On 2006-09-12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Vincent Rivere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Similar question with images. My program displays a PNG image in its about
>> box. It is a very complex image, I made it with Photoshop and a lot of
>> layers. Must I distribute the original
"Vincent Rivere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> My big question :
> What is source code ?
>
>
> The GPL states that if I distribute my projet under GPL, I must distribute
> the sources, too.
>
>
> Can I generate a Makefile using Makef
Man oh man. Art contest.
/\
| |
|. .|
| ''' |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
/\| |/\
| | | | __
+---+ .:\:\:/:/:. | PLEASE DO NOT |:.:\:\:/:/:.: | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=: | | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| | ( (_) ) |
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Go to doctor, retard dak.
Maybe projecting just a little, there...
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hey Rechtswissenschaftler dak, go talk to http://www.jbb.de and/or
> > http://www.ifross.de. But first, go to doctor, idiot.
>
> Two links which are either irrelevant or contradict you. Impressive.
> You really shoul
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hey Rechtswissenschaftler dak, go talk to http://www.jbb.de and/or
> http://www.ifross.de. But first, go to doctor, idiot.
Two links which are either irrelevant or contradict you. Impressive.
You really should get your quoting disorder under contr
Hey Rechtswissenschaftler dak, go talk to http://www.jbb.de and/or
http://www.ifross.de. But first, go to doctor, idiot.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Go to doctor, retard dak.
Actually, that would be sound advice for yourself and your sociopathic
tendencies.
> (No) Warranty clauses have really noting to do with lisensors
> obligations regarding *availablity* of source code.
There is no such ob
Tim Smith wrote:
[...]
> Meanwhile, the GPL version is out there, making it so there is no commercial
> market for a "light" version, which helps discourage competitors from
> breaking into your market, as they would not be able to start with the low
> end market and work up. They have to break i
Go to doctor, retard dak.
(No) Warranty clauses have really noting to do with lisensors obligations
regarding *availablity* of source code. And in Germany the disclaimer is
invalid/irrelevant, anyway.
---
Unwirksamkeit der Klauseln Ziffer 11 und 12 GPL nach deutschem Recht
Das allgemeine de
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup wrote:
>> > Competitors might try to sue for misleading advertising, but that's about
>> > it. There are no warranties, implied or otherwise, coming with GPLed
>> > software. Th
Tim Smith wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup wrote:
> > Competitors might try to sue for misleading advertising, but that's about
> > it. There are no warranties, implied or otherwise, coming with GPLed
> > software. The only person who has standing to sue for non-complian
Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Competitors might try to sue for misleading advertising, but that's about
>> it. There are no warranties, implied or otherwise, coming with GPLed
>> software. The only person who has standing to sue f
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vincent Rivière wrote:
> For example, I write a wonderful library from scratch (only my own
> sources). It may be useful to other people, but I don't want it to be
> used in closed-source commercial projects, so I release it under the terms
> of the GPL.
>
> But bec
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup wrote:
> Competitors might try to sue for misleading advertising, but that's about
> it. There are no warranties, implied or otherwise, coming with GPLed
> software. The only person who has standing to sue for non-compliance is
> the copyright holder
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>Go to doctor, dak.
>
> Is the sky falling? Did Alexander loose? Not even a rebutal to
The sky is not falling over here, dear GNUtian ams. Loosely speaking,
it's just impossible to lose a "debate" with stupid dak.
> David's eloquent response?
Yeah, "eloquen
Go to doctor, dak.
Is the sky falling? Did Alexander loose? Not even a rebutal to
David's eloquent response? What will our heros do next week? Tune in
on GNU Miscellaneous Discussions; every day, every hour of the week!
___
gnu-misc-discuss maili
Go to doctor, dak.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Now if the licensor did not even give the licensee source code, the
>> "konkludentes Handeln" which would make the closing of a contract
>> conclusive did not even happen.
>
> Idiot. I don't need source code to enter
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Now if the licensor did not even give the licensee source code, the
> "konkludentes Handeln" which would make the closing of a contract
> conclusive did not even happen.
Idiot. I don't need source code to enter into GPL contract with you
by making available your GPL'd
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> license, I don't see where you base this off.
>
> I'm tired of you, stupid dak.
In short, you can't counter.
> Here's GPL FAQ from Welte's attorneys:
Oh, that means that you agree with Welte? Interesting news. An
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> license, I don't see where you base this off.
I'm tired of you, stupid dak. Here's GPL FAQ from Welte's attorneys:
http://www.oreilly.de/german/freebooks/gplger/pdf/001-024.pdf
[...]
Wie und zu welchem Zeitpunkt kommt es zum Abschluss eines
Lizenzvertrages?
Wicht
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Vertrags-Rechtsschutz for something which you downloaded by your own
>> volition without recompensation?
>
> Many "by your own volition" contracts don't require "recompensation"
> in (direct) monetary sense, stupid.
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Vertrags-Rechtsschutz for something which you downloaded by your own
> volition without recompensation?
Many "by your own volition" contracts don't require "recompensation" in
(direct) monetary sense, stupid. Licensee's obligations under the GPL is
your "recompensat
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hey moron, point me a to a German web site of yours with object code
> only GPL distribution of some creative work of yours. You'll get a
> letter from my lawyer regarding your bogus distribution within a
> week or two. I have Vertrags-Rechtsschutz,
Hey moron, point me a to a German web site of yours with object code
only GPL distribution of some creative work of yours. You'll get a
letter from my lawyer regarding your bogus distribution within a week
or two. I have Vertrags-Rechtsschutz, it won't cost me anything.
regards,
alexander.
_
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Could you please cite the passage of the GPL where the licensor, as
>> opposed to the licensee, is required to provide source code?
>
> And from where is the licensee ("as opposed to the licensor") supposed
> to get
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> There is only a "misstate" if your intention is to foil the copyright
> license by trying to bypass it alledging other dubious things.
17 USC 109 and 117 are statutory rights. They are treated as "dubious"
things only in the GNU Republic (because copyleft i
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Could you please cite the passage of the GPL where the licensor, as
> opposed to the licensee, is required to provide source code?
And from where is the licensee ("as opposed to the licensor") supposed
to get the source code, retard?
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> My dearest Alexander, what would constitute the copyright holder and
>> licensor "breaching the contract"? There are no obligations to her
>> spelled out at all in "the contract". So how would she breach them?
>
> B
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> My dearest Alexander, what would constitute the copyright holder and
> licensor "breaching the contract"? There are no obligations to her
> spelled out at all in "the contract". So how would she breach them?
By failing to provide source code, idiot.
regards,
alexan
Seg, 2006-08-14 às 11:15 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> It clearly misstates the copyright law (by ignoring 17 USC 109 and 117).
> But what it means apart from misstatement, is that the GPL acceptance
> is manifested by exercising exclusive rights granted under it.
There is only a "missta
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > Each party to the GPL contract can sue for non-compliance, retard.
>>
>> Non-compliance with which obligations, my dearest Alexander?
>
> Licensor's obligations.
>
>>
>> I quote again (sorry for the shouting, but
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Each party to the GPL contract can sue for non-compliance, retard.
>
> Non-compliance with which obligations, my dearest Alexander?
Licensor's obligations.
>
> I quote again (sorry for the shouting, but it is in the original):
>
>
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> The only person with standing to sue anybody over non-compliance with
>> the GPL is the copyright holder himself.
>
> Each party to the GPL contract can sue for non-compliance, retard.
Non-compliance with which oblig
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> The only person with standing to sue anybody over non-compliance with
> the GPL is the copyright holder himself.
Each party to the GPL contract can sue for non-compliance, retard.
-
An intellectual property license is a contract. In re: Aimster Copyright
Litigati
"Vincent Rivière" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> The GPL states that if I distribute my projet under GPL, I must
>>> distribute the sources, too.
>>
>> The GPL states no such thing. If you distribute GPLed code from
>> somebody else, you have to heed the conditions of the GPL for the
>> complete
>> The GPL states that if I distribute my projet under GPL, I must
>> distribute the sources, too.
>
> The GPL states no such thing. If you distribute GPLed code from
> somebody else, you have to heed the conditions of the GPL for the
> complete product. But if you are the sole copyright holder,
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> means that copies downloaded from there will be governed by the GPL.
> >
> > The GPL governs work (rights to it) not copies, stupid.
>
> Nonsense. That would preclude dual-licensing
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> means that copies downloaded from there will be governed by the GPL.
>
> The GPL governs work (rights to it) not copies, stupid.
Nonsense. That would preclude dual-licensing models, for example.
--
David Kastrup,
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
> That's exactly what Trolltech is doing with its Qt library.
Trolltech pretends to have one of the most severely brain-damaged
interpretation of the GPL to scare folks into buying commercial
licenses.
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/e14a18133f0
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> means that copies downloaded from there will be governed by the GPL.
The GPL governs work (rights to it) not copies, stupid.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.or
On 2006-08-06, Vincent Rivière <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example, I write a wonderful library from scratch (only my own sources).
> It may be useful to other people, but I don't want it to be used in
> closed-source commercial projects, so I release it under the terms of the
> GPL.
> But
"Vincent Rivière" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Now that's an interesting point. As the sole copyright owner you
>> certainly have the right to have multiple distributions of your
>> project under different licenses.
>
> Okay, I didn't understand that things were different for the
> copyright ho
> Now that's an interesting point. As the sole copyright owner you certainly
> have the right to have multiple distributions of your project under
> different
> licenses.
Okay, I didn't understand that things were different for the copyright
holder and other people.
For example, I write a wonder
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"Vincent Rivière" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> The GPL states that if I distribute my projet under GPL, I must
>>> distribute the sources, too.
>
>>The GPL states no such thi
BAJ writes:
> However, if you distribute to someone under the GPL, are you still not
> bound to GPL terms such as the 3 year offer for source for example?
A sole copyright owner releasing your own work under the GPL you are not
bound by anything. Think about it. The GPL state the terms under whi
Byron A Jeff wrote:
Now that's an interesting point. As the sole copyright owner you certainly
have the right to have multiple distributions of your project under different
licenses. However, if you distribute to someone under the GPL, are you still
not bound to GPL terms such as the 3 year off
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Vincent Rivière" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The GPL states that if I distribute my projet under GPL, I must
>> distribute the sources, too.
>The GPL states no such thing. If you distribute GPLed code from
>somebody e
"Vincent Rivière" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My big question :
> What is source code ?
Read the GPL, section 3.
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete
source code mea
Hello.
My big question :
What is source code ?
The GPL states that if I distribute my projet under GPL, I must distribute
the sources, too.
Can I generate a Makefile using Makefile.am and automake, then only
distribute Makefile, claiming that it is the source ?
Similar question with images
52 matches
Mail list logo
