After takin' a swig o' grog, Alexander Terekhov belched out this bit o' wisdom:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
A: The context is property. Intangible intellectual property (rights granted
under IP license). Property in short.
Bt.
A: Cost to obtain EXISTING property on buyer's side. Price
Qui, 2006-06-29 às 19:52 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt escreveu:
Yes. If you buy a book, you can sell your copy. That is what first
sale is about - the copyright holder can control copying, but once
a copy has been sold (lawfully acquired), the copyright holder
cannot control what is
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Apropos preemption...
Looks like Wallace is going to end up in the Supreme Court with that.
Got some inquiries about Wallace's case off-band.
Wallace's case QA for dummies:
Q: What the fuck ... !?
A: The context is property. Intangible intellectual property
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Actually, what Therekov forgets is that First Sale would apply to the
plastic, and not to the content inside it. Alas. He's so... Therekov!
Huh? What do you mean by the content inside of it?
--
--Tim Smith
1. Party A makes a GPL'ed program available, on two CDs. One
has the program in binary form, and one has the source.
2. Party B obtains these CDs, and having no interest in the
source code, gives the source CD away, or perhaps discards it.
3. Later, Party B no
Moglen makes extraordinary claims about the GPL, so why doesn't he come
forward with the appropriate legal citations?
There are not any - no one so far has had the guts to say to Eb - 'see
you in court'.
Moglen is a J.D. with a
Ph.D. in history and not an LL.M.
So how did he get admitted to
ROFL.
Uh.
peterwn wrote:
Moglen makes extraordinary claims about the GPL, so why doesn't he come
forward with the appropriate legal citations?
There are not any - no one so far has had the guts to say to Eb - 'see
you in court'.
Moglen is a J.D. with a
Ph.D. in history and not
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
peterwn wrote:
[...]
He would not even be accepted as qualified for Professorship at
many institutions.
Name a few examples - Yale? Harvard? No, it cannot be Harvard - he
had a visiting professorship there. Perhaps some third rate
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:34:35 +0200 (CEST)
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
1. Party A makes a GPL'ed program available, on two CDs. One
has the program in binary form, and one has the source.
2. Party B obtains these CDs, and
Apropos preemption...
Looks like Wallace is going to end up in the Supreme Court with that.
--
In addition to statutory preemption, preemption under the Supremacy
Clause of the Constitution must be examined. Even if a particular cause
of action survives a 301 preemption analysis...it still
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Your GPL theories, of course. The very few cases where people indeed
go before court in relation to the GPL (instead of settling) end up in
ways where you all bristle about how the judges must have been drunk.
Uh. Thus far, no court had a chance to address the GPL
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Apropos preemption...
Looks like Wallace is going to end up in the Supreme Court with that.
We'll see about that. Your predictions have not really been too much
on the spot.
I've predicted that he would go to
begin oe_protect.scr
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] espoused:
ROFL.
Uh.
peterwn wrote:
It is well known that the Free Software Foundation does not hold
copyright in the Linux system kernel program.
Liar.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sco/sco-v-ibm.html
The Foundation
What is relevant is first sale. That is, the owner of a lawful copy has
the right to sell that copy. Thus, the sale can take place without
accepting the license.
Are you sure?
| 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
|signed it. However, nothing else
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:31:18 +0200
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[... first sale ...]
In the absence of clear definitions, the interpretations of the
courts become crucial.
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:52:37 +0200 (CEST)
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alfred, please don't send me copies of messages that are also sent
to the group. Unless you mark the post Posted and Mailed or
suchlike, it's against netiquette.
It is commont netiquette to CC
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
1. Party A makes a GPL'ed program available, on two CDs. One
has the program in binary form, and one has the source.
2. Party B obtains these CDs, and having no interest in the
source code, gives the source CD
On 2006-06-28, Karen Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think, of the 500 distributions tracked by DistroWatch, probably 450
of them are in trouble right now per this position., says Warren
Woodford, founder of the Memphis Linux distro.
How on earth is this news? This has been a requirement
Karen Hill wrote:
I think, of the 500 distributions tracked by DistroWatch, probably 450
of them are in trouble right now per this position.,
Criminal penalties (costs plus attorney's fees in a civil action aside for
a moment), per FSF's own theory of enforcement through cause of action
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Karen Hill wrote:
I think, of the 500 distributions tracked by DistroWatch, probably 450
of them are in trouble right now per this position.,
Criminal penalties (costs plus attorney's fees in a civil action aside for
a moment), per FSF's own
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But there are no consensual agreements in case of the GPL because the
consent of the recipient is never actually elicited.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
Tom Shelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the confusion about this was because this is a dirivative
distro... And since they were distributing binaries that were
unchanged from the parent distro, they thought they were covered by
the fact that the parent distro offered source. In other
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Sorry, dak. (Oh dear, I still can't believe that you now realize that
Moglen is a bullshit rapper.)
You are fantasizing. Again: [... nonsense ...]
I'm not. Moglen is a bullshit rapper.
-
LWN: So, if the kernel is covered solely by the GPL, you would see
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The idea of the FSF is that you get access to the source together with
the binaries.
That's an idea, but its implementation is totally busted (outside the
GNU Republic).
Oh dear. Once again: I've got a CD full of GPL'd binaries (and no
source code on it at all)
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
There is nothing in a carrot that says that a person is not the owner
of the carrot. Establishing ownership is a separate process.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf
What it says is that even under contractual restrictions of statutory
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify AND
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.
Well, since you are talking about modification AND distribution,
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify AND
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.
Well, since you are
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup wrote:
What happened to under the terms of this license? Well, it is nothing
we really need to worry about too much, agreed, since those terms include
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it.
Without
Bah, yet another brainwashed GNUtian. Tasty, tasty.
peterwn wrote:
[... license not a contract ...]
Note that Eben Moglen is an Ivy League law professor
Risk of disbarment aside for a moment, Eben can disagree with the
entire US federal judiciary and professional lawyers hired to defend
Apropos preemption...
IBM's argument:
as is evident from the ProCD case Plaintiff cites, copyrights may be
licensed by a uniform contract effective against all who choose to use
it. (Response at 6) (citing ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447,
1454 (7th Cir.1996).) The court in ProCD held
30 matches
Mail list logo
