ould follow your thread.
>
>Tell that to the FSF and to judges and lawyers in general.
>
> Maybe I will. :-)
Good luck.
--
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
roperty: namely copying its contents.
>
> But the content isn't property! The _medium_ that the content resides
> on is.
But you have no license to do whatever you want with the content if
you just have a copy that is the property of the company you are
working for.
--
David Kastrup, Kriem
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>And if I let you run a program from a CD of mine, the CD then
>becomes yours? Because CDs can be copied?
>
> CDs are still physical like cars. Apples vs rocks.
You'll be hard put to run a program wi
y attributing nonsense to me
that I never said. After correcting this several times, I am afraid
that it becomes hard to attribute it to stupidity instead of malice.
Anyway, I am not the "only person spreading falsehoods" according to
your reckoning since it is the interpretation of th
;. If the company chooses "no", a company
worker is not in the position to ignore that.
> What part of this is so hard to understand? I'm sad to say that you
> have dropped below the level I thought a person could drop, even
> Alexander makes more sense than you on a bad day.
Look, get a clue about corporate law. It is not so hard to do. If a
company were not a legal entity of its own, there would not need to be
such laws.
And if you don't believe me about this, read the GPL FAQ.
--
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 it. Licensing the software under the GPL (or intending to do
so) does not magically make it ubiquitous. Even when I finish it, it
does not mean that it ends up on archive servers magically.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it
>
> Sitecom didn't bothered. So what?
If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded
se business with them.
It is important that copies of the software can be taken to employees'
computers and tested there as well without legal worries. Business
relationships need a certain amount of common sense in them.
If the other is noncooperative, too bad. Then you just pick your
partners or
as all the time in the world
to improve. And that's an advantage in the long run.
--
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
ying any appliance built to
last 40 years. The choice is gone. You'll only get stuff that is
_designed_ to be junk after few years, at the cost of sustainable
resources.
DRM is just putting into practice for software what has been the rule
for hardware: built-in self-destruction
David is wrong)
As long as the copy remains the property of person A and person B acts
only as agent of person A, yes, person A dictates all the terms under
which person B might make use of person A's physical property.
You really don't get internal use.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhilds
does not magically jump off the copy. Accessing the
content of the copy is the sole right of the copy's owner.
--
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
legally!) to read the content of
> the disk, I'm able to acquire a license for the software.
Wrong. Because you are granted access for the _purpose_ of creating
your own copy licensed under the GPL, you are able to do so. The mere
access itself (which could have been gained b
an unlimited
number of copies for that purpose.
Maybe that is an omission. You can, of course, pro forma _distribute_
the required number of copies to yourself when heeding the GPL, but
that sounds a bit contorted.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
__
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
> [... license not a contract ...]
>
> Only if it's a "license" to do something regulated by
> government. Like a permit to run a public lottery or become a gun
> dealer. Such pe
eople access to my software
media. Once I pass copies on into separate ownership, I can only do
so under the GPL (or the default provisions of copyright law). But
internal use does not amount to 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
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally
>> > OK. For example, I can install it
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Nope. It gives you additional rights depending on conditions. You
>> can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave
>> it be. No contract. There is no oblig
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Quite so. You can merely recoup damages for the breach of copyright,
>
> What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
> sale.
Sure, but there has been no unconditiona
main perfectly usable after such a
feat.
> (other than by not giving me a copy,
He did not "give" you a copy. The copy is still his own. He granted
you temporary use in the course of his work.
I don't give my head to a barber. I just grant him access to it, and
he is not
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
>> > sale.
>>
>> Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are
>> talking ab
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Conditional authorization does not magically turn into
>> unconditional authorization.
>
> A promise on my part to forbear from distribution right under first
> sale and instead do w
Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> What about "licensee" don't you understand?
>
> The part which (you claim) states that only the owner of the physical
> media on which the copy is 'fi
Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Your access is limited to what the owner of the copy allows you to do
>> with it. The GPL grants rights to the owner of the copy, not to you.
>> Since you have not bough
Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD
>>> containing GPL'd software. Under
Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:18:22 +0100, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Graham Mur
er of the
received copies has both rights and restrictions making use of the
content of his physical copy. Both rights and restrictions are
determined by copyright law. The copyright holder can negotiate
different conditions or unilaterally grant more rights.
--
"Bernd Jendrissek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>The GPL can only give the owner of a copy rights.
>
> What if I, as a homeless vagrant scouring the city dump for cool
> st
major
player.
> Much of its surrounding software is either poor quality, arcane in
> design and administration, outdated or a weak imitation of something
> commercial.
Well, that pretty accurately describes the status of most proprietary
software, too. That'
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Uh, you are being confused.
>
> Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is
> the author.
So you disagree with him and still quite him?
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Uh, you are being confused.
>> >
>> >
enter into it at all.
>
> The license does _not_ apply to the physical copy, it applies to the
> software. Please read the license, it even says so
But you can't get the software without accessing the physical media,
and what you are allowed to do with the media is its owner's
here I get
> free software.
You can't get anything without access to the physical media, and you
need the owner's permission to access the media.
--
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
not allowed to do so, since that
> would violate the license.
No, it wouldn't, as he is not distributing the software to you by
letting you install it on his server. You are not a third party, but
acting as the employer's agent.
You don't understand internal use.
--
Dav
opyright notice is an identifier placed on copies of the work
to inform the world of copyright ownership that generally
consists of the symbol or word “copyright (or copr.),” the name
of the copyright owner, and the year of first publication, e.g.,
©2003 John Doe.
You really are so clu
extent. Only the copyright holder can do that,
and even then the remedy for the offender is to _either_ heed the GPL
_or_ stop distribution.
--
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
r work which contains
> a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be
> distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The
> "Program,"
>
> Since I have legally obtained The Program, the terms of the GNU
> General Public License app
ion is the GPL v2. In the case of the new BSDL or
the MIT license, possible sublicenses include GPL and EULA. The one
handing you the physical media with the software on it gets to decide
what license he picks among those that are options to him.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_
case rather the putative justice) for the
copyright holder into your own hands.
>The terms of the license apply to the licensee, not every
>bystander. You are not a licensee.
>
> Since I recived the source code, *I*AM*IN*FACT*THE*LICENSEE*. The
>
for the BSD parts? Obviously, this is not a dual-license
scheme.
> When you relicense a work, you can _remove_ the original license.
> This is not allowed with the modified-BSD license.
But the conditions of modified-BSD don't prohibit binary-only
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > The GPL is entirely different T&C, stupid. The BSD doesn't allow
>> > relicensing under the GPL T&C. Only the BSD T&C apply.
>>
>> There is nothing to in
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> > The GPL is entirely different T&C, stupid. The BSD
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Oh nonsense. If the original license permits usage in a context with
>> different conditions, of course anybody can do so. That is the
>> distinguishing feature of the BSD licen
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > The BSD is a contract that contains conditions and covenants for
>> > copying and preparation of derivative works (the language is a bit
>> > informal but that doesn't ch
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > Moglen's underlings don't count.
>>
>> He needs not "underlings" as he is paid for teaching the law at a
>> university.
>
> An interesting a
ive him permission to
read my letters, even though the content of the letters is not
tangible property.
You still confuse "access" and "ownership". The owner is the
licensee, nobody else.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_
t;licensee, nobody else.
>
> And you are confusing property with software.
What about "permission to read my letters" don't you understand? You
are being singularly disingenuous.
> If I take your book, you loose the book.
Who is talking about the book?
making a royal fool of himself? Have you ever seen a contract
stating:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it.
--
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 certainly provides you with fun, it appears.
--
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:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Barnes & Thornburg LLP on price:
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Plaintiff's argument [...]
hand-ins as legal gospel on occasion. He has been doing that in the
past even after they were dismissed, he'll continue doing so even now
that the whole case is dismissed with a vengeance.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-
es, and there does not seem to be much leeway for
that. It would appear that the court granted Wallace plenty of rope
to hang himself before drawing the line.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-mis
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> < misc.int-property added >
>>
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>> [...]
>>> appealing this dismissal is not going to be too easy, ...
>>
>>
e, the more ridiculous you'll look in the end.
Not that this has ever been a consideration of yours.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listin
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> < misc.int-property added >
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> appealing this dismissal is not going to be too easy, ...
>
> Oh really?
Offer Wallace to lay out the money for the appeal, for a share
gt; don't know who the poster of the article, [EMAIL PROTECTED], is though.
Karl Berry is the current president of TUG, the international TeX user
group.
--
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:
> [...]
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wallace_(plaintiff)
>>
>> Uh, the case has been closed. Get over it.
>
> Not so fast, dear. IIUC Wallace has 30 days to appeal (possib
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> You did not answer the question.
>
> Really? Oh dear. How about this:
You still have not answered the question. And all your posting of
irrelavant quotes does not change that. You are wea
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> How do you suppose the GPL leads to less competition
[Other irrelevant quotings snipped]
So you feel unable to face the facts. Thanks for making this obvious.
You shouldn't complain, how
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> So you feel unable to face the facts.
>
> The fact is
The fact is that there is a lot of competition between GNU/Linux
vendors and very little between proprietary operating system vendors
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Judge Tinder got
>
> nothing quite right. He even said that price-fixing IP at zero results
> in "more innovation."
He said nothing of that sort AFAICT, and anyway, if
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > in "more innovation."
>>
>> He said nothing of that sort AFAICT,
>
> Fire a search for "more innovation" in
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Wallac
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> So your pseudo-quote about "price-fixing at zero" was a plain lie.
>
> Oh dear.
>
> http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-17.pdf
>
> "A. Vertic
nted to. If they don't want to, they are
free to license their own stuff differently.
It is not a "price fixing scheme" if independent Windows users all
heed the EULA.
So why would it be one if independent GPLed software users all heeded
the GPL?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr.
cense (and
the source code) must not cost extra.
You really should be more careful with dishing out insults. It makes
yourself look even more ridiculous.
--
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:
> [...]
>> 2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
>> part thereof, to be licensed as a w
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> You really should be more careful with dishing out insults. It makes
>> yourself look even more ridiculous.
>
> One doesn't need a license to create and use private derivat
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 18:59 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>> [...]
>> > So you feel unable to face the facts.
>>
>> The fact is that the GPL price-fixes IP at zero.
&g
eral rule: answering to anything crossposted to
comp.os.linux.advocacy is an utter waste of time. That Usenet group
has been completely claimed by trolls.
--
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
sed. Get over it.
> Poor Dan Tinger.
How many competing distributions of GNU/Linux do you know? How many
competing distributions of MS Windows do you know? What does that
tell you?
Really, you are living entirely in Lala land with your non-acceptment
of either facts or judicial rulings.
--
rics of a
pseudonymous well-known troll? Come off it. Of course you would give
damn about the veracity of any source, including RMS himself. Karl is
the president of probably the largest international user group for a
particular piece of free software (TeX). Only a lunatic would think
he'd
llace's case. The
> Judge didn't explain why he did it. To me, it appears that he is less
> versed in antitrust than Wallace.
To you a lot of things appear. Legal competence necessitates a
certain correlation to what things appear to judges. And they
apparently have not
hem if I happen not to try bedding them.
Microsoft is by and large irrelevant to free software as long as they
don't indulge in business practices that harm free software, like
pressuring vendors into producing hardware that is incapable of
running it.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhilds
Tarquin Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tarquin Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Should the FSF back complete monopolisation by Microsoft, or
Tarquin Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Tarquin Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David Kastrup wrote:
>> >> Tarquin Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
their
agent, not becoming owner of any physical media containing the
software, this should not be a problem.
> I am trying to make its possible to use Linux under this situation,
Oh, there is nothing you can do in that respect.
> otherwise, *BSD is the only choice.
If you call that a choice
d that they call their
license something else (but I don't know whether GPL is registered as
a trademark), but that's about it.
--
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
f his, it's bullshit, and intentionally
misleading. Some hobby of his.
--
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
will
> face the situation I described above.
Yes, that's why the GPL exists. So that people don't consider ripping
off free code and making it proprietary. Exactly to stop people from
that practice, the GPL has been written.
No, there is no way around it, since that is the _purpose_ of
t; put any restriction on any one else. So can we protect our own tiny
> patch not to be public?
No.
--
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
is a substance, not a medium with copyable content.
--
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
the GPL is distributed together with another
> program
"together with" does not describe the relationship of Siamese twins.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http:
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I don't care what you say. Thanks to Wallace, the GPL drafter is on
>> > record: In fact, the GPL i
y (and legal) and in the
computer sense. A compilation is a collection of independent works
only related by topic. You can throw out parts and retain a
compilation.
--
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:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
outside my company, does the GPL require me to publish my
> source code to the world?
No. What's wrong with the GPL FAQ?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lis
to share the source. I
> was just saying that that should change: also in-house code
> should be shared, once it's out of testing.
Why should that change?
--
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
ations.
With the GPL, you only need to worry about downstream concerning your
obligations. Adding upstream worries to it does not seem like a good
idea.
--
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
Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2006-05-16, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Right now the GPL makes a distinction for in-house code. Only
>>> if you distribute binaries do
Let alone have his case thrown out.
You should offer to pay all his legal fees for a cut in the spoils you
are so sure he is about to receive.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.
distribute source to every
>user.
>
> Every user who has access to the Program, yes. This is all perfecly
> reasonable.
In your opinion, which differs quite from that of the FSF and pretty
much everybody else.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I just can't see how Wallace could possibly lose on appeal.
>>
>> Before "losing" he actually
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> They won't be the last rabbits you imagine seeing.
>
> What part in "predatory pricing has the requisite anticompetitive
> effect" (ARCO) don't you understand, dear
brary will then consequently be
forced to hand out copies of the source code on demand.
Not even the FSF has such a contorted view of things.
> Please David, learn to read instead of resorting to Terkhovian
> methods.
Pointing out that your views are not shared by anybody else is hardly
&qu
e anticompetitive effect" (ARCO).
>
> Where am I wrong, dak?
Where is the anticompetitive effect?
--
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:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Let's try once again, dak.
>> >
>> > The judge admits that Wallace alleges predatory pricing and
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); United States v. Clark County, Ind., 113
>> > F.Supp.2d 1286, 1290 (S.D. Ind. 2000). The court will dismiss a
>> > complaint for failure to s
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> But Wallace brought forth no facts whatsoever compatible with his
>> claim of predatory pricing as defined by the requisite laws.
>
> Wallace brought forth the GPL. The GPL is his eviden
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > Wallace brought forth the GPL. The GPL is his evidence.
>>
>> Yes. No facts compatible with his claim of predatory pricing.
>
> And how do you know?
By virtue of having a
payment for the work of making that copy.
>
> But of course, in Therekovian there's only one incentive for "life":
> getting money.
Last time I looked, RedHat was getting money.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
101 - 200 of 1330 matches
Mail list logo
