> http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html
Because the deterrent effect of denying the right to have and use and
distribute free software is not enough in and of itself to break most
patent aggression schemes. Where we have satisfied ourself that narrow
targeted patent retal
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html
>
> --
> This would not be a presentation about the GPL by me if emphasis was not
> placed on what you see before you now. This license is
>
> "Not a Contract.
>
> You are not required to accept this
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> http://gplv3.fsf.org/av
Transcripts:
http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html
--
This would not be a presentation about the GPL by me if emphasis was not
placed on what you see before you now. This license is
"Not a Contract.
You are not
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Then it does not make sense that you just throw in a quote as your
> sole contribution.
Yet another malfunction of dak's sense barometer. NAD. WAD.
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Uh, you are being confused.
>> >
>> > Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is
>> > the author.
>>
>>
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Uh, you are being confused.
> >
> > Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is
> > the author.
>
> So you disagree with him and still quite him?
I partly agr
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Uh, you are being confused.
>
> Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is
> the author.
So you disagree with him and still quite him?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/12/linux_gpl30_letters/
Regarding
-
Since when has he felt like that. Last time I remembered, the kernel
people (including Linus) were real big on being the superior software
Gods. Isn't that why we can't have binary mod
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Uh, you are being confused.
Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is the
author.
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinf
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The thing is, apart from the obvious weaknesses about making a lot
> of ballyhoo about a clanking Unix clone, it's a complete work of
> hypocrisy. Lots of huge corporations pour fortunes into OSS
> development like Oracle and HP into software like
(I've been quoting http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/87land1.html)
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 18:39 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > The dynamic benefit of a property
> > right is the incentive that the right imparts to invest i
day5done commented...
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Just to stress...
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> [...]
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/
> >
> > LWN: A while back, you said something about getting an answer from
> > Linus on the Linux kernel license. Since there is a COPYING file
> > that
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:27:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Isaac wrote:
> [...]
>> It's not a mistake. Preaching the gospel of first sale according to
>> Alexander
>> appears to be a life mission.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/e123816845315e
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:39:25 +0100:
> > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I know GPL-bashing is a hobby of yours, but most hobbyists develop
> > some skills after a time. You do the same mistakes all over again
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:39:25 +0100:
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know GPL-bashing is a hobby of yours, but most hobbyists develop
> some skills after a time. You do the same mistakes all over again.
David, a small linguistic point:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Nonsense. No contract has been formed. The only claim you can make
> is for violation of copyright. And that's exactly what has been done
> in all cases of pursued GPL violations.
Why don't you quote those cases? Preferably the judges. But feel free
to quote plain
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Conditional authorization does not magically turn into
>> unconditional authorization.
>
> A promise on my part to forbear from distribution right under first
> sale and instead do what you decree is a covenant, not
Isaac wrote:
[...]
> It's not a mistake. Preaching the gospel of first sale according to Alexander
> appears to be a life mission.
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/e123816845315e68
>What about the first sale doctrine? Indeed, if users own their own
>copies, including binary
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Conditional authorization does not magically turn into unconditional
> authorization.
A promise on my part to forbear from distribution right under first
sale and instead do what you decree is a covenant, not a condition.
And it has really nothing to do with copyrig
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:03:02 +0100, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>> [...]
>>> > What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
>>> > sale.
>>>
>>> Sure, but there has been no unconditional aut
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
>> > sale.
>>
>> Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are
>> talking about distribution of unauthorized copies.
>
> The ac
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
> > sale.
>
> Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are
> talking about distribution of unauthorized copies.
The act of distribution doesn't turn authorized copies into
unau
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Quite so. You can merely recoup damages for the breach of copyright,
>
> What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
> sale.
Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Quite so. You can merely recoup damages for the breach of copyright,
What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
sale.
Oh, BTW, be advised that if Wallace won't succeed in US, I'll
invite him to Germany.
http://www.allenovery.com/asp/pdf/gerco
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Nope. It gives you additional rights depending on conditions. You
> can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave
> it be. No contract. There is no obligation to accept the conditions.
^^^
Your ignorance works against you
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Nope. It gives you additional rights depending on conditions. You
>> can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave
>> it be. No contract. There is no obligation to accept the conditions.
>
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally
>> > OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on
>> > another computer at my
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally
> > OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on
> > another computer at my dacha. The key is that I can't legaly run it
> > simul
Isaac wrote:
[...]
> While it's true that some courts have decided that, the majority position
> seems to be otherwise. I'm not sure which court decision that line is
> from, but I suspect we can find decisions from other district courts
> in CA contrary to this one.
Regarding 17 USC 117, take a
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally
> OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on
> another computer at my dacha. The key is that I can't legaly run it
> simultaneously on multiple computers if I
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:10:17 +0100, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Isaac wrote:
> [...]
>> I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy
>> of software rather than having license it. Courts in the US don't
>> seem to recognize such a thing.
>
> "Othe
Isaac wrote:
[...]
> I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy
> of software rather than having license it. Courts in the US don't
> seem to recognize such a thing.
"Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold
and not licensed."
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:00:56 -0600, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isaac writes:
>> 17 USC 117 is a limitation on the copyright holders rights that allows an
>> owner of a copy of software to make copies necessary to install and run
>> software without having any permission from the copyr
Isaac writes:
> 17 USC 117 is a limitation on the copyright holders rights that allows an
> owner of a copy of software to make copies necessary to install and run
> software without having any permission from the copyright holder.
Not "copies". _"Copy"_. And one installation. Note the wording:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:18:06 -0600, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> US copyright law does not allow installation on more than one computer at a
>> time without permission of the copyright owner.
>
> Isaac writes:
>> What provision of US copyright law says this?
>
> Title 17
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 18:39 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> The dynamic benefit of a property
> right is the incentive that the right imparts to invest in the
> creation or improvement of a resource .
> ..
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 16:52 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >
> > [... "monopoly" ...]
> >
> > William M. Landes and Richard Posner:
> >
> > -
> > A property right is a legally enforceable power to exclude others
> > fro
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 16:52 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> [... "monopoly" ...]
>
> William M. Landes and Richard Posner:
>
> -
> A property right is a legally enforceable power to exclude others
> from using a resource, without need to contract with t
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[... "monopoly" ...]
William M. Landes and Richard Posner:
-
A property right is a legally enforceable power to exclude others
from using a resource, without need to contract with them. So if A
owns a pasture, he can forbid others to graze their cattle on it
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 14:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > Copyright is a monopoly over the distribution of a work
>
> All property rights imply some form of ownership ("monopoly" in GNU
> speak) on enjoyment and exploitation of property.
But copyr
I wrote:
> US copyright law does not allow installation on more than one computer at a
> time without permission of the copyright owner.
Isaac writes:
> What provision of US copyright law says this?
Title 17 Chapter 1 § 106 (1)
> I don't see such a limit in 17 USC 117.
§ 117 is a limitation
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> Copyright is a monopoly over the distribution of a work
All property rights imply some form of ownership ("monopoly" in GNU
speak) on enjoyment and exploitation of property. But distribution
right is severely limited by first sale (which is nonexistent in
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 12:57 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11969361.htm
> (Governments can seize private land, high court rules)
There are certain extreme situations where a Government can *seize*
(which is an extreme and unexpected case, not the resu
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:41 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Error no.1: it's not "intellectual property" but copyright that's being
> > > discussed
> >
> > Copyright is a form of property
>
> No. It is an arti
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:41 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > Error no.1: it's not "intellectual property" but copyright that's being
> > discussed
>
> Copyright is a form of property
No. It is an artificial government granted temporary monopoly over a
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> Error no.1: it's not "intellectual property" but copyright that's being
> discussed
Copyright is a form of property which, like physical property, can be
bought or sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise transferred, wholly or
in part. Accordingly, some or
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 19:18 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Wallace on predatory pricing:
>
> ---
> Predatory pricing
>
> The GPL establishes a predatory pricing scheme. Setting the maximum
> price of intellectual property at “no charge” removes all motive to
> compete.
Error no.1: it's n
Wallace on injury and standing:
---
III. Accompanying Injury
Plaintiff Daniel Wallace has alleged market foreclosure and denial of
opportunity to enter into competition with his own operating system
product:
The Defendant's pooling and cross licensing of intellectual property
with the descr
Wallace concludes:
---
Conclusion
The plaintiff Daniel Wallace in his Complaint has directly or
inferentially alleged that the defendants have:
(1) used an express contractual agreement to conspire with named
co-conspirators and;
(2) engaged in an unreasonable restraint of trade by pooling
in
John Hasler wrote:
>
> > Portuguese Judges wouldn't show such a high level of tolerance
> > against people who make fun of the Judicial system as Wallace is
> > doing.
>
> There are rules for dealing with frivolous litigants.
>
> I think Wallace is quite serious (though loony), and I think th
Wallace on predatory pricing:
---
Predatory pricing
The GPL establishes a predatory pricing scheme. Setting the maximum
price of intellectual property at no charge removes all motive to
compete. The Supreme Court has analyzed predatory pricing in a Sherman
Act § 1 civil action:
[T]his is
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:50:56 -0600, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rui writes:
>> That's almost all you get as far as your money is concerned. Then
>> there's this license, that restricts your rights even more by forbidding
>> private copying (install on no more than one computer at a ti
Hey dak, have some fun. The gang at ifross in action.
http://www.heise.de/ct/06/04/046/
For English-only readers:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=de_en&trurl=http://www.heise.de/ct/06/04/046/
-
GPLv3 - Legislation in contract form
[...]
Penetration in danger?
oaky wrote:
[...]
> A protocol exchange would qualify (in Moglen's world) as an example
> of "exchanging complex internal data structures", like a GPL'd
> daemon talking with a proprietary client app or vice-a-versa.
Exactly.
http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?bw.022702/2205822
German GNUtian dak didn't answer "yes or no" question regarding
Welte attorneys (the gang at ifross) wild fantasies that the GPL
is a contract coupled with AGB based on German concept of
conditions subsequent.
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David
-
As to the definition of "derivative work," the uncertainty is
experienced by those who would like to make proprietary uses of
GPL'd code, and are unsure whether a particular way of making a
proprietary enhancement to a free work will certainly or only
arguably infringe the free developer's co
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it
>
> Sitecom didn't bothered. So what?
If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded
without waiting for an injunction, wou
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it
Sitecom didn't bothered. So what?
> would seem like it would have to be printed on _very_ expensive paper
> in order to be worth less than that.
Oh dear. I take it that you agree that the GPL is
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>Recent court decisions in Germany?
>
>http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf
>
> You are confusing a `critique' of a court decision, and the actual
> court decision.
That utterly defective "judgement" (keep in mind that the con
> Portuguese Judges wouldn't show such a high level of tolerance against
> people who make fun of the Judicial system as Wallace is doing.
There are rules for dealing with frivolous litigants.
I think Wallace is quite serious (though loony), and I think that the judge
thinks he is serious, too.
Recent court decisions in Germany?
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf
You are confusing a `critique' of a court decision, and the actual
court decision. The courts decision was in favour of the GPL.
In short, what Moglen says is perfectly correct, and what
Just to stress...
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/
>
> LWN: A while back, you said something about getting an answer from
> Linus on the Linux kernel license. Since there is a COPYING file
> that makes it clear that the kernel is governed under the GPL,
> where's
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 23:59 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sources.d/msg/3c633bf50d950b8c
> > >
> > > (early Rahul Dhesi, before he was brainwashed by GNU)
> >
> > You mean that people can't know better and learn
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sources.d/msg/3c633bf50d950b8c
> >
> > (early Rahul Dhesi, before he was brainwashed by GNU)
>
> You mean that people can't know better and learn in almost 20 years?
Know better what? The FSF hired lawyers are telling t
Rui writes:
> That's almost all you get as far as your money is concerned. Then
> there's this license, that restricts your rights even more by forbidding
> private copying (install on no more than one computer at a time)
US copyright law does not allow installation on more than one computer at a
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 21:21 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> [...]
> > Over and out. Let the Terekhov quote-script have the last word.
>
> Thanks.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sources.d/msg/3c633bf50d950b8c
>
> (early Rahul Dhesi, before he was brainwashed by G
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is at it again:
>>
>> [ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ]
>> [ 2 meaningless lines of original content ]
And he follows up with 48 more lines of quoted content!
Does anybody remember the zumabot? We seem t
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 18:28 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> - When you get GNU software by anonymous ftp, *there is no contract*
> and you have no legal right to use it. You are granted rights by the
> GPL that you did not have, but these are not legal rights, because
> you cannot enter i
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is at it again:
>
> [ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ]
> [ 2 meaningless lines of original content ]
Hey Rahul, but the most charming piece regarding GNUtian legal system
from you is this:
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.di
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is at it again:
[ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ]
[ 2 meaningless lines of original content ]
Do we see a pattern here? We have here a person who pokes around
apparently all day, every day, on Google, finds stuff and repeatedly
reposts it into misc.int-pro
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [ 26 lines of quoted text ]
> [ 4 lines of erroneous original content ]
> [ 49 lines of quoted text ]
> [ 4 lines of signature ]
I gather that GNUtians have sometimes problems with simple counting. Oh
BTW, Rahul, y'know
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ 26 lines of quoted text ]
[ 4 lines of erroneous original content ]
[ 49 lines of quoted text ]
[ 4 lines of signature ]
How about writing something useful yourself, instead of merely posting
repeated citations of what others have written? Your mi
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were
> pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't
> link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or
> statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary
Where in the GPL does it permit for charging a fee for the binary
distribution of a GPL'd work? For example:
Section 1:
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
code as you receive it You may charge a fee for the physical act of
transferring a copy and you may
When ICE Miller stated in Wallace V FSF that "contract terms apply" it
made me go back and see what are the contract terms. The following,
like all GPL things, is quite complicated, and raises some interesting
questions.
Remember, though, the plain language of the contract applies now, so
this i
Lee Hollaar wrote:
>
> In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain
> >within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised,
> >but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the
> >lic
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> > You're a brainwashed GNUtian. Of course it doesn't make sense to you.
>
> Geez, I guess I must be... I don't remember the brainwashing sessions,
Of course you don't remember.
> so there's your proof :)
A whole bunch of proofs can be found in the archive
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> The only real difference is that the later make sense...
You're a brainwashed GNUtian. Of course it doesn't make sense to you.
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 20:46 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > The only real difference is that the later make sense...
>
> You're a brainwashed GNUtian. Of course it doesn't make sense to you.
Geez, I guess I must be... I don't remember the brainwashing
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 10:31 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alex,
Your mental diarrhea very closely touches the boundaries of of all those
"buy cialis" spam mails.
The only real difference is that the later make sense...
Rui
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
FSF's brief #37 in Wallace v FSF:
> In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software
> copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the
> GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed
> under the GPL: "I
:-)
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
I'm sorry for spam, it was due to misusage of an agent.
Rui
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 22:49 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf
>
> Terekhov likes to quote material without having actually read it
> himself. Wallace more or less claims that the GNU GPL allows for
> price fixing, more exactly, that it re
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 22:49 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf
>
> Terekhov likes to quote material without having actually read it
> himself. Wallace more or less claims that the GNU GPL allows for
> price fixing, more exactly, that it req
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 22:49 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf
>
> Terekhov likes to quote material without having actually read it
> himself. Wallace more or less claims that the GNU GPL allows for
> price fixing, more exactly, that it re
http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf
Terekhov likes to quote material without having actually read it
himself. Wallace more or less claims that the GNU GPL allows for
price fixing, more exactly, that it requires all parties to distribute
copies of GPLed software for no fee.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: ...
My, you're dense.
http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 20:25 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Marketing to begin with. You should read and try to understand the
> complaint, really.
Yes, really.
Basis of complaint: Wallace seems to think anti-trust law is there to
protect a business model instead of protecting consumers.
His
Just to count two immediate possibilities. There are hundreds more.
Two possibilities on two ends of the spectrum, the usual cost is
around 45 USD from my brief check (GNU Source CD's, and OpenBSD CD's).
Thogh, if you have 5000 USD (~4000 EUR), getting the GNU Deuluxe
Distribution package is a
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
>RHEL: over 1500 EUR for subscription
They charge for per seat "services" (mostly bug fixes delivery), not
GPL'd software as IP. That monetization model fails with stable high
quality software (vendor lock-in through certification of other stuff
for not
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 17:01 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>Since recently, tuxrocks.com's coverage of "Wallace v. GPL" got
>pretty selective (the motto is "we won't let Wallace troll the
>community", I suppose; interestingly enough, the pro-GPL stance
>seems to impact publication o
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>Since recently, tuxrocks.com's coverage of "Wallace v. GPL" got
>pretty selective (the motto is "we won't let Wallace troll the
>community", I suppose; interestingly enough, the pro-GPL stance
>seems to impact publication of some FSF's briefs as well).
Since recently, tuxrocks.com's coverage of "Wallace v. GPL" got
pretty selective (the motto is "we won't let Wallace troll the
community", I suppose; interestingly enough, the pro-GPL stance
seems to impact publication of some FSF's briefs as well)...
Or it might simply be because Wall
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> I offer EURO 20 (through PayPal) for #35 plus #36 above (I need one
> copy of each brief). Anyone?
Erledigt.
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=333225
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600684464&tid=ca
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> BTW, FSF's reply to Wallace's fourth amended complaint is due today,
> IIRC. I'd appreciate of someone with Pacer account can post it here,
> TIA.
Since recently, tuxrocks.com's coverage of "Wallace v. GPL" got pretty
selective (the motto is "we won't let Wallac
96 matches
Mail list logo
