Dear Antonis,
Beware the trolls on this list...
Rui
Em 02-02-2010 06:52, Antonis Christofides escreveu:
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:07:42 -0500
Hyman Rosenhyro...@mail.com wrote:
Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual C++ (or
Visual Basic) run-time library permitted under the GPL?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 01:15:36PM -0400, Rjack wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:27:34AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote:
ok, how do you propose to protect legitimate users from the constant
harassing of either crazy
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 04:29:29PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Any particular reason you say that?
I just can't believe a crazy person would be able to so relentelessly
bother people in such elaborate ways for such a long time.
You've never been to school? In pretty much every larger
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:27:34AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
You know,
There's only so much skill fine tuning you can do when you fight dolls.
Rjack, Therekov, amicus
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The authors are relenquishing their rights within contractual
privity a concept which I know totally evades your understanding.
Wikipedia to the rescue!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity
The doctrine of
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 06:37:18AM -0400, Rjack wrote:
The question I found myself asking is: if the market punished
people for taking opensource closed, then why do our licenses need
to punish people for taking open sourceclosed? That is why I don't
think you really need GPL or a reciprocal
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 11:47:50AM +, Doug Mentohl wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
In Microsoft's case against Tom-Tom, there are a bunch of patents
that don't have anything to do with Linux involved as well as
the FAT filename patents ..
Get real, the Linux kernel supports FAT.
What
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 09:31:54AM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Forced sharing through copyright misuse is illegal theft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 04:00:57PM -0500, Rjack wrote:
You should swear less, listen more and take your meds Salty. One of
Ransom's favorite ploys is to join a group with more than pseudonomous
account and play good cop - bad cop.
Tim Ransom, Onelinepostguy, spoojraxlrod, mosnar, Reverend
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:31:28AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
I'm looking forward to the day when Mr. Terekhov declares SCOTUS a pack of
drunkards.
We'll get there... just you wait...
Rui
--
All Hail Discordia!
Today is Sweetmorn, the 7th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 08:12:41PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
rjack wrote:
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/
Apropos of nothing,
[begin quote]
On top of this there are the crazies, whom it is impossible
to reason with, who do not have a life of
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 11:16:25PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
I distinctly remeber having thought of you, Lex, when I first read that
Care to share that thought (in details), mini-RMS?
Full details: looks like Alexander Terekhov must've bugged
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 08:09:42AM -0400, rjack wrote:
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html
In December of 2007 the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) filed its
GPL lawsuit, which was settled in March of this year. The win was
hailed as a victory for
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 01:20:02PM -0400, rjack wrote:
I have have never found any *verifiable* detail of *any* settlement of
these lawsuits other than the court records available on PACER.
You couldn't find any verifiable detail that you're an idiot even if you
inserted your own head up your
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:33:07PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Copyright does not require register at U.S. Copyright Office.
Hey mini-me RMS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Me) you stupid, the
rules of enforcement regarding US
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 02:15:06PM -0800, mike3 wrote:
On Feb 3, 3:03 pm, Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, I want the questions taken seriously, since I want a real and
understandable answer so I can put the questions to bed, I
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 03:05:04PM -0800, mike3 wrote:
QUOTE:
Stallman does not care about
business. But others do. Open Source has been one way to sell
corporations their own downfall in a veiled manner. It has taken a
brutal but effective toll on stock market and the corporations. Free
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 09:19:12AM -0500, rjack wrote:
Stallman could never get an F.S.F. operating system to work properly. He
tried to steal the Linux name as GNU/Linux but he never succeeded.
This is a lie, Stallman *never* even *remotely* tried to rename the
piece of software that can be
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 12:21:07PM -0800, mike3 wrote:
Hmm, so does this mean that the reason why GNU deserves credit
in the _name_ and not somewhere else is because GNU's contribution
is so significant -- they pretty much built most of the rest of the
system?
One thing doesn't exclude the
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 10:35:41AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
No, Linux is a kernel, you can get all of it in a single tar ball at
http://www.kernel.org/ ... you know, neat packages called
linux-VERSION.tar.bz2 (for instance).
Have you ever
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 08:17:31PM -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not see the reason why GNU/Linux should be preferred over just
Linux to refer to the system.
[...]
What's the reason, anyway?
The reason is that Linux is not a
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 10:58:32PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
wh troll cluster-fuck!
Just let them rejoice for a few minutes before reality sets in ;)
Rui
--
This statement is false.
Today is Setting Orange, the 33rd day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do,
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 10:52:22AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It is worth _nothing_ that Sun has never made available a public list of
the IP they own and that you need to license in order to legally be able
to run Java...
For once he's got something right
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 03:45:32PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It is worth _nothing_ that Sun has never made available a public list of
the IP they own and that you need to license in order to legally be able
to run Java...
I wrote:
For once he's got something
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 01:04:06PM -0500, James White wrote:
Nobody should be able to stop you from writing any code that want, ***and
GPLv3 protects this right for you***.
When were the GPL folks given the right to write and establish what IS the
LAW?
Well, if you contest it you must thing
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 06:41:34AM -0500, rjack wrote:
Google just announced the end of the GPL and the Free Software Foundation's
viral FUD.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=428
I wonder what Eben Moglen thinks now that the excellent Apache 2.0 license
was chosen by Google to end the
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 09:44:03PM -, sam wrote:
kiosk, but not the source code to the server. The kiosk going to be
such that I could see others developing client/server kiosks using the
same kiosk software but a totally different engine, thus I do believe
I am violating the spirit of
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:47:44PM -0400, rjack wrote:
Geza Giedke wrote:
The case of GPL-violation by Monsoon Multimedia that was discussed
here recently has been settled out of court.
The SFLC is using threats of copyright infringement prosecution under
the GPL as a tactical matter to
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when
there is no library with compatible interface) creating acting as
your agent liability is utter nonsense and only totally lobotomized
GNUtians take it
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 01:44:05PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when
there is no library with compatible interface) creating acting as
your agent liability
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 03:11:48PM -0700, mike3 wrote:
(Explanation: I do not like to judge people's intent. He
could simply be misguided. Liar implies deliberate
intent to decieve, and since I am not him, and you are
not him, neither of us are capable of making that
judgment. Only he knows
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 03:17:43PM -0700, mike3 wrote:
On Oct 16, 4:50 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Many people do, but usually more in useful collections of software :)
and not so much about a particular tool (think distributions).
Then, those that receive
That's covered in the GPL FAQ.
1. Goto http://www.google.com/
2. type in the search field: gpl faq
3. press the I'm Feeling Lucky button
Rui
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 04:31:50PM +0300, Keith Willis wrote:
Hi,
I am in the process of putting together a source code package for a
library we
Once again you manipulate and confuse meaning and law with the intent
to create a lie that suits your purpose.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 01:37:33PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
I'd want to ask a question here. How does the entity paying
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 08:04:49AM -0400, rjack wrote:
Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
writes.
Rjack is neither a troll nor a lawyer. Rjack relies on the text
of published United States statutes and federal court case law
for his personal
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:56:10AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This item is not very important.
If it's not important that it is Free Software, then go fetch legal
advice. This is a group about Free Software.
If the license forces the user to distribute the source code
with the program,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 03:20:35AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If some one compiles the monitor tool without any change and sells
it for money, I think it's a little bit unfair to me.
However, if the license forces the user distributes the tool's source
code beside that tool, I think
mentions TerraMetrics, but that could perfectly well be
$owner_name =~ /.*/
:)
Rui
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:01:22PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:17:46PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
DiBona of Google (Open
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 12:17:52PM -0400, rjack wrote:
No contract ever binds anyone unless you accept it -- that's a
tautology.
Since licenses aren't contracts, there's nothing for you to see here.
Even if it was considered a contract, and since not signed not
valid, then effectively
+0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
I don't know who added that, but I will inquire and ask for a change.
Rui
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 07:37:31PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 12:17:52PM -0400, rjack wrote:
No contract
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 07:33:56PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
This may seem a contrived example
It is a contrived example probably because it requires a series of events
that are highly unlikely to be common, specially with certain people
in common.
If a certain intentional pattern is
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:17:46PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
DiBona of Google (Open Source Programs Manager):
issue is that Richard wants the imagery that we ourselves do not own
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:14528
This makes no sense, DiBona is not being clear
What other word is there for it?
Reciprocal? If you chose to receive an offer with strings attached
that say you must be reciprocal, then you must be reciprocal.
Otherwise, shun the offer.
Rui
--
You are what you see.
Today is Boomtime, the 68th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 10:34:36AM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
On Oct 12, 9:37 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
*contain* code from
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
*contain* code from a GPL program?
Most rational people consider it so, but you seem to want legal advice
so I hope you follow the sane reasoning of taking the license to a
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 07:34:09AM +, Kenneth P. Turvey wrote:
I'm looking for examples of software licenses that allow the end user to
redistribute copies under the GPL after a specified amount of time has
passed. I think that Ghostscript used to be licensed like this, but I
can't seem
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
were widely touted as proof of its efficacy. One of these days
someone who is anti-GPL will find it advantageous enough to finally
swat that annoyance.
You mean, like Daniel anti-GPL lunatic Wallace?
Rui
--
You are what
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:37:23AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/sep/20/busybox/complaint.pdf
The complaint argues that Monsoon *lost* the rights to BusyBox code
the moment it shipped object code without offering the source code
also.
The
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 10:10:30AM -0400, rjack wrote:
Urban legends often suffer a slow, lingering death.
Lunatics with dual personality who poison interesting lists
like the rjack/Therekov robots (they even have the same writing style!)
often linger until the list they poison is dead.
Rui
--
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 03:59:31PM -0400, rjack wrote:
The SFLC is using threats of copyright infringement prosecution under
the GPL as a tactical matter to force Monsoon Multimedia to comply with
a contractual covenant.The SFLC will never allow a federal court to
examine the GPL on its
Ter, 2007-06-19 às 07:37 -0500, rjack escreveu:
When Joomla's Core Team announced its intentions to begin strict
enforcement of the GNU General Public License, software developers who
sell extensions started getting very worried. The problem in a nutshell:
adding a plug-in or extension to a
Seg, 2007-06-11 às 17:31 +, sourceview escreveu:
I must take exception to your initial ideological statement
(assumption of fact not proven) which states that most open source
software is gpled. I wholeheartedly disagree, and if we were to use
precise quantitative terms, the figure would
Seg, 2007-06-11 às 10:37 -0500, rjack escreveu:
Using anything beside a Free Software Foundation approved license is the
the equivalent of clubbing innocent baby seals.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070611082734557
Hah, how quickly you transform
Microsoft clubbing the Free
Qua, 2007-06-06 às 18:50 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
More from Carmony:
http://forum.freespire.org/showpost.php?p=63026postcount=35
--
We have customers who have switched from Linspire to Novell because
Novell offers patent protection with Microsoft. The FSF has been
Qui, 2007-05-31 às 12:16 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
For some years Microsoft's EULA removes your right to privacy. It also
explicitly allows Microsoft to inspect your premises for compliance, as
well as administrate your machines.
So then how is it just a copyright license, if you are
Qua, 2007-05-30 às 20:35 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
Can anyone tell a single right MS-EULA grants under copyright law which
YOU DON'T ALREADY HAVE? I can't see any...
And therefore it's NOT a copyright license but a dumb contract
that only creates MORE restrictions.
It's a copyright
Ter, 2007-05-29 às 10:15 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Contracts fall into contract law.
Copyright licenses fall into copyright law.
Repeating Moglen's idiocy doesn't make it less idiocy. Copyright law
establishes property rights. Licensing
Ter, 2007-05-29 às 12:45 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra writes:
Then you eventually buy your copyright license by buying a legitimate
copy (a book, a CD, etc...).
In the US no license is needed to buy, own, or use a legitimate copy of a
book, CD, etc. Copyright law
want to make copies beyond those permitted by law.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra writes:
Hello? Buying the book is precisely your license to that copy
Possession or sale of copies (copies are tangible objects) is not among the
exclusive rights of the copyright owner in the US. Therefor copyright
Dom, 2007-05-27 às 14:56 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
be described as a copyright license. In fact, most copyright licenses
--those between authors and publishers for example-- are contracts as well.
No, there are contracts where authors assign or even sell (in some
jurisdictions) their
Seg, 2007-05-28 às 12:05 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
Any response?
Please respond, I'd really like to know if I've finally gotten this
understood.
I already said in another email that I think you're starting to get it.
However, the way you write is so convoluted that it is hard for me to
Dom, 2007-05-27 às 11:54 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
On May 27, 4:09 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 18:44 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra writes:
No, the license is not a contract, it is a Copyright License.
He means
Seg, 2007-05-28 às 12:00 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
On May 27, 1:56 pm, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 writes:
But then when does [the Microsoft EULA] become a contract?
But I thought the license was too restrictive. Is that just because it
does not
_grant_ as many rights as,
Seg, 2007-05-28 às 12:04 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
And therefore the GPL is more of a copyright license, whereas the MS-
EULA
is more of a contract -- since the MS-EULA _takes away_ rights one
would
otherwise have, whereas the GPL _grants_ rights one would otherwise
_not_ have.
Why... I argue
Seg, 2007-05-28 às 14:43 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
mike3 writes:
So then Microsoft's agreement is not a good one.
That's up to the parties, isn't it? I certainly would not agree to it but
others are free to do as they please.
What is the freedom (wot?) of others to choose their slaver
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 17:22 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
On May 26, 5:30 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Better yet... Those transcripts usually come from the recordings. Hear
them.
Is that so hard?
They are long and I can't seem to find a direct, straight to the point
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 18:44 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra writes:
No, the license is not a contract, it is a Copyright License.
He means the Microsoft EULA, and yes, it is a contract and not a copyright
license. In order to be a copyright license it would have to yield
Your credibility was ruined long ago, and is only gone even deeper by
faking your email in order to get spam-bots onto my mail server.
STOP FAKING YOUR FROM ADDRESS
You DO NOT come from com.1407.org
Rui
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 12:07 +0200, David Kastrup escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your credibility was ruined long ago, and is only gone even deeper by
faking your email in order to get spam-bots onto my mail server.
STOP FAKING YOUR FROM ADDRESS
You DO
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 18:24 +0200, David Kastrup escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 12:07 +0200, David Kastrup escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your credibility was ruined long ago, and is only gone even deeper
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 18:40 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt escreveu:
David is correct, it is your setup that is b0rked. Here is the full
message with header and all. You can even look at ftp://lists.gnu.org
and see how it is handled for the mailing lists.
Explain how come my MTA *rejects* [EMAIL
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 11:27 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
I see From: rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] reading via Usenet. If I was
receiving the
mailing list I would see From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] but I would not be
disturbed because I know how my email software works.
My MTA rejects [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 20:59 +0200, David Kastrup escreveu:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sonny! Uncle Hasler has spoken!
John Hasler wrote:
David Kastrup writes:
An illegal document? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the
GPL, but this is the first time
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 19:56 +0200, David Kastrup escreveu:
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suspect one reason Eben Moglen is leaving the Free Software
Foundation prior to official adoption of the GPL3 is due to concerns
about it's illegality. A suit against the FSF for the above cited
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 12:16 -0500, rjack escreveu:
Now I'm not such a bad guy after all am I?
You're a complete dimwit second personality of Alexander Terekhov.
Rui
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 13:37 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
(...)
the GPL program, but of software in general. However it would
be unreasonable to include a demand that in exchange for using
a GPL program at all then one must make _all_ software they
are developing free (as then it becomes a contract),
Sex, 2007-05-25 às 13:50 -0500, rjack escreveu:
...
I reject that rjack is on 1407.org domain.
Rui
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
signature.asc
Seg, 2007-05-21 às 20:40 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
On May 21, 4:46 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
mike3 writes:
A GPL program, which is NOT mine, and an original program (my own
get it?, code) which IS mine.
The combination of your
Ter, 2007-05-22 às 10:07 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt escreveu:
But what is the _rationale_ for this, then? What is the _rationale_
for you not being allowed to separately distribute the portion that
is entirely yours (ie. that you made)?
You can separately distribute the portion, but
Dom, 2007-05-20 às 18:50 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
On Apr 7, 1:43 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You cannot steal code, so such an analogy is without a point.
But you can still infringe the copyright.
That's what's being discussed.
Then why don't you talk about that, instead of
Seg, 2007-05-21 às 13:21 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
On May 21, 8:11 am, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You cannot steal code, so such an analogy is without a point.
But you can still infringe the copyright. That's what's being
discussed.
No, what was being discussed
Sáb, 2007-05-19 às 17:29 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
And you're just stupid. Well, when are we going to see Eben finally
going to court against Microsoft? Interestingly, his latest amicus
was in support of Microsoft in the case that saved MS billions in
current (no less than 60% of
Sex, 2007-04-27 às 14:44 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
Take a look at RedHat
IPO scam money aside for a moment, let's see...
1997: net loss1318 (-)
1998: net loss3738 (-)
1999: net loss6388 (-)
2000: net loss 43053 (-)
2001: net
Sex, 2007-04-27 às 17:21 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
Dunno why I bother, but... RedHat does far more software development
than Adobe. ^
|
Seg, 2007-04-09 às 00:28 +0900, Byung-Hee HWANG escreveu:
I am from Korea. I had studied GNU from my friend who was a member of
a small local's Linux User Group (LUG). But...
.. Still I do not understand GNU. That is why I
subscribe here
Qua, 2007-03-28 às 14:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
P.S. To mini-RMS: piss off you first sale is not distributing
clinical case.
I never said that. What I said is that First Sale doesn't relate to
distributing copies you make from your copy. If it did, I double dare
you into offering
Ter, 2007-03-27 às 12:20 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[snip bullshit]
Yada, yada, yada. As if first sale (copyright exhaustion in EU
speak) were nonexistent not only in the GNU Republic but everywhere.
Only if you distribute, or convey, or whatever, in the
Ter, 2007-03-27 às 14:30 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As if first sale (copyright exhaustion in EU
speak) were nonexistent
Well, I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not going to check with a
lawyer
Ter, 2007-03-27 às 13:56 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yada, yada, yada. As if first sale (copyright exhaustion in EU
speak) were nonexistent not only in the GNU Republic but
Sex, 2007-03-16 às 15:11 +0800, Koh Choon Lin escreveu:
Linux is complicated even for the most advanced users.
It should be named GNU/Linux.
He basically said two false facts, so hey, I just deleted that mail.
Rui
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever
On Sáb, 2007-03-10 at 14:39 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. Note, however, that you will be distributing foo and will have to
comply with the terms of its license.
allright how bout if i have the user go and install said tool and i do
NOT include it with my distribution? in my
On Sáb, 2007-03-10 at 17:13 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
work. Read the GPL.
And I seriously suggest any and all to be very wary of any Alexander
Terekhov posts. He reacts like a robot to certain keywords by spilling
out pseudo-legal gibberish that totally disregards the law and it's
spirit, as
Dom, 2007-01-07 às 12:16 +0100, Merijn de Weerd escreveu:
On 2007-01-07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you considered why not? Red Hat doesn't seem to have much trouble
doing so.
Red Hat makes money by selling software that other people wrote.
I doubt they make
Qui, 2006-12-28 às 11:03 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels escreveu:
On 27 Dec 2006 21:07:02 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to those anti-swpatent folks vocoder would be unpatentable
today...
Overstating the case (like some of the anti-swpatent folk) doesn't
help.
Of course, a
Qui, 2006-12-28 às 12:13 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra escreveu:
criteria. Nevertheless, the software component can't be patented, as
declared in most countries patent law (only a few, like the US, are in
violation of TRIPS, at least according to my interpretation which sees
software
Qui, 2006-12-28 às 15:52 +0100, Merijn de Weerd escreveu:
On 2006-12-28, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Qui, 2006-12-28 =C3=A0s 12:13 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra escreveu:
criteria. Nevertheless, the software component can't be patented, as
declared in most countries
Qui, 2006-12-28 às 17:32 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels escreveu:
The EPO is already doing a great job as far as software patents are
concerned.
And you are an authority on these matters.
No, but the EPO is, an they declared about 30 thousand software patents
circa 2002.
Most programmers
Qui, 2006-12-28 às 18:14 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels escreveu:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:50:35 +
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Qui, 2006-12-28 às 17:32 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels escreveu:
The EPO is already doing a great job as far as software patents
are concerned
oops, one more thread to the kill list.
Go drop dead rjack/Alex simbionte. I get confused, which double
personality are you now, really?
Conspiration-theory nuts like you only tend to bother people.
Qua, 2006-12-20 às 20:30 +0100, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Just a subject change. Unpaid
Seg, 2006-12-18 às 00:34 -0800, Regis escreveu:
Search for computer implemented invention
At the EPO, software as such is also not patentable, but a computer
implemented invention can be patentable if it provides a technical
effect that goes further to the normal functions of the computer
;-)
1 - 100 of 213 matches
Mail list logo
