John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>> If you are the sole distributor, you can put on any price tag you want on
>> the media.
>
> But every time you sell a copy under the GPL you create a potential
> competitor.
>
>> And if yo
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wrote:
>> The competitors you created in step one can create competing GPL
>> versions with the same features.
>
> David Kastrup writes:
>> That's a nice theory. In practice, you can't hope to keep pace with
ling holy water on what has already been
done.
--
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
Utter idiots. Just like you, Hyman.
Pretty much like him, yes. Which is not all too impressive for the
level of idiocy. For a real blundering idiot, there is just no
alternative to you.
--
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
re? Interesting.
Last time I looked, UNIX was not particularly uncommercial either.
--
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
little children.
And I have no doubt that Terekhov and you would hail anybody suing the
SFLC for murder, and be calling any judge thinking otherwise "drunk",
"mad" or similar.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-
bility once and for all.
Pffft. Like all previous decisions did. I don't expect anything new.
You trumpet about the inevitability of the outcomes all the time, and
then bluster about incompetence of the judges afterwards.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
The Cfront language design inheritage indeed means that for the most
part, you can't do anything in C++ that is not fundamentally accessible
in C.
--
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
he point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the
point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you
unable to do copies yourself?
I mean, it's like circumventing robbery laws by withdrawing money from
your own bank account pointing your gun on an ATM all the w
aries.
You'll have a hard time explaining to the judge that this first company
was not acting on your behalf and is an independent seller of
prepackaged software.
A really hard time.
The difference between computers and judges are that neither considers
it funny if you try meeting the lett
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> You mean if I pay somebody to drop a brick from a window
>> when I signal him, I am not accountable for murder?
>
> If I hire a company to develop a program for me, that
> company is not me. I pay mo
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the
>> point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you
>> unable to do copies yourself?
>
> That way Company A
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> I was asking where the point was for B.
>
> B gets handsomely paid by A.
B gets _paid_ by A and yet receives the disks by first _sale_ rather
than acting as an agent of A? You'll have a _really_ hard ti
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> B gets _paid_ by A and yet receives the disks by first _sale_ rather
>> than acting as an agent of A? You'll have a _really_ hard time selling
>> that to a judge.
>
> A gives specifications t
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> I recommend that you reread the thread and decide on who you call A and
>> who B. It will make it easier for the judge to figure out things.
>
> Oops, I did mix them up. But in any case, there is
>
o the source at no additional
cost). As long as any recipients (including zero) receive the material
in the prescribed form, no further duty regarding accessibility or
distribution exists.
--
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
ode, which is not quite the same
>> thing as giving you the right to demand it.
>>
>> So where would you get the source code? From anywhere where it's
>> available.
>
> No. Whomever distributes the software is on the hook for providing the
> source.
Q
rd
parties involved when you _used_ that option.
GPLv3 contains no such option AFAICS.
--
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
gt; perhaps through the use of the First Sale Doctrine.
No, it doesn't. It gives the buyer the possibility to notify the
copyright holder, because the copyright holder (and nobody else) has the
right to enforce the form of distribution.
--
David Kast
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> You don't need to become the owner.
>> It is enough if you become _responsible_.
>
> Enough for what? I just don't understand what you're
> saying. Remember, the GPL is just a copyright
per, like you are
free to use your paycheck for the same purpose.
But that leaves you without a license, and that's not an advantage.
--
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
thufir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:11:33 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>
>> Yes, but it is not a right of the buyer, but a right of the copyright
>> owner that this happens. So the buyer can't sue, he can just notify the
>> copyrigh
thufir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:45:15 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>> I don't see why their participation is required, it's between the buyer
>>> and the manufacturer.
>>
>> No. The buyer has no rights derived
ere pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly
> the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale
> and sell them, without the need of copyright permission?
Because to make them lawfully, you had to have permission and this was
given only conditional
the GNU Republic, uncle Hasler? :-)
You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions.
Your choice. In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the
first place.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-di
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > John Hasler wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Tim Smith wrote:
>> >> > The copies were pretty cl
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Agreement is precedent to making copies.
>
> No. The act of making copies (other than by downloading from online
> distributor without "I agree" manifestation of assent prior
Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> >> > The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly
>> >> > the
>> >> > o
the "who can come up with the silliest
irrelevant hypothetical" contest, this entry seems as good as any.
--
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
Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> >> You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions.
>> >> Your choice. In the latter case, you ha
ness to a level that regulation sets in,
regulation that actually overrides that what most people would do on
their own.
Changing perception is an important first step for change to happen. It
is not tantamount to changing behavior, but behavior does not change all
on its own.
--
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
JohnF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> JohnF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>> Hadn't thought of that. But, on second thought now, I'd say,
>>> "let the best program win." If the
Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yes, this is a political question and a moral one.
>
> It is, but people approach the ethical questions of labour and
> software from different starting points.
>
uot;others'" refers to. If it means respecting other
> *peoples'* lives, then, no, I wouldn't accept that message from a
> cannibal. But I think you've yet again "jumped the shark" with that
> analogy vis-a-vis free software.
For the record: plants are a
ue also
regarding their own products.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we."
--
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
t; Do either of them have a vested interest in this, financial or otherwise
>> or is this just a matter of winning an argument/making a point?
>
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I would say that "making a
> point" is an example of a vested interest.
In the
out the GPL FAQ?
> I think Free software is about Freedom for the users, and not anything
> to do with making or not making money.
And nothing new with that.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu
that's fine. Laws are interpreted not by Terekhov's
notions of sane, funny, crazy and drunk, but by the courts.
And actually, the courts are not really interested in whether you follow
the law for sane or for crazy reasons or out of pure coincidence.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Since they share this property with the courts and their decisions
>> quite
>
> Please (re)visit the link below, you amusingly crazy clownish GNU GPL
> true believer dak.
[...]
>
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> LOL.
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
> (carefully snipping the links to word "vertrag" aka "contract" in
> relation to the GPL)
>
> [... in legal matters, the decisions of the courts ...]
>
&
"LIKE")?
>>
>> What if the license lacks consideration?
>
> If it lacks consideration it is not a contract. If it is not a
> contract it is not a license.
And if it is not circular, it isn't reasoning. Or something.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Boc
its face.
Your idea of what constitutes "fact" is not unlike your ideas about what
constitutes "law".
> That background scene is far away though.
Quite so. And if it were to draw closer, I think you'd see quite a few
details turn out other than you thoug
| Eerie |
> | Morph |
> `----'
You want some equivalent to Firefox' "Open All in Tabs" here I think.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_
, that would be acting
against bad faith ("good faith" seems an inappropriate term regarding
reliance on being able to ignore licensing conditions).
--
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 put in myself, and you don't follow the GPL license
conditions, you put yourself out of your possibility as a licensed
recipient to sue me for it.
That's all.
> It does not negate the existence of the contract or the binding
> contractual relationship of the parties.'); Wells Far
This group is harmless in contrast. A strictly limited number of
recognizable trolls, and valuable advice in between.
--
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
works meet neither the Debian nor the FSF free software
guidelines. However, Debian has chosen to just apply one standard to
both documentation and software. Thus it considers GFDLed documentation
with invariant passages as non-free software. I don't think that the
FSF would come to a differe
ised if you considered dumping your household garbage in a cemetery
to be perfectly feasible since their policies of only burying dead
persons amounts to asking for murder and thus any of their conditions
and tariffs need not be heeded.
> Anyone remember Yogi Berra's "It ain't over
Rowling decision should be
> interesting (and dismaying) reading for GPL uber-
> advocates who favor the FSF view that just looking
> at GPL code funny makes something a derivative work.
You got a bad case of slandries. Perhaps you should cut down on the
Alexander dosage you are exhibiting
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> You got a bad case of slandries.
>
> From <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080909014304275>,
> quoting from the decision:
>
> By condensing, synthesizing, and reorganizing the pre
ash make” and
> sees if produces the same executables and uh.
>
> So you're right, just eliminating copyright would not make software
> free.
>
> AM5: Um libre
>
> RMS: Right.
> -
>
> LOL.
Do you think the FSF would refuse to get a better world if it can't ge
ve their source.
Well, but then you are wearing your user hat with respect to the
library, not your programmer hat...
--
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 a relevant buzzphrase in this context,
and trying your favorite search engine will show you that there is much
talk and very little hard evidence in one direction or the other.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss m
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> prgm clearly is a derivative work of all the various modules.
>
> No it isn't. A derivative work is a transformed form of an
> original work that accomplishes the same purpose.
All the library pa
o culture is no longer something that can grow outside of greenhouses,
in the wild.
--
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. And likely on the
jurisdiction in question. It is more a case of "this is a sufficiently
involved area that you will want to get a legal opinion about your
particular case, and hopefully from your lawyer instead of somebody
else".
"Tread carefully" is not the same as "y
separate lawsuit).
If one can get all one's objectives accomplished by being constantly
"defeated", that's a comfortable position to be in.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
ls to state a case, that hardly can be considered a
precedent for anything. By anybody.
It was an amusement for FOSS, not anything of relevance or importance.
--
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
t is a pretty impressive
> capture rate and it all occurred in the same timeframe that Linux was
> evolving. Linux has made gains, to be sure, but almost all at the
> expense of traditional Unix system sales.
So what does that tell you about the superiority of the traditio
t a proper right for egomaniacs as well, where would
Microsoft be nowadays?
--
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
oviding an alternative
> form of horrific entertainment.
Oh please. There are times when a clown is just a clown.
--
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
y are you a Communist? That is a completely discredited
> ideology.
More like a discredited label. Reminds me of the famous quote "Mr
Gandhi, what do you think of Western civilization?" -- "I think it would
be a good idea."
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
quot;
>
> Cut the crap Hymen! The brave GNU World wants to control your
> compiler.
"it" obviously means the proprietary, third-party compiler. Your
reading comprehension appears a bit sub-standard.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_
It is an independent work. You get into inappropriate conditions very
fast that road, since the compiler has dependencies of its own.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
#x27;s brain, and didn't give it back.
Not everybody keeps track of small 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
a secondary consideration.
--
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
mplicated for you? Is it
> somehow unfair in your estimation?
It is a highly inaccurate description of the situation.
--
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
oherent, cogent posts,
You want to base an argument on that premise?
--
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
emands the freedom to facilitate the propagation of
non-freedom. The GPL does not grant this freedom, and for good reason.
That's its main point.
Writing dozens of enfuriated paragraphs about that does not show much
more than that you don't have a clue. It's like comp
hen set back and watch Artifex be forced to
> actually cite prevailing law that supports Artifex's specious claims
> -- something no GPL supporter has ever been capable of doing.
Because the defendants fold in lack of a tenable defense before that and
settle. But IIRC, at least in Germany
h ignoring the license. Of course, only
a lunatic would claim that this delusion was a "promise" planned for by
the licensor. But it is less expensive to make a fool of oneself and
get laughed at in Usenet than in court.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
e, so what point would
that serve even to him?
--
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
"amicus_curious" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Hyman Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Why? Then the software would not be redistributable
>>
>> No, you don't und
Rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> The GPL is not a contract but a license. It spells the conditions you
>> have to meet.
>
> "Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
> reasonable compensation, must, of c
"amicus_curious" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Kastrup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The GPL is not a contract but a license. It spells the conditions
>> you have to meet.
>>
> I am not aware of any real distinction in th
For license breaches, you
can demand damages, but not penalties.
--
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
quot;, of course a
settlement is likely.
That's the way this works.
--
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
ls of the
underlying traffic don't change the legal nature of who makes available
something that much.
I have no details about the underlying case, but if the SFLC does not
pursue all fringe cases, this means more about focusing their resources
than it does about condon
ear mostly concerned with guns and people, and not
all that much with the bullets and other technical details behind a
shot.
While being in contradiction with Alexander places one on the sane side
of an argument usually, there are no guarantees.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_
Hyman Rosen writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Actually, I am with Terekhov on that one. The technical details of the
>> underlying traffic don't change the legal nature of who makes available
>> something that much.
>
> But who says that "making available&q
e consistently rule in
the manner that gets our good Alexander up in ruffles and calls of
inebriation, we have not seen significant GPL coverage there, however.
--
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
Rjack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> To have the GPL evaluated on "its merits", the defendant has to state
>> that he considers being in compliance with the GPL.
>
> And so, just why does the defendant *have* to state "that he considers
> being in
ZnU writes:
> In article <85r63dpho3@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup
> wrote:
>>
>> To have the GPL evaluated on "its merits", the defendant has to state
>> that he considers being in compliance with the GPL. Up to now, none
>> of the defen
ads of GPLed software don't require any such thing.
I have downloaded a _lot_ of software, checked its conditions, and then
removed the software again. Certainly not a manifestation of assent.
--
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
t and contract.
>
> If a downloader don't know about the license or doesn't agree to the
> license terms then DON'T DOWNLOAD THE DAMN MATERIAL. OK?
>
> What's so hard about that?
Congrats, you have just now abolished shrink-wra
Rick writes:
> Are there examples of GTK+ applications that can run natively on
> Windows? Can I download them and run them?
http://www.gimp.org/windows/>
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
osed to actually _achieve_ something, its
effects need to much more immediate. Just jotting down a scalding entry
into a Doomsday book record is not going to change a thing.
If every administration change just changes the proposed penalties but
never actually get
offerings".
And if Microsoft has one thing to go in its advantage is that they are
free to throw lots of basically anonymous manpower at problems that can
be tackled in that manner. If they are running out of such problems,
their cash and company resources stop being
e where people
actually want to go. And Vista pretty much is a failure on most points.
At some point of time they need to go "we are preparing the roads to
places where you'll want to go tomorrow once you see them".
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_
source advocates
> are ideologically blinded to these facts.
The GPL was not written by Open Source advocates but by Free Software
advocates. Free Software advocates are not bothered about Microsoft
except when its business practices complicate acquiring platforms fit
for running Free Software.
P/M, we might still be using
> WordPerfect albeit on Vista. But that is not the case and WordPerfect
> is dead as a dodo.
AFAIR, WordPerfect on CP/M was particularly useless because it did not
even exist. As opposed to, say, WordStar on CP/M.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochu
ource code for the firmware was already available in
> dozens of places. What good is one more snapshot?
It needs to be the corresponding snapshot if you want to debug stuff
and/or do incremental changes.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
feasible.
That's just some of the stuff I did personally, but in today's networked
world it is much more important that _anybody_ who could be interested
in working on a problem can actually do so rather than that I personally
have this sort of acce
chrisv writes:
> Rjack wrote:
>
>>Cancer is a real disease. The GPL is a legal delusion in Richard
>>Stallman's marxist mind.
>
> *plonk*
>
>>Sincerely,
>>Rjack :)
>
> Go fsck yourself,
I thought that was pretty much what he ha
>> license.
>
> Why would Microsoft ever want to give away their intellectual
> property under a voidable contract like the GPL?
>
> Duh.
Hm? They already distribute GPLed software.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu>
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Rjack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Rjack writes:
>>
>>> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>>> Rjack wrote:
>>>>> The GPL is a legal delusion in Richard Stallman's marxist mind.
>>>> It seems to be a solid enough delusion that Micro
opyright law is involved). All cases so far in
U.S. jurisdiction have been cut&dry to a degree where no defendant was
stupid enough to even try that course.
--
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
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
> news:85bptrnsam@lola.goethe.zz...
>
>>
>> The recipient of GPLed software is free to declare the GPL void and
>> revert to default copyright rules.
>>
> What is at issue t
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup"
>
>> Since when? If I send a personal letter to someone, I don't charge a
>> fee for it. He still is not authorized for redistributing my letter or
>> using its content in publications of his.
>>
ZnU writes:
> In article <85bptrnsam@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup
> wrote:
>
>> Rjack writes:
>>
>> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> >> Rjack wrote:
>> >>> It is a verifiable fact that ever completed suit filed by the SFLC
>>
801 - 900 of 1330 matches
Mail list logo
