RJack writes:
> I have been poking around in the source code for BusyBox,
> v.0.60.3. and unsurprisingly most every thing in the those command
> line utilities are substantially similar to the old BSD4.4-lite
> tree. Not only are the defendants Best But et. al. not guilty of
> infringing Erik And
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>
> > Hey stupid dak, here's a nice post on sublicensing. Hth.
> >
> > http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=296845&cid=20592673
> > (IANAL, but I actually agree with Theo)
> >
> > "... Here are specific points I would make:
> >
> > 1) While
Hey stupid dak, here's a nice post on sublicensing. Hth.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=296845&cid=20592673
(IANAL, but I actually agree with Theo)
"... Here are specific points I would make:
1) While the BSDL and related licenses clearly do not have the intent to
force sharing of code,
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > (Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis)
> >
> > "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to sublicense
> > is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208
> > USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). "
>
> What about "Absent
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > (Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis)
>> >
>> > "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to sublicense
>> > is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208
>> > USPQ (BNA) 699 (E
RJack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> RJack writes:
>>
>>> I have been poking around in the source code for BusyBox, v.0.60.3.
>>> and unsurprisingly most every thing in the those command line
>>> utilities are substantially similar to the old BSD4.4-lite tree.
>>> Not only are the defendants
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> The creator of a derivative work may license his work in any way
> he chooses, and the BSD license does not forbid that.
Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain
licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on
binary-only for
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>Hadron quacked:
>
>> David Kastrup writes:
>>
>>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain
licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on
binary-only form) and not hijacked by the
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:22:52 -0500, RJack wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> David Kastrup writes:
>>>
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:
>>> That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights an
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:
That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and
cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright.
Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting
to
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Hadron wrote:
David Kastrup writes:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:
That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and
cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a
copyright. Releasing BSD licensed c
I have been poking around in the source code for BusyBox, v.0.60.3. and
unsurprisingly most every thing in the those command line utilities are
substantially similar to the old BSD4.4-lite tree. Not only are the
defendants Best But et. al. not guilty of infringing Erik Andersen's
source code but
On 3/22/2010 4:23 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain
licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on
binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL
Really? The Open Source Initiative says a BSD license looks
like th
On 3/22/2010 4:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain
licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on
binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron Hyman.
Really? The Open Source Initiative says a
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical
>> terms.
>
> It doesn't permit sublicensing at all you retard dak.
>
> http://books.google.de/books?id=OCGsutgMdPIC&pg=SA4-PA42&lpg=SA4-PA42&dq=sublicensing+explicit+gr
RJack writes:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:
>>> That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot
>>> be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing
>>> BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it.
>>
>> BSD-li
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack writes:
I have been poking around in the source code for BusyBox,
v.0.60.3. and unsurprisingly most every thing in the those
command line utilities are substantially similar to the old
BSD4.4-lite tree. Not only are the defendan
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/22/2010 4:23 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must
remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions
imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL
Really? The Open Source Initiative says a BSD l
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> >> > Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html
> >> >> > (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte)
> >> >>
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> >> > Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html
>> >> > (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte)
>> >> >
>> >> > "(1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließ
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> Hey stupid dak, here's a nice post on sublicensing. Hth.
>
> http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=296845&cid=20592673
> (IANAL, but I actually agree with Theo)
>
> "... Here are specific points I would make:
>
> 1) While the BSDL and related licenses clearly do not
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack writes:
I have been poking around in the source code for BusyBox, v.0.60.3.
and unsurprisingly most every thing in the those command line
utilities are substantially similar to the old BSD4.4-lite tree.
Not only are the defendants Best But et. al. not guilty of
infr
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> >> > Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html
> >> > (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte)
> >> >
> >> > "(1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere
> >
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>
>> > RJack wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Substitute the words "tranfer of contractual interest" for "sub-license"
>> >> so that you will no longer sound utterly confused DAK.
>> >>
>> >> Are you having a problem un
On 3/22/2010 4:35 PM, RJack wrote:
No matter what you say or how many time you say it, BSD licensed code
remains under the BSD license and not the GPL license.
Derivative works of BSD-licensed code may be otherwise licensed.
Indeed, that's why anti-GPL cranks think it's a superior license.
In
On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:
That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be
licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD
licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it.
BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivativ
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> > 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses
>> > are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense
>> > rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee).
>>
>> The GPL is used for d
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>
> > RJack wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Substitute the words "tranfer of contractual interest" for "sub-license"
> >> so that you will no longer sound utterly confused DAK.
> >>
> >> Are you having a problem understanding the concept of "transfer of
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Ein Recht zur Lizenzierung von Dritten muss deshalb zwischen dem
> Urheber und dem Inhaber des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes
> ausdrücklich vereinbart werden
>
> Which
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> RJack wrote:
> [...]
>> Substitute the words "tranfer of contractual interest" for "sub-license"
>> so that you will no longer sound utterly confused DAK.
>>
>> Are you having a problem understanding the concept of "transfer of
>> contractual interest" when it concer
RJack wrote:
[...]
> Substitute the words "tranfer of contractual interest" for "sub-license"
> so that you will no longer sound utterly confused DAK.
>
> Are you having a problem understanding the concept of "transfer of
> contractual interest" when it concerns a non-exclusive copyright license?
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > Under the German copyright act ONLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES CAN
>> > SUBLICENSE.
>>
>> Wrong. You still don't get it. Exclusive licensees _automatically_
>> receive the right to sublicense.
>
> Not automatically, dummkopf dak.
>
> ht
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
David Kastrup wrote: [...]
http://www.lehrer-online.de/dyn/bin/366209-369076-1-uebertragung_von_nutzungsrechten.pdf
"Inhabern ausschließlicher Nutzungsrechte vorbehalten
Die Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten ist allerdings dem
Inhaber eines
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Under the German copyright act ONLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES CAN
> > SUBLICENSE.
>
> Wrong. You still don't get it. Exclusive licensees _automatically_
> receive the right to sublicense.
Not automatically, dummkopf dak.
http://www.it-recht-kanzlei.de/index.php?id=%
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > http://www.lehrer-online.de/dyn/bin/366209-369076-1-uebertragung_von_nutzungsrechten.pdf
>> >
>> > "Inhabern ausschließlicher Nutzungsrechte vorbehalten
>> >
>> > Die Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten ist allerdings dem Inhaber
>> >
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > http://www.lehrer-online.de/dyn/bin/366209-369076-1-uebertragung_von_nutzungsrechten.pdf
> >
> > "Inhabern ausschließlicher Nutzungsrechte vorbehalten
> >
> > Die Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten ist allerdings dem Inhaber
> > eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechte
RJack wrote:
[...]
> None of those *six* things involve "authorizing" others to "authorize".
> You're seeing double dear DAK.
Dak is of opinion that the BSDL is a sort of
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/law/Poa/index.shtml (POA with the entire world
named as an attoney in fact LOL) authorizing GNUtains to
Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:
> > That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be
> > licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD
> > licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it.
>
> BSD-licensed code give
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> Can you quote the BSDL's arrangement regarding sublicensing, stupid
> dak?
I already quoted the BSDL with regard to the conditions under which is
allows copying and modification. Those are not in conflict with
licensing the resulting whole work (and it would be pret
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>
> > For silly dak, info in German...
> >
> > http://www.patente-stuttgart.de/index.php?page=literatur&page2=aufsatzlizenz1
> >
> > "Eine weitere Lizenzart ist die Unterlizenz. Hierbei leitet der
> > Lizenznehmer sein Benutzungsrecht von eine
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> You are confused. If I am the owner of a horse, I can authorize someone
>> else to sell it, even though ownership gives _me_ the exclusive right.
>>
>> The whole point of authorization is to enable someone to act in one's
>> behalf.
>
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> For silly dak, info in German...
>
> http://www.patente-stuttgart.de/index.php?page=literatur&page2=aufsatzlizenz1
>
> "Eine weitere Lizenzart ist die Unterlizenz. Hierbei leitet der
> Lizenznehmer sein Benutzungsrecht von einem anderen Lizenznehmer ab, der
> seinerse
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
David Kastrup wrote: [...]
BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to
identical terms.
"Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to
sublicense is generally presumed.5 ... 5 R
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> You are confused. If I am the owner of a horse, I can authorize someone
> else to sell it, even though ownership gives _me_ the exclusive right.
>
> The whole point of authorization is to enable someone to act in one's
> behalf.
Uh retard dak.
http://en.wikipedia.o
For silly dak, info in German...
http://www.patente-stuttgart.de/index.php?page=literatur&page2=aufsatzlizenz1
"Eine weitere Lizenzart ist die Unterlizenz. Hierbei leitet der
Lizenznehmer sein Benutzungsrecht von einem anderen Lizenznehmer ab, der
seinerseits mit dem Patentinhaber einen Lizenzver
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> RJack wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English language
>
> Best of dak's moronity this week thus far:
>
> "as opposed to patents, copyright applies to rights connected with
> physical copies. "
Perhaps you should make yourse
RJack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup wrote: [...]
BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical
terms.
>>>
>>> "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to
>>> sublicense is generally presumed.5 ..
RJack wrote:
[...]
> Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English language
Best of dak's moronity this week thus far:
"as opposed to patents, copyright applies to rights connected with
physical copies. "
LMAO!
regards,
alexander.
P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set u
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical
> terms.
It doesn't permit sublicensing at all you retard dak.
http://books.google.de/books?id=OCGsutgMdPIC&pg=SA4-PA42&lpg=SA4-PA42&dq=sublicensing+explicit+grant&source=bl&ots=JRQwZdnHUl&sig=0b5RXRL
To clarify: I meant intangible (misspelled it as "intagable") silly dak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
> >
> > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> >
> > > David Kastrup wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > 2) Copyright law seems even in the US
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> > 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses
> >> > are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense
> >> > rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a
chrisv wrote:
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Hadron quacked:
David Kastrup writes:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must
remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions
imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL
retards
On 3/22/2010 7:20 PM, RJack wrote:
U.S. copyright law doesn't recognize moral rights.
Exactly. That's the point.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
David Kastrup wrote: [...]
BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to
identical terms.
It doesn't permit sublicensing at all you retard dak.
http://books.google.de/books?id=OCGsutgMdPIC&pg=SA4-PA42&lpg=SA4-PA42&dq=sublicensing+ex
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>
>> On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:
>> > That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be
>> > licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD
>> > licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to st
David Kastrup writes:
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>
>> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:
>>> > That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be
>>> > licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD
>>> > licensed code under t
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:
That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot
be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing
BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it.
BSD-licensed code gives others the right
Hadron wrote:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>
>>> Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:
> That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot
> be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing
58 matches
Mail list logo
