Ferd Burfel wrote:
[...]
> >> profit from the exGPL code. As if the copyrights on that code are
> >> somehow dissolved as well.
> >
> > Sort of.
>
> Care to explain?
Google "copyright impotence". See also
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/d5b004fb9a42c44c
regards,
alexande
"Ferd Burfel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Kastrup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Uh, you can't blame Stallman for the fantasies people have about
>> his goals.
>
> I don't. In my opinion, he has some rather radical ideas. But some
> of his "followers"
"David Kastrup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Uh, you can't blame Stallman for the fantasies people have about his
> goals.
I don't. In my opinion, he has some rather radical ideas. But some of his
"followers" are more radical, and I don't blame him for their pu
Ferd Burfel writes:
> No, he doesn't. But all a win in IBM et.al. would do for him would be to
> have an injunction against IBM et.al., "strangers may do as they
> please,". He may regret pointing that out.
> To get at the GPL, he would have to win against FSF.
That would only get him an injunc
"Ferd Burfel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What you don't seem to "get", is that the fact that people disagree
> with Wallace, and yourself, is not an indication that they don't
> understand the arguments. On the contrary, they do understand them,
> they just disagree with them. I personally ha
"Alexander Terekhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Ferd Burfel wrote:
> [...]
>> Ah, so we finally hit upon your disagreement with the GPL: It doesn't
>> allow
>> people to take the work of others (that they obtained for no charge) and
>> turn around and make a
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Hasler wrote:
>>
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>> > Last time I looked, he was not out for selling his copyright, so he is
>> > _not_ intending to charge for his IP, but for _licensing_ his IP.
>>
>> It's hard to tell for sure, but it appears to me
John Hasler wrote:
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
> > Last time I looked, he was not out for selling his copyright, so he is
> > _not_ intending to charge for his IP, but for _licensing_ his IP.
>
> It's hard to tell for sure, but it appears to me that what he wants to do
> is sell copies and _not_ li
David Kastrup wrote:
> Last time I looked, he was not out for selling his copyright, so he is
> _not_ intending to charge for his IP, but for _licensing_ his IP.
It's hard to tell for sure, but it appears to me that what he wants to do
is sell copies and _not_ license his IP.
> The problem is tha
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Last time I looked, he was not out for selling his copyright, so he is
> _not_ intending to charge for his IP, but for _licensing_ his IP.
Uh. You're a real idiot. Copyright is a BUNDLE of rights. The outright
transfers of ownership of ALL rights (copyright) is not a
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Yes, that is what "the physical act of transferring a copy" is all
>
> That is what 17 USC 109 is a about, stupid.
>
> Wallace wants to charge royalties for IP, not "the physical act of
> transferring a copy".
Last
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Yes, that is what "the physical act of transferring a copy" is all
That is what 17 USC 109 is a about, stupid.
Wallace wants to charge royalties for IP, not "the physical act of
transferring a copy".
regards,
alexander.
_
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Hasler wrote:
>>
>> Ferd Burfel writes:
>> > Ah, so we finally hit upon your disagreement with the GPL: It doesn't
>> > allow people to take the work of others (that they obtained for no
>> > charge) and turn around and make a commerical produ
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Ferd Burfel writes:
> > Ah, so we finally hit upon your disagreement with the GPL: It doesn't
> > allow people to take the work of others (that they obtained for no
> > charge) and turn around and make a commerical product out of it.
>
> Yes it does. What it does not allo
Ferd Burfel wrote:
[...]
> Ah, so we finally hit upon your disagreement with the GPL: It doesn't allow
> people to take the work of others (that they obtained for no charge) and
> turn around and make a commerical product out of it. And I suppose you
Yep.
> think that if Wallace is somehow suc
Ferd Burfel writes:
> Ah, so we finally hit upon your disagreement with the GPL: It doesn't
> allow people to take the work of others (that they obtained for no
> charge) and turn around and make a commerical product out of it.
Yes it does. What it does not allow is a _closed source_ product.
--
"Alexander Terekhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> And only the GPL. The GPL is the only choice to obtain rights to property
> locked in the GPL pool (don't confuse it with non-bazaar models a la MySQL
> and Trolltech where no GPL-only forks exist). The GPL doesn
Ferd Burfel wrote:
[...]
> That's all fine and dandy, too. But a third-party choosing to accept the
> terms of the license is no longer a stranger, and becomes a party to it.
True.
>
> > 92. It can be argued that this might change if, in effect, no third
> > party can avoid being bound by the
"Ferd Burfel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Alexander Terekhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Ferd Burfel wrote:
>
> Something like the way no third-party can avoid being bound by the terms
> of the GPL in order to receive
"Alexander Terekhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Ferd Burfel wrote:
> [...]
>> A contract indeed can not bind a "non-party", but a "third-party" does
>> NOT
>> always equal "non-party". While a "third-party" that does not accept the
>> terms of the license (o
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup writes:
> >> Well, the theory is that once you touch GPLed work, it jumps up and
> >> magically gobbles up all of your portfolio.
> >
> > That describes SCO's interpretation of the SysV source licence.
>
> Well
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>> Well, the theory is that once you touch GPLed work, it jumps up and
>> magically gobbles up all of your portfolio.
>
> That describes SCO's interpretation of the SysV source licence.
Well, it is hard to say just _what_ is supposed
David Kastrup writes:
> Well, the theory is that once you touch GPLed work, it jumps up and
> magically gobbles up all of your portfolio.
That describes SCO's interpretation of the SysV source licence.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
__
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A small correction...
>
> Qua, 2006-08-02 às 09:32 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra escreveu:
>> Qua, 2006-08-02 às 09:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
>> > (consider that over time, under "bazaar model" with long chain of
>> > derivation
A small correction...
Qua, 2006-08-02 às 09:32 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra escreveu:
> Qua, 2006-08-02 às 09:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > (consider that over time, under "bazaar model" with long chain of
> > derivation in derivative works and additions to collective works by
> >
Qua, 2006-08-02 às 09:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> (consider that over time, under "bazaar model" with long chain of
> derivation in derivative works and additions to collective works by
> different authors, GPL'd IP becomes practically locked within the GPL
> pool)
Funny. Correcti
Ferd Burfel wrote:
[...]
> A contract indeed can not bind a "non-party", but a "third-party" does NOT
> always equal "non-party". While a "third-party" that does not accept the
> terms of the license (or is not even aware of it) would be a "non-party", a
> "third-party" that DOES accept the licen
"David Kastrup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> By definition a third party is a stranger to a contract. ("It goes
>> without saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty.") (EEOC V.
>> Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S.
Ter, 2006-08-01 às 21:25 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > This alone is such a hilarious piece of nonsense. Any copyright
> > license applies to all legal recipients of the licensed material.
>
> void f(const std::string & email_address) {
> if (email_addre
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> This alone is such a hilarious piece of nonsense. Any copyright
> license applies to all legal recipients of the licensed material.
void f(const std::string & email_address) {
if (email_address == "[EMAIL PROTECTED]")
throw A_Real_Idiot("David Kastrup");
.
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By definition a third party is a stranger to a contract. (“It goes
> without saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty.”) (EEOC V.
> Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 294 (2002)). The contract term
> that purports to control (without privity) th
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.. i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
. ii
ARGUMENT
..
32 matches
Mail list logo
