yes, this is a political question and a moral one.
>
> It is, but people approach the ethical questions of labour and
> software from different starting points.
>
JohnF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> JohnF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>> Hadn't thought of that. But, on second thought now, I'd say,
>>> "let the best program win." If the
ness to a level that regulation sets in,
regulation that actually overrides that what most people would do on
their own.
Changing perception is an important first step for change to happen. It
is not tantamount to changing behavior, but behavior does not change all
on its own.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
401 - 500 of 1330 matches
Mail list logo
