always funny to see GNUtians (free as in freedom) arguing
for copyright to be interpreted open end, so to speak.
It _is_ more or less being interpreted open end. For some of their
interpretations, the FSF would certainly not mind being shown wrong in
court.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you say: Big deal, I won't link it then. The customer has to do
it. Now if the only conceivable use of the software _is_ to link it
to a free version of the software, the linking
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the GPL only covers distribution.
And copyright law covers derivatives.
So what authorises you to make a derivative of a GPLed program? I
thought the FSF's view
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So presumably the idea is that the two acts together constitute
distribution of a derivative work? If so - to go back to my earlier
example - is the distribution of the Aquamacs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Defined interfaces are not usually considered to create copyrightable
entities as long as they don't contain sufficient creative content by
themselves.
This is interesting, because
have a clue what an IPO is about? One
does them _exactly_ because one is expected to _invest_ the startup
money with a long-term goal of building a sustainable business.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu
, and can claim damages
if he can make a plausible case for them.
--
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
yet, redistribution requires an individual license.
--
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
bunch of genuine DVDs with latest Hollywood
animation blockbusters for his newly adopted child).
Looking at your date header, you are still 50 minutes early for the
first of April. Couldn't wait for an excuse for your smear, eh?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup writes:
Looking at your date header, you are still 50 minutes early for the
first of April. Couldn't wait for an excuse for your smear, eh?
He just can't conceive of the existence of a person who would not
jump at any chance to grab gobs
.
--
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
: on the day that two army corps can mutually annihilate
each other in a second, all civilised nations will surely recoil with
horror and disband their troops.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss
article about operating systems
instead of blowing smoke?
URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system is pretty close to
the established CS definition of operating system.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss
. A subset of the excerpts he posts is both on-topic as
well as interesting. While the quality of his postings take a sharp
dive whenever he adds original content, the stuff he borrows is
sometimes readable.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
it is compiled by inclusion.
--
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
cubism. The absoluteness would fade away if
there were others that could be bothered and/or capable to a similar
degree.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
. That is the reason that he enthusiastically posts all details
of ongoing court cases, then getting completely baffled by the actual
verdicts, calling the judges drunk, insane, brain-washed and other
things because he can't reconcile the verdicts with his interpretation
of the proceedings of the case.
--
David
which he tended to tack before or after (often
interesting!) material more consistently at one point of time, when he
is adding material of his own, it is rather obvious in its
inclinations.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc
that the overall benefits would be worth losing
both restrictions and protection possible by copyright.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc
as Cygwin, embedded
stuff and quite a few other items).
But of course they are still differently positioned.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu
be constrained by patent law.
anybody and public are not separable.
--
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
Dmitry V. Gorbatovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Dmitry V. Gorbatovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
Then keep it secret.
It is indeed possible.
And I can sell just results of using it.
But let me remind you , that all point of patent law is to give
.
This is getting sillier by the minute.
--
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
Dmitry V. Gorbatovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Dmitry V. Gorbatovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
David is telling you what patents do. You are giving the conventional
rationalization for doing it. Two different things.
Huh, NO, its me who
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Got to doctor, ams.
High time, too. What did he tell you?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo
like to hire an assistant
to work full-time. Don't worry, you'd never get the gig ;)
Well, he is already working fulltime for free software on this group,
so what would be the point?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sáb, 2006-11-25 às 20:56 +0100, David Kastrup escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sáb, 2006-11-25 às 13:34 +0100, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Are you employed by ansol? I bet you're The President. No? :-)
ANSOL
.
--
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
, but it certainly can
cover the implementation.
Therefore no copyright license can ever effect the code implementing
a software patent.
Uh what? The code is not the same as a single patented idea.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc
it for less.
And that can impact business models quite seriously.
But it is a hurdle that one can't blame Easterbrook for. It is
inherent to free software as a distribution model.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... GPL _software_ copies ...]
But it is a hurdle that one can't blame Easterbrook for.
Wallace's claim has absolutely nothing to do with software COPIES
(material objects), retard.
Who said it was?
--
David Kastrup
and
redistribute derivative works without asking the original author? In
fact, this is pretty much what copyright law intends to prohibit.
and *require* to charge zero to cover costs of creating a piece of
intellectual property to exist.
Impeccable logic.
Glass house.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LOL.
backinfullforce commented (quoting smarty EASTERBROOK):
--
Copyright law gives authors *a right* to charge more, so that they can
recover their fixed costs
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Last time I looked, the case _did_ involve copyright.
For the past ten years a software copyright and patent license has
been circulated by way of the Internet.
So you agree.
Copyleft requires all licensees
, help me out! ;-) ;-)
It is not like I did not both predict the outcome from the appellate
court as well as your response to it. But being able to predict your
reaction is not the same as being able to change it, so I am afraid
that I can't help you there.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793
, either. His job was
not to interpret the GPL, but to see whether there was substance to
the appellation. Namely to figure out whether the case as established
by the previous court was lead or decided incorrectly.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
, and from nobody less than Microsoft.
If that is not going to get them backlash by typical customers, I'd be
very much surprised. I can't imagine this to be a good PR move for
most of their targeted clientele.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
three, but I don't believe it's the case there
either.
I don't think a copyright transfer makes even remote sense without an
identifiable legal entity as the recipient. When a project is
community-driven like Debian, this would not really seem the case.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
intended by the licensor: yes, the copyright holder has the control
There are limitations, such as free (of copyright control) distribution
of copies lawfully made and free (of copyright control) modification
as it is.
--
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 depends on local
copyright laws.
--
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
, not transferring them to anybody
else. Fine difference. Anyway, does anybody else find moral rights
a most peculiar expression in such a legal clause?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss
of rights to maintain your code under
GPL2 (optionally or later for the case that this will become an
option at some point of time) in Linux. It will be (C) Sun then, but
the Linux kernel policies don't mind mixed copyrights.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
(and not the FSF which is a charity,
anyway), I'd sure wish them success in their endeavors.
It's the whole _point_ of what they do. Leveraging their own work for
getting the most freedom [in the form of freely available source code
for software] for the general public.
--
David Kastrup
for doing his job?
--
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
assignment, the right place to contribute and assign to, in
my opinion, is upstream.
--
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Uh, why should he? The law is his profession. Since when should a
person not get paid for doing his job?
Are you getting paid for doing your GNU job?
I am not getting paid for the voluntary work I do within the GNU
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
I am not getting paid for the voluntary work I do within the GNU
project, which is neither my job nor part of my job description. The
And what is your job description? I'm just curious: once and for
all, are you
copyrights to
anybody else that would, then there is no point in asking for
copyright assignments. And actually in this case the point of picking
GPL over BSD license would also be just sending a message rather than
making a legal difference.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Stephen Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
The unlinked work may be affected, too, if its purpose can't be met
without linking, and thus the act of linking from the enduser becomes
a formality instead of an available technical option. However, if
there are practical uses
(and
anyway, since the library is available identically in a non-free
version, one can't claim the particular protection of the GPLed
version), but there is also a murky borderline where things become
less clear even when the compiling and/or linking is done at the
client side.
--
David Kastrup
a copy of the
GPLed software for the purpose of circumventing the GPL is included,
the status of this copy and its use appears more than doubtful to me.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss
.
--
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the
picture might change, depending on how much of the library is included
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:32:34 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I write an original program that happens to use your GPLed
library. I license my source code under a non-Free license
/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
To the OP: not sure how expensive it is but Trolltech offers
other licenses.
But he won't need a license if he does not include Qt.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:51:48 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An original program in source code format, and contains function
and/or system calls does not consist of revisions
is
quite moot, since an API-compatible library (Qt commercial) under a
different license is available, and so source code written for Qt does
not require a GPLed library version to run. The code might be useless
without Qt, but not so without _GPLed_ Qt.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:49:05 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You define based on for source code as not runnable in compiled
format without the library and containing references to the
library's API. The way I would define based
would build a binary would then have to discard the part
of the dual-license that is incompatible with the library that got
used.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
construed your
references to state. Wait, I must have got that wrong is something
that never occurs to you.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu
to the GPLed library (for
example, if an API-compatible different library exists that could be
employed equally well), then the case might become shaky where the
distribution of the unlinked executable or the source is concerned.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Merijn de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2006-10-16, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Merijn de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The more correct terminology is that the OP can only distribute
the resulting (i.e. linked) work as a whole under the GPL.
If he cannot do
see where you get that idea.
--
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
reliability
and groundedness in reality. Common sense helps quite a bit in
sifting the information, and where one wants to get the FSF's input on
the legal ramifications of a license they at least designed, use, and
defend, this is also easily available.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793
by the GPL is affected by non-GPLed
libraries. It is certainly not by the non-GPLed libraries
suddenly becoming derivatives of any other code.
It is disingenuous to cut away that passage and then protest that I
did not provide anything like it.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793
project, one is responsible for
implementing the GNU policies. That's not a matter of freedom of
speech, but of doing the task one has been appointed for.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
[Superseded because of the last specified link not being to the point]
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
From offical dutites, yes, because Thomas went against the policies
to the masses that was sorely lacking. But I consider it
a stretch, anyway.
--
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can linux kernel claim they distribute the kernel under conditions of
GPL v2, while they use modified version of GPL v2
They did not modify GPLv2.
They most certinally did. You can see file COPYING yourself
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can linux kernel claim they distribute the kernel under conditions of
GPL v2, while they use modified version of GPL v2
They did not modify GPLv2.
(thanks to this modification glibc doesnt
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 15:31:53 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have any evidence of the term kernel being used before, or
actually even outside of UNIX?
I quoted this section from Ralston's Encyclopedia of Computer
Science
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Point taken. However it means library turns into kernel is still
there and waiting.
Kernel is pretty different than a library. It has threads of its own.
Where do you get those ideas?
Which ones?
That the license note by Torvalds has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not really. I am looking for reason, why some programs using kernel
can be not-GPL, while programs using GPL library has to be GPL.
It depends on whether the program can work without this _specific_
library
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 17:23:50 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I am the author of a CP/M 2.2 BIOS that has seen some
moderate distribution, and I don't remember ever coming across
either the term kernel or nucleus in connection
it would be hard to see how
it could be used as a defense in a GPL case.
--
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
can be not-GPL, while programs using GPL library has to be GPL.
It depends on whether the program can work without this _specific_
library or kernel.
So... tell me about kernel I can easily switch
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Can glibc work without linux kernel?
See URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/ports.html.
Playing idiot as usual, dak?
Don't see why that would be inappropriate.
http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/?cvsroot
be more specific on Depends on library in
question...
No.
--
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
be requirement to heed the
conditions for derived works.
But the availability of libedit is certainly a setback for the
positive effects for free software promulgation due to readline being
GPL.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss
over time.
--
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
.
--
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
about Hurd:
URL:http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484
URL:http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html
Very readable, by the way, apart from the Hurd angle.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss
of technologically sound
(that is an Open Source buzzphrase), so it is a red herring to blame
him on that base. And why somebody with personal ethics should be
hindered from winning others for his goals is beyond me.
Cedric Beust
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
development have become known
to more people.
--
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
saying that is was used pretty much synonymously.
--
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
find that while UNIX including its central utilities
is often informally referred to as the system, the more formal term
operating system, stemming from computer science, is commonly
reserved to mean the kernel itself.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
about operating system being applied to whole systems including
applications?
--
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
does it have to do with censorship? The point was not to
replace one misleading name with a more misleading one.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
not censorship, but more like (if we want to use a C word)
confiscation.
--
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
?
Depends on the details. It sounds unlikely, but the description is so
unspecific that it is hard to tell.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu
the wave file with
some graphics to make into a video file..
does that propertiary software be affected by the GPL program?
It does not sound like it if make use of a GPL program means just
calling the unchanged GPL executable with command line arguments.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
It does not sound like it, as I said.
Reading the GPL FAQ, it says
You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a
proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I
have to GPL my program?
Yes
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
What one buys is the book, which is the media prepared by the printer
But that's not what King sells to publishers and not what he was
selling on the net in The Plant experiment. Intangibles can also be
sold, retard
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you please stop your mud throwing campaigns? It is not
useful.
Your notions of mud throwing and useful are similarly
ill-conceived.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc
Al Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:51:06 +0200, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Al Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And, in the English-speaking world, free is almost always (let's
say by millions to one, at least) used, when used with a product, to
mean
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Software is not sold.
http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm
You are confusing software and media. The media are sold, and access
to software is sold. The software itself is an arrangement of
information, interior
Roger Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Free speech, free press, free software, patent free, free arts?
Free gas, free milk, free beer?
Those happen not to be subject to copyright.
You and many others in the open source movement
I am not in the open source
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Software is not sold.
http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm
You are confusing software and media.
I'm confusing nothing, stupid dak
dislike it all you want, but you
can't legitimately claim that it didn't happen, and ignoring it will
simply lead to confusion in discussions like this.
So will ignoring the fact that free any product in commerce means
without charge.
Like free press?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793
601 - 700 of 1030 matches
Mail list logo
