amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87k4yzgwfx@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
Uh yes. We were talking about _market_ value of GPL software
business. Now you want to
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:hav3va$1am...@colin2.muc.de...
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:hat7ab$2oo...@colin2.muc.de...
Well, what a
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
They would do it differently, of course; hindsight is a wonderful
thing. But the fact remains that it was and is under the GPL that
most free and open source software has been written.
Fact eh? Still on the crusade concerning the definition of free as
used in the
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
They would do it differently, of course; hindsight is a wonderful
thing. But the fact remains that it was and is under the GPL that
most free and open source software has been written.
Fact eh? Still on the crusade
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Oh, here we go again. That's FUD, Rjack. You're well aware that
that only applies when the other decides to license his code under
the GPL, possibly as a consequence of his (free) decision to
incorporate some GPL code into his program.
You and thousands of GNUtians
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Oh, here we go again. That's FUD, Rjack. You're well aware that
that only applies when the other decides to license his code under
the GPL, possibly as a consequence of his (free) decision to
incorporate some GPL code into his program.
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Oh, here we go again. That's FUD, Rjack. You're well aware
that that only applies when the other decides to license his
code under the GPL, possibly as a consequence of his (free)
decision to incorporate some GPL
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Oh, here we go again. That's FUD, Rjack. You're well aware that
that only applies when the other decides to license his code under
the GPL, possibly as a consequence of his (free)
amicus_curious wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote
Rjack wrote:
How does an over-the-air broadcast television program relate
to an over-the-internet computer program licensed under a FOSS
license?
Both of them are legally copied in a way which restricts
further distribution of the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
You miss the essential difference - when you download a copy of
a GPLed program, it is you who is making the copy, and therefore
you are bound by the license (if you choose to be; if not, then
Let NYSD.USCOURTS.GOV know about that, Hyman. chuckles
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
You miss the essential difference - when you download a copy of
a GPLed program, it is you who is making the copy, and therefore
you are bound by the license (if you choose to be; if not, then
Let NYSD.USCOURTS.GOV know
Hyman Rosen wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote
Rjack wrote:
How does an over-the-air broadcast television program
relate to an over-the-internet computer program licensed
under a FOSS license?
Both of them are legally copied in a way which restricts
further
Rjack wrote:
The *only* relevant license permission is the right to make a copy.
And that permission is granted without restriction by the
GPL for copies which are not to be conveyed. You cannot use
this permission to make such a copy and then say that first
sale gives you the right to convey
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The *only* relevant license permission is the right to make a copy.
And that permission is granted without restriction by the
GPL for copies which are not to be conveyed. You cannot use
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
When a transaction results in an individual being entitled
to perpetual possession of the copy
Because it does not suit your incorrect theories,
you choose to disregard the difference that in
Autodesk, the purchaser of the copies did not make
them, whereas in the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
When a transaction results in an individual being entitled
to perpetual possession of the copy
Because it does not suit your incorrect theories,
Man oh man, to doctor, to doctor you should go, Hyman.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Man oh man, to doctor, to doctor you should go, Hyman.
http://www.dfc.org/dfc1/Active_Issues/graphic/first_sale.html
You have quoted the Reply Comments of the Library
Associations which is a wish list, not the law. The
law is going to shaped by various cases, but it's
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Oh, here we go again. That's FUD, Rjack. You're well aware that
that only applies when the other decides to license his code under
the GPL, possibly as a consequence of his (free) decision to
incorporate some GPL
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The *only* relevant license permission is the right to make a copy.
And that permission is granted without restriction by the
GPL for copies which are not to be conveyed.
GPLv3:
To convey a
Rjack wrote:
Now you're making up your own GPL.
It is always permitted to distribute GPLed code under
the GPL. We are discussing when and how it is permitted
to distribute the code otherwise.
A breach of contract term does not determine whether a
copy is lawfully made under the Copyright
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Oh, here we go again. That's FUD, Rjack. You're well aware
that that only applies when the other decides to license his
code under the GPL, possibly as a consequence of his (free)
decision to
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87bpkac98w@lola.goethe.zz...
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
You miss the essential difference - when you download a copy of
a GPLed program, it is you who is making the copy, and therefore
you are
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87pr8s4t7b@lola.goethe.zz...
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
He made the rather audacious and totally unsupported statement
that the GPL software market is worth billions by now
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87skdniz1r@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87pr8s4t7b@lola.goethe.zz...
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
He made the rather audacious and
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87skdniz1r@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87pr8s4t7b@lola.goethe.zz...
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
He made the rather audacious and
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
Uh yes. We were talking about _market_ value of GPL software
business. Now you want to exclude everything for which one has to
pay. How much more stupid can you get?
Well I find it difficult to achieve your
Tim Smith wrote:
[...]
Groklaw seems to agree with you. PJ says the Autodesk ruling is poison
for FOSS and hopes it is overturned.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009101015236
Yeah, yeah.
Well, at least her own pseudo-paralegal conclusions are quite a
contribution on the
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Well, at least her own pseudo-paralegal conclusions are quite a
contribution on the recreational front! ;-)
I don't know why she seems to have gone off the deep end
over this; she seems to have forgotten that first sale
does not affect the rights of the copyright
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
rights of the copyright holder. Creating the copies allowed
by the first does not give you permission to distribute them.
Facts:
(1)
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
lawfully made tangible copy
The copies made for personal use, under the GPL's
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html You may
make, run and propagate covered works that you do
not convey provision aren't the lawfully made
tangible copies you're looking for.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
lawfully made tangible copy
The copies made for personal use, under the GPL's ...
*Run* to doctor, Hyman.
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[... http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009101015236 ...]
Well, at least her own pseudo-paralegal conclusions are quite a
contribution on the recreational front! ;-)
The latest ones... priceless!
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 13 2009 @ 01:35 PM EDT
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
lawfully made tangible copy
The copies made for personal use, under the GPL's ...
*Run* to doctor, Hyman.
As an illustrative example, imagine that you videotape an
over-the-air broadcast television program. Do you
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
As an illustrative example, imagine that you videotape an
over-the-air broadcast television program. Do you believe
that first-sale allows you to sell the videotape? Do you
I believe that transfer of a fair use copy is subject to fair use
analysis just like the act of
In article ib3bm.3197$ku5.2...@newsfe04.iad,
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
lawfully made tangible copy
The copies made for personal use, under the GPL's ...
*Run* to doctor, Hyman.
As an illustrative
[... PJ's comedy at www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009101015236
... ]
Chattels and software - a thought exercise
Authored by: swmcd on Tuesday, October 13 2009 @ 02:55 PM EDT
I'm completely lost.
First sale works great with books. You can't run off a million copies
of a book in ten
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
lawfully made tangible copy
The copies made for personal use, under the GPL's ...
*Run* to doctor, Hyman.
As an illustrative example, imagine that you videotape an
over-the-air broadcast television
Rjack wrote:
How does an over-the-air broadcast television program relate
to an over-the-internet computer program licensed under a FOSS license?
Both of them are legally copied in a way which restricts
further distribution of the copies.
___
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87k4yzgwfx@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
Uh yes. We were talking about _market_ value of GPL software
business. Now you want to exclude everything for which one has to
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:x8abm.142618$y83.11...@newsfe21.iad...
Rjack wrote:
How does an over-the-air broadcast television program relate
to an over-the-internet computer program licensed under a FOSS license?
Both of them are legally copied in a way which
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:hat7ab$2oo...@colin2.muc.de...
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87ws326l79@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
He made the rather audacious and totally unsupported statement
that the GPL software market is worth billions by now and he
ducks and runs from the challenge that his notion is simply
false.
Huh? There was no challenge. If there had been, it would have
been easy to
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Alan you have argued that the Usenet groups have been ruined by
trolls. Why do you keep posting in the groups?
I was talking rather about this particular mailing list
(gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org). I post here to correct
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Alan you have argued that the Usenet groups have been ruined by
trolls. Why do you keep posting in the groups?
I was talking rather about this particular mailing list
(gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org).
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:hat7ab$2oo...@colin2.muc.de...
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87ws326l79@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Linus Torvads licenses Linux under GPL2, and created Linux to mesh
with GNU software. Eric Raymond still contributes to GNU
software. And all these people treat each other with respect, and
when they disagree, they express that disagreement in a high
quality and
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
He made the rather audacious and totally unsupported statement
that the GPL software market is worth billions by now and he
ducks and runs from the challenge that his notion is simply
false.
Huh? There was no challenge. If there had
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Linus Torvads licenses Linux under GPL2, and created Linux to mesh
with GNU software. Eric Raymond still contributes to GNU
software. And all these people treat each other with respect, and
when they disagree, they
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I personally think that the GPL is a diversion of focus on what really
might help the world in general and, as such, should be done away with
along with the cultism evoked by Stallman which similarly diverts
attention from real issues.
There are diversions
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Linus Torvads licenses Linux under GPL2, and created Linux to mesh
with GNU software. Eric Raymond still contributes to GNU
software. And all these people treat each other with respect, and
when they disagree, they express that
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:hav3va$1am...@colin2.muc.de...
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:hat7ab$2oo...@colin2.muc.de...
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
David Kastrup
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87pr8s4t7b@lola.goethe.zz...
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
He made the rather audacious and totally unsupported statement
that the GPL software market is worth billions by now and he
ducks and runs from the
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87skdr9gsd@lola.goethe.zz...
Now I would not put it past you to try to set up a business centered
around this purportive loophole. But nobody in his right mind would
care to do important business with you anyway. You come across as far
Robert Heller wrote:
I think that the point of the citizen.org case (eBay vender vs
Autodesk), is that if you have A copy in your possesion, you have the
right to dispose of that copy (eg selling it).
By dispose of that copy you could've instead said transfer your license to
another third
Robert Heller wrote:
If one has, for example, a shrink wrapped copy, never opened (and thus
never installed), it is perfectly legal to re-sell that copy. I
believe that was citizen.org's case. Once you install it (eg open the
box), then one 'has made a copy'. If you resell the
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
WHO OWNS ALL THE COPIES YOU'VE MADE THANKS TO THE GPL, HEELER?
The authors of the GPLed software, the copyright owners, still own the
copyright to any copy made of their
work. The GPL states that the authors of the work covered by the license grant
the right to use
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Nigel Feltham wrote:
[...]
The only permission you have to make any extra copies of busybox is that
provided by the GPL in exchange for following it's rules which specify
that source has to be provided.
But that's pure license/contract breach claim, not
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87skdr9gsd@lola.goethe.zz...
Now I would not put it past you to try to set up a business centered
around this purportive loophole. But nobody in his right mind would
care to do important business with
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87ws326l79@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87skdr9gsd@lola.goethe.zz...
Now I would not put it past you to try to set up a business centered
around this
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87ws326l79@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Very few have ever succeeded in any business centered around open
source software.
More than those in any business centered against
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87ws326l79@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87skdr9gsd@lola.goethe.zz...
Now I would not put it past you
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
What use do you anticipate for pulling something that stupid out
of thin air? You folk seem to think that a mere sneer is an
adequate response to anything that you cannot answer otherwise.
That is why you are still in last place.
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:hat7ab$2oo...@colin2.muc.de...
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87ws326l79@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in
Nigel Feltham wrote:
[...]
The only permission you have to make any extra copies of busybox is that
provided by the GPL in exchange for following it's rules which specify that
source has to be provided.
But that's pure license/contract breach claim, not copyright
infringement. Consider also
At Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:09:49 +0100 Nigel Feltham nigel.felt...@btinternet.com
wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Nigel Feltham wrote:
[...]
The only permission you have to make any extra copies of busybox is that
provided by the GPL in exchange for following it's rules which
Robert Heeler wrote:
[...]
I think that the point of the citizen.org case (eBay vender vs
Autodesk), is that if you have A copy in your possesion, you have the
right to dispose of that copy (eg selling it). This is distint from
*making a copy* of the copy.
But don't you own a legitimate
At Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:26:05 +0200 Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Robert Heeler wrote:
[...]
I think that the point of the citizen.org case (eBay vender vs
Autodesk), is that if you have A copy in your possesion, you have the
right to dispose of that copy (eg selling it).
Robert Heller wrote:
[...]
If one has, for example, a shrink wrapped copy, never opened (and thus
never installed), it is perfectly legal to re-sell that copy. I
believe that was citizen.org's case. Once you install it (eg open the
Stop here, Heeler.
Don't you own a legitimate GPL'd copy
Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com wrote in message
news:o8udnc2yu_a6w03xnz2dnuvz_jydn...@posted.localnet...
If one has, for example, a shrink wrapped copy, never opened (and thus
never installed), it is perfectly legal to re-sell that copy. I
believe that was citizen.org's case. Once you
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Robert Heller wrote:
[...]
If one has, for example, a shrink wrapped copy, never opened (and thus
never installed), it is perfectly legal to re-sell that copy. I
believe that was citizen.org's case. Once you install it (eg open the
Stop here,
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Is that a loophole for the GPL in US jurisdiction? Maybe, but
apparently not large enough to be attractive for setting up a business.
Dak, dak, dak, how do you know that? Please share with us the
methodology of your study regarding not large enough to be attractive
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Is that a loophole for the GPL in US jurisdiction? Maybe, but
apparently not large enough to be attractive for setting up a business.
Dak, dak, dak, how do you know that? Please share with us the
methodology of your
At Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:32:50 -0400 amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com wrote in message
news:o8udnc2yu_a6w03xnz2dnuvz_jydn...@posted.localnet...
If one has, for example, a shrink wrapped copy, never opened (and thus
never installed), it is perfectly
Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com wrote in message
news:f7odnyk7af6pdu3xnz2dnuvz_qidn...@posted.localnet...
At Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:32:50 -0400 amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com wrote in message
news:o8udnc2yu_a6w03xnz2dnuvz_jydn...@posted.localnet...
If
amicus_curious wrote:
Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com wrote in message
news:f7odnyk7af6pdu3xnz2dnuvz_qidn...@posted.localnet...
At Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:32:50 -0400 amicus_curious a...@sti.net
wrote:
Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com wrote in message
75 matches
Mail list logo
