g the Program is not restricted, and the output from the
Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on
the Program (independent of having been made by running the
Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
It is just when you are distributing t
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> It is just when you are distributing the product that you have to GPL
>> the complete product as distributed. Internal use is ok.
>
> Ditribution is OK as well. 17 USC 109 (doctrine of
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Already out of arguments so that you need to resort to insults? You
>> know that "compilation" in computer science and in law are two
>> _entirely_ different things.
>
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Which does not cover _linking_.
>
> Copyright covers linking only in the GNU Republic.
If one for a moment leaves the area of linking computer programs
(where little legal precedence exist
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote: ...
>
> I knew you'll bite. That's why I've omitted "as such" and said just
> linking, not "linking as such". It's just like the upcoming EU patent
> law harmonizat
aries it "uses", you have precious few arguments left to argue
> the source code is an independent work. You have equally few
> arguments left to argue that programs aren't derivative works of the
> Operating System they run on.
Why do you think is there a special exception
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:31:15 +0100
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > A book that refers the user to a dictionary for
>> >
for trivial
cases akin to linking.
But the ongoing practice does not support Alexander's fantasies. And
as long as it doesn't, nothing is gained by pretenting that the GPL
should in some manner have less validity than other licences.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:59:23 +0100
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Tell me to respect the wishes of the author, and I'm al
ire the moment the program is run... who gets the copyright on
> that "derivative work"?
Suppose the Earth consists of constaneously combusting pink
cheese... and _you_, of all people, call others "stupid" frequently.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
bution of the GPLed
work. However, it demands no additional restrictions. If the other
material on the page has an incompatible licence and one can't cleanly
separate the parts into on the page into separate components, the
whole is a derivative work and can only be distributed as a whole
unde
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > Combined as in what? Can you print two different stories (bought
>> > electronically) on the same sheet of paper (to form a combined
>> > printout) or not?
>>
>&g
y including selling it or any derived
works that include that particular tangible copy _once_. That is fair
use. It allows you to dispose of your acquired copy in quite a few
manners. In particular, it allows you to transfer your acquired right
to make personal non-public use of the single tan
teways for mailing lists?
When you are reading a mailing list gated to a Usenet group, there is
no way that anybody can answer "to mailing list only".
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
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:
> [...]
>> When you are reading a mailing list gated to a Usenet group, there is
>> no way that anybody can answer "to mailing list only".
>
> Wanna also be plonked? Don't disappoin
er). And all copies of GPL'd works are "lawfully made"
> thanks to the unilateral permission to reproduce.
Uh, no. That permission is bound to conditions. Violating them, you
forfeit your licence.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
ession under conditions, and then you are bound to
those conditions, or you don't become the owner. Take your pick.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
eeing to the
conditions of the party providing you with them.
What is so hard to understand here? There is lots of downloadable
software around with restrictions on use and redistribution: AFPL,
shareware, even MS-EULA-ware.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
__
ems to me that it should, since there is no
> single program that uses the GSL but is not distributed under the
> GPL.
Without further details, this sounds somewhat fishy. I would want to
rely on this working out.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
r mercilessly? :)
(b) has already happened. Alexander is a notorious troll in this
group; you can safely disregard his advice. Actually, to be on the
safe side, you _should_ disregard his advice.
After having done that, consider the positions of the rest of the
participants: they should still offer e
ems to me that it should, since there is no
> single program that uses the GSL but is not distributed under the
> GPL.
Without further details, this sounds somewhat fishy. I would _not_
want to rely on this working out.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
"Nicholas R. Markham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:23:34 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It all depends on what "part o
The GPL states the price to pay for certain uses of the software.
Whether you are willing to pay that price is up to you. If not, then
those uses are barred. Not by the GPL, but by copyright law.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
nts
> they like, but require that they must name them differently?
Sounds like your goals are not really compatible with either the GPL
or the LGPL.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
US CODE: Title 17, "(re)distribution" is nonexistent and
>> "first sale" limitation on exclusive distribution right is quite
>> real.
>
> But you can't MAKE COPIES of YOUR copy and (re)DISTRIBUTE them
> unless you have distribution rights. This is plain d
s. And the legal experts of the FSF might tell you about
what could happen if you end up in court after all.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
al papers on the FSF web site.
And those papers tell quite a lot more about Stallman than could be
subsumed in a religious lapel pin, anyway.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
ecates using the licence, yet does not relicense core material
like libgcc to the GPL. It is not because they would not want to have
the protection extend over parts linked with it, it is more likely
because they can't be sure to prevail with it.
But that does not change that there is a lot of c
y that the non-GPLed component
is not affected by derivation. For a published API with competing
implementations, this won't usually be the case, making the GPL
effectively LGPL.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
work has similar
attractions to offloading toxic waste: it is mostly cheap because it
makes it somebody else's problem where somebody else does not yet have
built a conscience, not because doing it properly elsewhere would
actually be cheaper.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
anybody should be worrying about
much.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ists.
If less people were running Microsoft operating systems, there would
be fewer wide-open computers on the net that could be employed for
this sort of timed spam attack.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing
l, and replacing them usually is not much of an issue. Your
code does not come under GPL under any interpretation of the law: it
is just that putting it under the GPL is the simplest way to comply
with copyright law. Another way, of course, is to remove the
offending code and replace it with
hemselves are unlikely
> to sue over such trivial code pieces.
Uh, no. That means that the FSF themselves believe that they are
unlikely to get sued over such trivial code pieces. And that they
believe nobody could claim based on that that the FSF has dirty hands
when they sue for copyri
ead up on the copyright laws of your land. The GPL does
not tell you what it takes until copyright applies. It only tells you
your rights _when_ it applies.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-mi
Per Abrahamsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Per Abrahamsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Chad Whitacre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>> I'm trying to determine wh
allowed to do whatever
he wants with the product (including releasing proprietary versions).
It completely escapes me how you can imagine to have the right to do
that.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ible into other licenses, but that does
not mean that other code is convertible to the GPL. There are
actually very few licenses that allow rereleasing as GPL.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
s out that in the few cases where the defendant did not choose
to settle out of court, the GPL has quite consistently been upheld.
Anyway, "compilation" means something entirely different in the
context of the law and of computing.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_
s that you would not have without
it. If you don't want them, you can leave them alone. But you are
not free to grab more than what was offered to you.
This is not enforcing the license. It is enforcing the copyright from
which you were only given relief under conditions you chose not to
ac
regular distribution
channel.
If he independently rewrote it, then he should make sure that no
no-compete clause in the contracts blocks him from doing that.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
G
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Hasler wrote:
>>
>> [plonked] David Kastrup writes:
>> > What would it mean to "enforce" a unilateral permission?
>>
>> It would mean to produce it as a defense against an infringement
estion is just _when_ this will
get thrown out of court, not if. And of course, there is always the
odd chance that it actually takes a second court to do so.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
GPL is so shaky that only a technicality could avert its
impending doom, and that it is certain to fall next time around.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
te in line with what one has come to
expect from Syscon (the publisher) in general.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> would write:
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> John Hasler wrote: ...
>>>
>>> h
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
>>
>> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> would write:
>> > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>>
gt; to the FSF. Oh, it's so sweet, s sweet.
Pipe dream sweet. In the end, the courts decide.
What's your problem? Stallman ruffled your canary bird?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Hasler wrote:
>>
>> In the good old days we got trolled by the likes of John Dyson: a
>> jerk, but a real hacker nonetheless.
>
> And what makes a jerk be regarded as "a real hacker"? I'm just
&
ibraries and text and file
utilities.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wahaj Khan wrote: ...
>
> One and two are the same. Mere aggregation.
It is nonsensical to talk about "aggregation" if one "aggregate" is
not even accessible for separate use.
--
David Kast
ut down the
extent and reach of copyright to the measure that Mr. Terekhov
imagines for the GPL. However, while copyright law is given the
current, partly ridiculous extent, GPLed works are just as protected
as other works are.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> > My Linux is not your Linux. It is the human Linux
>> > that acknowledges that Linux involves human work
>> > to create, that although it is free you are not
>
is it _required_ to
license the results under the GPL, including source code. But while
that restricts the offer they can make, it does not restrict the
price and access: they can ask whatever money they want for it, and
make access arbitrarily complicated. They are just requir
John Bailo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> A license is something that comes with every copy. Whether or not the
>> copies the FSF distributes come under GPL does not influence the
>> license of other copies.
>
> According to the Mach
s both free and non-free software.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
th June 2005.
Too bad that the courts and the legal departments of companies like
NeXT and MCC don't agree with Mr. Edwards' unpublished draft. GPL
"enforcement" actions tend to work rather reliably in the real world,
reliably enough that it would not seem prudent to te
Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:57:00 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Bruce Lewis wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> GPL'ed code. Your appli
ty since it is not a contract. In that case, he is acting
without license, and that does not grant him the right to
redistribute, either.
So what really is interesting here is not the extent of the GPL, but
rather the extent of copyright law.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
__
ase. A licence by GPL is an
"einseitiges Rechtsgeschäft" (something like "unilateral legal
transaction"), not a contract. As such it is covered by the laws
concerning "Willenserklärungen", not "Verträge".
If you bothered actually readi
;plonking" does not seem
to work very reliably. Maybe you should sue the author of your Usenet
reader "Mozilla" for not upholding his part of your mutual contract.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ight to make those particular copies: you had
only _conditional_ rights granted by the GPL.
> I can distribute them as I see fit (apart from rental) without the
> authority of the copyright owner.
But you could not create them in the first place without the authority
of the copyright owne
re". Something like buying a copy.
Or having gained explicit permission to make such a copy.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
d and redistribute the software. In that case, repeated
creation of copies by downloads and redistribution of those copies
under 17 USC 109 instead of the GPL might be conceivable.
Now you just need to find a copyright owner that gives explicit
permission to download stuff _without_ heeding th
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak
Your lies about your plonking are as transparent as your lies about
the GPL.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing
e derived from GPLed software or intended to be
sold as such.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wrote:
>> In the US that is not a grant of the GPL. Copyright law explicitly
>> gives you the right to run any program you own a copy of.
>
> David Kastrup writes:
>> Where "own" means "lawfully acquired
rice is irrelevant. Territorial hint: see the so called
> Linux-Klausel in the most recent UrhG, my dear (plonked) GNUtian
> dak.
Sure. But the GPL is not a gift certificate. It is a licence.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
te it: I just want to use my changes on my computer: Do I
> have to make my changes public anyway?
No.
Google for "GPL FAQ", I think this is covered.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-
for the resulting
publication.
There is a reason that the law is not interpreted by computers, but by
humans. Circumvention sounds like a good idea until you get a judge
annoyed.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
on (legal)
> to the GPL FAQ.
Which will become relevant if you use software copyrighted by Mr
Edwards and licensed under the GPL, or if Mr Edwards agrees to pay all
damages should you lose in court after heeding his advice.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
idelines
is not much of a concern for you, except when _you_ are unhappy when a
_particular_ guideline is not met by your license.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
;i<1;i+=4)
> {
> d3 /= 81.0;
> pival = pival + d3/i;
> pival = pival - (d3/9.0)/(i + 2);
> }
> cout.precision(100);
> cout << pival * 4.0 << '\n';
> return 0;
>
e bodies of the posts.
>
> Don't have any interest in what the clueless cretin who
> posts those things has to say.
\<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
is a "group of posters" I don't care reading from. Looks like the
latest worm to me, and it certainly has hit the GNU ma
m sharing (which is distasteful).
It is better to avoid such conflicts of interest.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
work under the
GPL, but can ask any price you wish. Be aware that your customers
might choose to copy and pass on your software.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.g
er can tell you
how he thinks you would fare in court. The MySQL people can tell you
whether you'd be likely to be dragged into court in the first place.
If you are not satisfied with the answer from the MySQL people, you
can still contact a lawyer.
--
David K
350.html
>
> Basically, just like the rest of the GPL drivel authored by a
> programmer-not-a-lawyer RMS, it has no legal effect whatsoever.
>
> Hope this helps.
In case this is not very obvious already, following Mr Terekhov's
advice with regard to the GPL does not invo
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Fung wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I am currently doing some research on open source licences an
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsu
er, not to things you duplicated yourself. For
those copies, your rights are restricted by the license. The GPL
allows you distributing such copies _under_ _the_ _GPL_, _including_
the source code (or rights to it). Copyright law does not permit you
to do any distribution of them w
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going
>> on.
>
> "We" don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand,
> have a nice la
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Wallace gets a last chance, but the court has not even found enough
>> merit in Wallace's ramblings to even start proper proceedings.
>
> "By making certain software programs
ne a GPLed work
in private with whatever software he wants to, as long as he does not
redistribute the results.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
, but I
chose to use that as an excuse for showing something people tend not
to realize.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And if you use it internally in a business then you are distributing
> the program to anyone who uses it.
Your opinion differs from that in the GPL FAQ as writtem by the FSF.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhil
for v1.0: other people
> could have made useful programs with it, and republished
> it. However, as you said, if I make v1.01, then I can change the
> license, even making it proprietary. Is this correct?
No need to make changes: the license is what accompanies the
individual copies. You can han
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 11:43 +0100, Alexander Terekho
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> GNUtian logic in action.
>
> GNUtian David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Alexander Terekho
ompilation on a tangible medium. In source code or
> object code form (both forms are wildly available).
The mere presence of duplicable material somewhere does not give you
any automatic right to create copies of it.
If somebody leaves his door open, that does not mean that this gives
m
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For the sake of nailing stupid dak once again...
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> But copyright law does not allow you redistribution of copies. The
>> GPL grants you additional rights. You are free not to acc
someone
granting them who has the right to do so.
> Why don't you _read_ the license? Please, just do that instead, the
> GPL isn't that hard to read.
Which makes it surprising that you manage to come up with all those
misconceptions.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bo
released under the
> GPL if it is released at all.
And it is not released. That's the key. Internal use.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
e Nobel price at the same time.
So what? If you use a company CD burner to move company software to a
company CDR which you then use on a company computer in the field, how
does this CD or its contents magically become the property of the
company worker?
Do you even remember what you try to be
ted with owning
>this property: namely copying its contents.
>
> But the content isn't property! The _medium_ that the content
> resides on is.
But you have no right whatsoever to access the content without
acquiring a physical copy of it into your possession.
--
David Kas
comes my own
property for the duration of use?
> I can claim that the whole world is internal for my use, and then
> simply refuse to release the source to anyone, since it is `internal
> use', if one would follow your thread.
Tell that to the FSF and
are.
> the license applies, and if the content contains GPLed software, I
> am free to distribute it.
As long as you are not living in a communistic state, company and
worker property remain separate. Even if you are living in a
communistic state, the unity is merely theoretical.
--
rsion through its
own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release
that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other
organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular,
providing copies to contractors for use
g or incapable of understanding the issues at
hand. I will point out when you tell falsehoods to posters on this
list and revert them to the GPL FAQ from the FSF for more details, but
I will not further "discuss" this with you since you show absolutely
no inclination to even consider anyt
rty'; I'd really you of
> all people to know the differenence between these things.
A tangible copy _is_ property, and getting company-internal access to
it does not grant you the rights connected with owning this property:
namely copying its contents.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildst
1 - 100 of 1330 matches
Mail list logo
