Hey dak, call 911 for comrade ams.
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>>> Which has nothing to do with why the NASA Open Source Agreement
>>> (NOSG) is a non-free license. I suggest you read section G:
>>>
>>> | G. Each Contributor represents that that its Modification i
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>>>> Which has nothing to do with why the NASA Open Source
>>>> Agreement (NOSG) is a non-free license. I suggest you
>>>> read section G:
>>>>
>>>> | G. Each Contributor represents that that its
>>>
Go to doctor.
regards,
alexander.
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>Read all definitions. [...] Then try to grok that "separate
>software from the Subject Software" + "the Subject Software"
>results in "Larger Work", not "Modification".
>
> Yes, that is nice, but we are tal
http://www.twit.tv/floss13
http://twit.cachefly.net/FLOSS-013.mp3
-
September 27th, 2006
FLOSS Weekly 13: Eben Moglen on GPL 3.0
Hosts: Chris DiBona and Leo Laporte
Guest: Eben Moglen, General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation and
founder of the Software Freedom Law Center
Professor M
http://www.twit.tv/floss13
http://twit.cachefly.net/FLOSS-013.mp3
-
September 27th, 2006
FLOSS Weekly 13: Eben Moglen on GPL 3.0
Hosts: Chris DiBona and Leo Laporte
Guest: Eben Moglen, General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation and
founder of the Software Freedom Law Center
Professor
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>> But "freeware" and "free software" are as different as "marriage"
>> and "marred triage".
>
>Yup. Freeware and "free software" are different concepts. A program
>can be one, both or neither.
>
> No, freeware simply means a non-free program that can
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> Qua, 2006-09-27 Ã s 16:21 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > [...]
> > > McVoy's out of luck
> >
> > McVoy is doing good.
> >
> > http://www.bitkeeper.com/press/2
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:27:34 -0400, Barry Margolin
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Whether they should be able to is of purely academic interest. The fact
> >>is that they *did* do this, and this is what the phrase "free
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
> While it may be a shame, they've been using the phrase for about 20
And 20 years back... (quoting Michael Zeleny, you should recall him,
Barry)
--
As a personal note, back in 1985, I was deceptively expelled from the
Free Software Foundation, to which I gave its
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>>I think it is. Note that I was talking about "free software", the
>>term coined by Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation,
>>not "freeware", which is just software you don't have to pay for.
>
>"Free Software" is open source. Free softwa
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:13:43 -0400
> Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:27:34 -0400, Barry Margolin
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Whether they should be able to is of purely academic interest. The
> > >fact is that they *did*
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
> And in the GNU and Linux newsgroups, the context establishes that "free
> software" refers to freedom,
And "freedom" as in what, Barry?
> not price.
Never mind that the GNU [L]GPL "no charge" does refer to price.
regards,
alexander.
__
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >No, freeware simply means a non-free program that can be distributed
> >at no cost.
>
> Where did you get that definition?
It's probably RMS' famous laser printer driver, Tobin. It sta
Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Barry Margolin wrote:
> > [...]
> > > And in the GNU and Linux newsgroups, the context establishes that "free
> > > so
Man oh man, how can you be such a retard, dak?
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> But there is no law which would permit you to create copies for the
> purpose of redistribution.
>
> > No license is needed (apart from rental and lease). The right is
> > statutory default.
>
> Go ahead and create copie
Jim Richardson wrote:
[...]
> nothing in the [L]GPL prevents you from charging any amount of money you
> want to ask for the software. the [L]GPL don't care about the $$$ price
> at all.
You need to contact IBM's legal counsel and set them straight before
they further embarrass themselves: "65. A
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The meaning of freeware has been non-free software that is
> > distributed as gratis since the '80s. Maybe you are to young to
> > remeber this, but that is how it is. If you don't like it, go do
> > some hacking in
Jim Richardson wrote:
[... GNU GPL ...]
> royalties and licence fees are not what was being discussed. We were
> discussion the price one can sell the software for. There is no
Now is broadband era, hello. One can sell MEDIA with GNU freeware on it
(market forces would drive the price down clo
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Again your mastery of English fails you. "was used often for" has a
> different meaning from "was often used for". The difference is that
> the term was frequently _applied_ to such software, not that it was
> _restricted_ to such software.
Really?!
"Retard" was u
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:13:59 -0400
> Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [alt.comp.freeware dropped]
Restored (just to annoy curious Susan and others topicality police
volunteers).
>
> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:53:19 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels
> > <[EMAIL PROTEC
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And, in the English-speaking world, "free" is almost always (let's
> > say by millions to one, at least) used, when used with a product, to
> > mean "with no charge". *VERY FEW* people use free as in freedom
> > when using it t
Al Klein wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:15:55 -0400, Barry Margolin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Open source software is not the same as free software (as I've mentioned
> >elsethread, open source is a subset of free).
>
> If "free software" is software you're free to modify,
Accordin
Jay Belanger wrote:
[...]
> Not at all; the word "free" means "unfettered" in many circumstances
> when it could logically mean without charge. I provided some examples.
> Pretending otherwise is obfuscating, not communicating.
You should read the GNU Manifesto (original, without later added
foo
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Software is a medium in which expressions are subject to copyright.
Medium? Medium as in "interstellar medium"?
> Welcome to the 21st century.
LOL. Uh moron.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Software is not sold.
http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm
--
Adobe Sells its Software
A number of courts have held that the sale of software is the sale of a
good within the meaning of Uniform Commercial Code. Advent Sys. Ltd. v.
Unisys Corp., 925 F.2d 6
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Software is not sold.
> >
> > http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm
>
> You are confusing software and media.
I&#x
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> "Roger Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >
> >> >>Free speech, free press, free software, patent free, free arts?
> >
> >> > Free gas, free milk, free beer?
> >
> >> Those happen not to be subject to copyright.
> >
> > You and many other
David Kastrup wrote:
[... DAK Indus. ...]
> You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between "copy"
> and "content".
The content is the same, dak. (In DAK Indus., the content was "Windows
NT".)
unit A: "dak is retard"
unit B: "dak is retard"
I hereby gift you 100 units A and
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
> [... DAK Indus. ...]
>
> > You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between "copy"
> > and "content".
>
> The content is the same, dak. (In DAK Indus., the content was &q
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:58:39 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>You are confusing software and media. The media are sold, and
> >>access to software is sold. The software itself is an arrangement
> >>of in
-
Comment 1876: Lack of clarity to a non-lawyer programmer
Regarding the text: The "System Libraries" of an executable work include
every subunit such that (a) the identical subunit is normally included
as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component
(kernel, window syst
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> What one buys is the book, which is the media prepared by the printer
But that's not what King sells to publishers and not what he was
selling on the net in The Plant experiment. Intangibles can also be
sold, retard.
regards,
alexander.
___
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> You can't buy the content since it is not tangible.
Uh moron.
Let http://www.eurexchange.com know.
And go to doctor.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
> > It does not sound like it, as I said.
> >
>
> Reading the GPL FAQ, it says
Ignore moronic GPL FAQ. See
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
regards,
alexander.
___
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>
> On 1 Oct 2006 03:01:56 -0700
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > So i'm rather confused by what does it really mean by linking?
>
> Taking code from your program, and code from a library, and making a
> single executable unit from the combination.
Making a "single exe
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> describe what linking is) is: Can I release a non-free program that's
> designed to load a GPL-covered plugin-in?q
Sure, no problem at all!a
>
> The GPL program in this case can be considered a plugin.
Whatever.
regards,
alexander.
___
http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/09/27/1551253
--
Legal
Torvalds "fed up" with the FSF
By: Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
On Friday Several kernel developers issued a position paper criticizing
the GPLv3 drafts. That prompted Software Freedom Law Center (SLFC)
chairman Eben Moglen to is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> so that is why we have an LGPL license that enables linking of programs
> to the libraries without forcing the programs to be GPL-ed?
"Lesser" (in fact much greater) GPL moronity stems from RMS'
misunderstanding of the term "derivative work" under copyright law
with
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>so that is why we have an LGPL license that enables linking of programs
>to the libraries without forcing the programs to be GPL-ed?
>
> Exactly!
That's copyright misuse, dear.
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise15.html
(II.K. Misuse Of Copyrigh
>From comments on groklaw...
PJ: I know for a fact that they wanted Linus to participate
Anonymous: Well, duh. I want Cindy Crawford to participate in
my sex life, too, but I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER HER, and
even if I did, I think I would need to bring her flowers and
carefully consider h
>From groklaw comments to "Eben Moglen: A Renewed Invitation to Kernel
Developers"...
> I realize that Linus was never interested in the four freedoms the
> GPL was supposed to ensure.
The earliest reference to the "four freedoms" that I can find is around
1999 (feel free to prove me
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> http://groups.google.com/group/net.micro/browse_thread/thread/9e8efc7fd71be471
>
> The above link is to a post from 1985! Which reprints RMS's article on
That's the GNU Manifesto (original, without footnotes), retard mini-RMS.
"GNU, which stands for Gnu's
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
> Therefore under German law, once I accept the GPL terms, I have
> a right to redistribute GPL-licensed software. However, I can
> protest unreasonable or illegal terms in the contract
Not according to Welte's friends at ifross/jbb (Jaeger & Co. gang).
Because, the
More perspectives...
http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch09.html
(The GNU General Public License)
---
Although helpful in codifying the social contract of the Emacs Commune,
the Emacs 15 license remained too "informal" for the purposes of the
GNU Project, Stallman says. Soon after sta
Merijn de Weerd schrieb:
[...]
> Why do you bring up a US doctrine when we're talking German
Talking German? Well, omniscient of heise:
Das Urteil sollte mit der Berufung angegriffen werden.
Das Gericht hat rechtsfehlerhafter Weise die
Prüfung eines Verstoßes von Art.81 EGV u. §1 GW
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> For all intents and purposes, the government is censoring this
> article from me.
Nobody's censoring this "article" from you. You can use legal
software/hardware to enjoy it, retard mini-RMS. Or just follow the
fellow lunatic Richard Stallman ("I never buy
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>Alfred, I think even you got confused thanks to your mail client
>not attributing quotes.
>
> Urgh, it wasn't the quotes. Just my incapability to read today... I
> thought you replied to my message. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Less caffine, more sleep...
December 8th 1997... The Great Scientist and (only) three freedoms. LOL.
http://beust.com/stallman.html
---
Richard Stallman (RMS) made a small (two hours) presentation here, in
Sophia Antipolis, on December 8th 1997, on the theme "The GNU Project".
Here is a brief summary of what he said, in
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> Not that message, the work I can't access.
Take your "corrupted" disc and go to doctor. (He will show you how to
access "this work" and etc.)
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > From that day on, he set off on a quest to ban proprietary software
> > and encourage the free sharing of source code by all means.
>
> That was what started his unrest. It did not set him off immediately,
> and "by all means" is certainly exaggerated. He did not,
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > From that day on, he set off on a quest to ban proprietary software
> > and encourage the free sharing of source code by all means.
>
> That was what started his unrest. It did not set him off immediately,
> and "by all means" is certainly exaggerated. He did not,
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> GNU Emacs
---
In September of 1984, Stallman shelved compiler development for the near
term and began searching for lower-lying fruit. He began development of
a GNU version of Emacs, the program he himself had been supervising for
a decade. The decision was strat
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 13:02:05 +0200
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Uh, what? The quoted section tries defining the term "UNIX", not the
> > term "operating system".
>
> Notice the qualification
[... ITS blah-blah ...]
> Both quotes indicate that
Correction...
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 13:02:05 +0200
> > David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Uh, what? The quoted section tries defining the term "UNIX", no
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> pretty obvious that "The GNU operating system" provides us with a
> different quality of language evolution aka Newspeak: it applies to a
> system ...
... which exists only in "variants", without original.
regards,
alexander.
_
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Can linux kernel claim they distribute the kernel under conditions of
> > GPL v2, while they use modified version of GPL v2
>
> They did not modify GPLv2.
>
> > (thanks to this modification glibc doesnt have to be GPL, but can be
> > LGP
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> adjusted term "derived work" - the most uncertain of all. It has legal
> meaning, but they changed it.
>
> You cant adjust key term of license and expect it to stay same.
> For derived code look at: US Code title 17, kapitole 1 a §101.
He he. Now see kapitole VI
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> functionality with a _standard_ API between them. Also glibc works
There's no standard for linux kernel syscalls, my dar GNUtian dak. [g]
libc privides standard POSIX.1 XSH calls, not kernel.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-mi
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Note that the topic of the quote is _not_ the syscall interface, but
> the _linking_ of kernel modules into the kernel.
Go to doctor and take Eben with you.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. According to the GNU Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und
Propaganda, the topic i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> Not really. I am looking for reason, why some programs using kernel can
> be not-GPL, while programs using GPL library has to be GPL.
"programs using GPL library has to be GPL" is the GNU law crapola.
Unless you happen to live in the GNU Republic (i.e in alternat
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Kernel is pretty different than a library. It has threads of its own.
Uh moron. Threads is nothing but execution context (program counter,
etc.) and indirection for thread state relevant stuff. Expression
describing what to execute is the same. Ever heard of green
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> what about the case I am interested, linking GPL liensed dynamic
> library to program. What now?
>
> Do you know at least one court case of this?
I don't. I also don't know of "at least" one case regarding black
being not white. So what? Hey, if someone makes
"model license"
Sonny! Uncle Hasler Has spoken!!!
regards,
alexander.
P.S. http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/licensing.txt
-
Feel free to post/add this. I wrote it some time ago for a corporate
lawyer who wondered what the "GPL exception" was. Names and companies
removed not
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Can glibc work without linux kernel?
>
> See http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/ports.html>.
Playing idiot as usual, dak?
http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/?cvsroot=glibc
regards,
alexader.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mai
Man oh man. Uh moron.
http://www.archive.org/download/punkcast964/964moglen2.ogg (video)
http://www.archive.org/download/punkcast964a/964moglen2.ogg (audio)
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
> Yes. Linux isn't the main kernel that GLIBC supports to begin with.
Really? Did you check it with Drepper of Red Hat, GNUtian ueber moron
ams?
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.o
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Hey, if someone makes utterly idiotic claims, why don't you simply
> > suggest to that idiot to prove it in court of law? The glibc is
> > *your* defence.
>
> It is not even licensed under the GPL, ...
Exactly.
http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensingfaq.html
Hey kero, just have some fun, f.ex:
A recent press conference of the Free Software Foundation confirmed
the rumors that the GNU General Public License was found to be
incompatible with itself. This newly discovered fact may actually
cause a lot of disorder in the free software world in which
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> It is quite simple, if you link, then it is considered derivate.
Yeah, derivate. Considered.
Man, go to doctor, ams.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
"do not conflict"
Sonny! Uncle Hasler Has spoken!!!
regards,
alexander.
P.S.
http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/02/20/1544245.shtml?tid=...
(Professor Eben Moglen Replies)
-
2) Clarifying the GPL
by sterno
One issue that I know has come up for me is how the GPL applies in
situa
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
> It is not only what happens during run time. But also what happens
> during compile time. Do you or do you not understand the difference
> between telnet/telnetd and linking a program against a library? You
Just like some library, the kernel provides a bunch of f
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>Because GPL. Either kernel is GPL or not. If it is (and as you say
>it is) then same rules apply to all programs distributed under
>conditions of GPL.
>
> One is always free to add special execptions, in the case of Linux,
> that is exactly the case.
Exa
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> >From offical dutites, yes, because Thomas went against the policies of
> the GNU project (outright refusing to use the GFDL in a GNU project
Interesting. So much about GNU freedom of speech.
--- Start of forwarded message ---
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:3
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> > [...]
> >> >From offical dutites, yes, because Thomas went against the policies of
> >> the GNU project (outright refusing to
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> >> &g
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > And what did he failed to implement? Care to provide an example of
> > his refusal to adhere in *implementing* something?
>
> Your reading comprehension _really_ is impaired. He refused to change
> the license of Hurd documentation to the GFDL as prescribed by FSF
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> Shows how little you know about what linking means. When Linux runs,
> or when glibc runs, they don't even share the same memory map;
Oh really? Man oh man. Part of address space reserved for the kernel
aside for a moment, how does read(int fildes, void *buf,
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
> Please stop posting messages that where not even intended for public
> eyes. g-p-d is a private list,
Whatever. He he. My, GNU secret. I don't care.
Go bother http://www.softwarelibero.it.
http://www.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/discussioni/2003-November/008465.
Go to doctor, ueber GNUtian retard ams.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>> Shows how little you know about what linking means. When Linux
>> runs, or when glibc runs, they don't even share the same memory
>> map;
>
>Oh really? Man oh man. Part of address space reserved for the
>kernel aside for a moment, how does read
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
> It is in the libc CVS tree.
What is in the libc CVS tree?
My, uaccess stuff is in the kernel tree, stupid.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/list
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> >> >> As the maintainer of a GNU project, one is responsible for
> >> >> implementing the GNU policies. That's not a matter of freedom of
> >> > ^
> >> > |
> >> > Grand-Imperator's + (aka GNU President)
> >>
> >> Of cour
http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2006/1030/104.html
LOL.
Man, but this is even better:
http://forums.forbes.com/forbes/board/message?board.id=stallmanreaction&message.id=4
--
Ignorance and initial assumptions
rschott
Newbie
Posts: 4
Registered: 10-14-2006
rschott
T
GPLv3 is an Eldorado for Dan.
http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/10/13/free-as-in-difficult/
Free as in difficult
October 13th, 2006
Free as in freedom is the rallying cry of Richard M. Stallmans Free
Software Foundation. But these guys are anything but easy to deal with,
I
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my sdk's
>library.
>
> This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and the
> example program.
How fascinating.
Hey ldb, ams' "derivate" means "GNU-derived" (incurable ueber GNUtian
r
Hey ldb, your only GNU-ethical choice is to GPL your wife and kids (as
an extra to code) and sing the GNU song:
Hoarders may get piles of money,
That is true, hackers, that is true.
But they cannot help their neighbors;
That's not good, hackers, that's not good.
When we
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
> I disagree. The example program is a derivative of both the
> SDK library and the Qt library.
That must be the GNU Copyleft Act Section 666 or some such. Hey, do
you have a link, Merijn?
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> While the SDK library is not derived from Qt, the complete example
> program is derived from both SDK library and Qt.
^^^
Hey ldb, GNUtian dak means "GNU-derived" (see unwritten GNU Copyleft
Act). It has really nothing to do with software "derivati
Hey schizophrenic de Weerd, I think that you've been convinced at some
point that linking doesn't create software derivative works under
copyright except in the GNU Republic (i.e. under Stallman's copyleft***
not copyright, that is). Go take some medicine to end the crisis.
***) As GNU Reichsmi
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> The unlinked work may be affected, too, if its purpose can't be met
> without linking, and thus the act of linking from the enduser becomes
> a formality instead of an available technical option.
What are you smoking dak?
regards,
alexander.
___
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> If its main purpose is to be compiled and run, things are different.
17 USC 117, retard.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
>
>
> Linking == modification.
>
>These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
>identifiable
Uh moron dak. So in the GNU Republic the status of other people's
works changes instantaneously (somehow becoming less derivative) the
moment GNUtians decide to dual-license. Go to doctor.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-
quoted by Dan Lyons:
http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/10/16/off-the-record/
--
People find the GPL very hard to understand. Its not written in a
style that is a typical license style. Licensing lawyers write in a
particular style because its precise. Its hard to understand but if
y
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the
> picture might change, depending on how much of the library is included
> in the transformed source code. If, for example, you execute 'cc -E',
> the resulting source code will contain the whole of "
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > This is a weird example - distributing source code of a proprietary
> > product in order to compile and link it with GPLed libraries smacks
> > of putting the cart in front of the horse.
>
> It smacks of license circumvention.
Only in your brain-damaged head. 17
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the
> >> picture might change, depending on how much of the library is
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >&
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366>
You should read his later work as well.
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
In plain language:
http://www.stromian.com/Corner/Feb2005.html
Rosen is too polite to call for replacing the FSF licenses with his own,
but i
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> clear that even a work which as a whole represents an original work of
> authorship can be a derivative work.
Uh retard dak. The first rule of statutory construction is "begin at
the beginning" and the second rule is "read on". Original simply means
creative effort
901 - 1000 of 3067 matches
Mail list logo
