v4vijayakumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am posting this 7th time through google groups. I don't know
whether my previous post was lost. I couldn't see it in google
groups.
All 7 posts. Please stop.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
to software distributed at no
cost. So there shouldn't be much ambiguity when the context is
understood
Since most people who use software aren't part of the industry, and
understand free to mean without charge,
Whatever happened to the land of the brave and the free?
--
David Kastrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, freeware simply means a non-free program that can be distributed
at no cost.
Where did you get that definition? I don't think most people's use
of the term excludes free
it.
If you come up with a reputable source for the definition of
freeware you pulled out of your hat, that is.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu
about although fees can be collected did you not understand?
--
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
free time
on your hands.
So you don't have a source to back up your claim and are just blowing
smoke. Thanks for clearing that up.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The meaning of freeware has been non-free software that is
distributed as gratis since the '80s. Maybe you are to young to
remeber this, but that is how it is. If you don't
not have to pay
for.
Barry Margolin writes:
Not all free software is commercial.
All Free Software can be sold.
But there is no requirement to do so.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
you can always charge a fee if
you so choose to.
When you are done reading the dictionary, an introductory text on
logic might be useful next.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
a single other person of the
community that backs your definition. You alone don't constitute a
community.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu
?
--
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
by definition would be
software which _has_ to be distributed gratis, not just software which
happens to be available distributed gratis.
Just because software is distributed gratis does not mean it can't
subsequently (or in parallel) be distributed commercially.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr
.
When we are talking about the sort of medium in which expressions are
subject to copyright?
Free speech, free press, free software, patent free, free arts?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
Source. That's clearly NOT the case, is it?
Free software is a fixed term defined by the user's freedoms, not by
price. You must not confuse it with what you call freeware.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
.
It is a free country, bub.
--
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
obtainable software that you may use at no cost,
monetary or otherwise, for as long as you wish.
But freeware and free software are as different as marriage and
marred triage.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Stallman's work, later enhanced by other parties but kept (c) FSF all
the time.
(C) FSF doesn't mean that the code was written by the FSF,
retard. Folks assign their 100% original code to the FSF on regular
basis
Keith Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
What is Emacs?
Pretty much the most-used general-purpose editor under Unix-like
operating systems.
C'mon, dak. Only (fine nines) retarded fanatics like your
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But anyway, vi and its ilk (not derivatives) would fit the flowery
only retarded fanatics use that torturous editor hyperbole of Mr
Terekhov equally well: the vi family certainly is at least as
idiosyncratic as Emacs
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
The FSF is the exclusive, and soul copyright holder of all parts in
GCC. They can choose to do whatever they want with IBM's code
shortcoming of RMAIL. And in
contrast to the lack of threading into separate groups and threads,
the harm is on the _other_ persons participating in the discussion.
Which makes it a matter of politeness to others, not merely of
inconvenience for oneself.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
IBM didn't remain the copyright holder, but FSF just can't be
exclusive licensor
Well, reread what Alfred wrote above. exclusive copyright holder.
Yeah, as if copyright ownership can be non-exclusive (in the sense
to a sentence as written,
these antics rather weaken your point.
--
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
harder and voids your warranty. The trend where
software is unmodifiable by the user in spite of coming with source
and being in rewritable memory is already becoming standard for new
devices.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc
to interpret.
--
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:
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
Man oh man. This is fun.
Hero Welte gets around 3K EURO and D-Link must tell him from whom and
how many routers they've
not mean
that he can just grab the car and leave it in Warsaw, since he has
lawfully acquired access to it.
The obligations of the license remain even with lawfully made copies.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
8/28 IBM filed supplimental authorities.
[...]
These appellate judges are no morons
Remember that line. You'll be singing a different tune once they
finish
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
8/28 IBM filed supplimental authorities.
[...]
These appellate judges are no morons
somebody a copy for whatever price and tell him and if you
pay me $50 more, I'll license this copy under the GPL to you.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
In mine, the GPL reads:
(clause 1)
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange
for a fee.
That's not about
are not rewarded.
--
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:
[...]
So you say that civilization should be considered ended with the
advent of copyright?
No. I simply see no problems with unilateral decisions to release
something straight into the public domain in our modern
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
No. I simply see no problems with unilateral decisions to release
something straight into the public domain in our modern civilization
with IP market economy.
So behavior benefiting society and progress should
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
And it would be stupid not to have net losses following an IPO: where
is the purpose in asking for money if you are not going to spend it?
It appears that your expertise in financials is as good as in IP
licensing
for that. But at least further recipients
will be able to continue making improvements instead of having to get
the unchanged stuff from a separate source and starting from scratch.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
And another irrelevant link, congratulations. What the concrete
Google financials have to do with what to expect in the wake of an IPO
will probably remain your secret.
Google also had an IPO, stupid.
Alexander, you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Yes, it makes it harder to turn programming into money, but one can
also make use of a lot of existing software.
But one can still make a decent amount of money? (notice to me,
decent does *not* mean Bill Gates super-wealth)
Linus Torvalds
is beside the point: he has the _power_ to do so. You
don't need to throw away all you have got if you find that just one
detail is wrong for your purposes.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
can distribute the lifted sorting stuff
under my own terms.
So I don't see how with the given phrasing IBM's counsel would need to
change a word. And I don't see anybody embarrassing himself here
except from you and Wallace.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
and
with our continued international expansion.
In contrast, the training and service revenue is US$ 12,510,000.
So what are you talking about? Software subscriptions make the bulk
of their income.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Well, the last filing is at
URL:http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060710/rhat10-q.html, and lo-and-behold,
See Full Filing, not summary, retard. Quotes from latest 10-Q:
The quotes don't change that the software subscriptions
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Well, the last filing is at
URL:http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060710/rhat10-q.html, and lo-and-behold,
See Full Filing, not summary, retard. Quotes
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Microsoft would not sell software, they only sell the delivery in form
of CDs you are allowed to install.
You can buy copies online. The point is that you don't have to enter
into any services contracts with microsoft
hope is certifications
lockin barrier.
Well, and brand recognition. They still have an impressive set of
kernel and compiler developers.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
about.
--
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:
[...]
Not at all. He can still _fully_ assert his copyright on those parts.
That means he can demand that recipients _obey_ his license terms
Hey stupid dak, _obey_ his license terms is a contract claim, not
copyright
.
Providing access to a copy is a service that has non-zero value in the
market. Even if one knows that the copy might be found somewhere
cheaper if one hunts long enough for it.
Hunting costs time, too, and time is money.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
people
have told you to stop confusing GNU and GPL.
I don't see that repeating those answers will add anything
worthwhile. Unless you show some attempt of at least reading the
answers given, I won't continue to bother.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
free software instead of Open Source in the documentation.
Savannah, however, also hosts non-GNU free software projects. As far
as I know, there are no similar requirements for the documentation of
those.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
by Summerhill at him the people stare
He says it's nearly half past one
So I'll just insult yet another little one
For the heart of the rule is Alexnder.
Apologies to Mrs Riley.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
with this charade.
And it is obvious that you are intelligent enough that you do this
sort of create disingenuous quoting out of context on purpose, too.
What you hope to achieve by those tactics is beyond me.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
in internal and open discussion groups.
--
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
with this is fine, no need to become aggressive as
you always tend to become when someone disagrees with you.
You are correct that I find your sort of discussion tactics
extremely distasteful.
Again: it is easy to corroborate for others with a Groups search that
I am not alone in that.
--
David Kastrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
That is no force. It is the condition for its use. You are free
to take it or leave it, just like when you are in a supermarket,
nobody forces you to buy anything. If you do, you have to pay the
price.
But I don't know _WHY_ the license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wei Mingzhi wrote:
If you don't allow me using your code, then I don't allow you
using our code too. That's just fair.
I don't know. To me it seems like a way to slowly strip owners of
their rights
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which raises another question: What happens if I learn something
from the GNU software, like a trick or a more efficient way of
programming some algorithm? If I use that METHOD/KNOWLEDGE even
if not the ORIGINAL
had to your original work.
You still have all the rights to _your_ original work. You can take
it and create a work from it that does not use any GNU code. But you
don't have all the rights to the combined work.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Oh, so the license then spreads to cover all of your ORIGINAL work
as well.
No, it doesn't. You are bound by the GPL only for such software which
integrates GPLed software as a part of it. Namely software which
. This is in accord with the intent of that portion
of the law which provides that owners of authorized copies of a
copyrighted work may sell those copies without leave of the copyright
proprietor.50 ... 50 17 U.S.C. § 109.
That does not give you the right to create _new_ copies.
--
David
found it on some server does not make you the owner of a copy in
any manner that I found it on the street makes you the owner of a
copy of a book.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup writes:
I found it on some server does not make you the owner of a copy in
any manner that I found it on the street makes you the owner of a
copy of a book.
Finding it on some server involves creating a copy on your
computer. If you own
that calling people names lends no
credence to your arguments? As a matter of fact, it removes what little
credibility you might have left.
So what? It makes it easier for occasional visitors to determine who
is not to be taken seriously.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
to it being on some public server without any
notices concerning the legal status of the software.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc
the same question over and over, please explin
what you don't understand about the answers and links already provided
to you.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Yep. I _need_ the money, for example.
Then I suggest that you sell your own work then instead of mine. Why
should I be paying your bills?
So what if I don't have enough for the one-time payment (would it
be like $1000 or more
.
Of course, and I never denied that. It's just that I don't agree
with charging someone for a product with their original
creations.
Nobody is charging you for your original creation as long as it is
your original creation and not deriving value from somebody else's.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Yep. I _need_ the money, for example.
Then I suggest that you sell your own work then instead of mine.
Why should I be paying your bills?
The question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Of course it does. I make a living from it.
Care to elaborate? Who pays you and for what exactly?
Publishing houses and institutes with typesetting needs. I do
consulting and creation of individual software for TeX-based
typesetting
into the Public Domain.
But it sounds like you are rather whining that you can't license your
own code under more restrictive terms, so this is just a bunch of
crocodile's tears, apparently.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
David Kastrup writes:
But the one thing that you can't do is take his material and do with
it as you like without heeding its license.
mike4ty4 writes:
But why forbid it?
To increase the amount of Free software in the world. You may
not mean that he accepted
it. In a shop, the act of taking wares from the shelves implies
having to pay them, but that does not mean that a shoplifter by the
act of taking something off the shelf indicates his acceptance.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
enough sense.
--
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
distribution.
But there is no such thing as an unintentional or automatic licensing
under the GPL. It may be the only _legal_ option, but it is not
automatic and can't be defaulted.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
can replace this
act. Anything else is naivety that can end you up in jail.
--
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
up to now the phrase To which
he'd respond has ended in the court saying Your reply means this and
that. Are you sure you want to dig yourself in any deeper? and an
out-of-court settlement.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been wondering about the GNU software and documentation license.
For one thing, although the goals are decent, I don't like what I
percieve as it's viral nature.
Too bad, since it is that which ensures
/licenses/gpl-faq.html.
--
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
part of the second sentence, then pretend that the first part of it
somehow belongs to the first sentence.
If you want to make a point, please do this without previously
fabricating nonsense from a posting of mine. It is disingenuous.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
, then reply to
points I never made. If you don't like me complaining about it, stop
this disingenuous practice. Simple as that. As long as you continue
to do so, I'll continue to point it out.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu
reserved
to exceptional cases.
--
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:
I assume that all committers on a given project put their names
in the license header of the files that they modify.
Rarely.
Hm. Whoops. I'd forgotten about copyright assignment for GNU
projects. For other
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tim Smith wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup wrote:
Competitors might try to sue for misleading advertising, but that's about
it. There are no warranties, implied or otherwise, coming with GPLed
software. The only person who
die bei Verträgen über Lieferungen neu hergestellter
Sachen und über Werkleistungen did you not understand? If you have
an _explicit_ contractual obligation (and the GPL is _not_ that) to
deliver a working product, you can't escape that obligation by the GPL
disclaimer.
--
David Kastrup
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup wrote:
Competitors might try to sue for misleading advertising, but that's about
it. There are no warranties, implied or otherwise, coming with GPLed
software. The only person who has standing to sue for non
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Yes, and he quite clearly stated that their product as a whole was
supposed to have a GPLed component, ergo be a combined work derived
from (among others) the GPLed piece.
His product as whole is NOT a derivative work
library as part in a non-GPLed program, quite the other way
round.
--
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:
Piss off, retard dak. Go to doctor.
It seems like I am already doing quite a good job at pissing you off
without requiring external input, but thanks for the suggestion.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piss off, retard dak. Go to doctor.
It seems like I am already doing quite a good job at pissing you off
without requiring external input, but thanks for the suggestion
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
GPL because the work as a whole has to be licensed under the GPL,
Man oh man. Go back to doctor, retard. Try another one.
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
And another long quote
contact
the author for permission, but in all likelihood the author would
charge a higher price or refuse altogether.
That's just being fair: you want to make a dime by dual-licensing, so
it is reasonable to offer a reasonable portion of that to the author
for dual-licensing to you.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
application WITH VERY visible caption THIS part comes from and
is based on GPL license?
Only if the work as a whole is licensed under the GPL without further
^
|
derivative
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
license, I don't see where you base this off.
I'm tired of you, stupid dak.
In short, you can't counter.
Here's GPL FAQ from Welte's attorneys:
Oh, that means that you agree with Welte? Interesting news. Anyway
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Now if the licensor did not even give the licensee source code, the
konkludentes Handeln which would make the closing of a contract
conclusive did not even happen.
Idiot. I don't need source code to enter into GPL
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The only person with standing to sue anybody over non-compliance with
the GPL is the copyright holder himself.
Each party to the GPL contract can sue for non-compliance, retard.
Non-compliance with which obligations
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
My dearest Alexander, what would constitute the copyright holder and
licensor breaching the contract? There are no obligations to her
spelled out at all in the contract. So how would she breach them?
By failing
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Could you please cite the passage of the GPL where the licensor, as
opposed to the licensee, is required to provide source code?
And from where is the licensee (as opposed to the licensor) supposed
to get the source
a final image
format. Should not be too difficult if they are reduced versions, for
example.
Then try applying your theory. Good luck
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Vertrags-Rechtsschutz for something which you downloaded by your own
volition without recompensation?
Many by your own volition contracts don't require recompensation
in (direct) monetary sense, stupid. Licensee's
the copyright holder.
The only person with standing to sue anybody over non-compliance with
the GPL is the copyright holder himself.
There is a remote possibility that competitors might sue for
misleading advertising, but that is not really something to bank on.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15
701 - 800 of 1030 matches
Mail list logo
