Recommendation for a CL data structures library
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: [2nd CfP] 7th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP'10, June 21/22
Next: §§§ 2010 Cheap wholesale ED Hardy Suit, Baby Suit, Lacoste Suit ect at www.rijing-trade.com <Paypal Payment>
From: Alexander Terekhov on 26 Mar 2010 05:36 David Kastrup wrote: [...] > The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB contract. http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf "The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor the right to copy, ..." http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf "To begin with, the Panel has no doubt whatsoever that the general business conditions have been effectively incorporated into a possible contractual relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff pursuant to German Civil Code Section 305 Para. 2. " regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
From: RJack on 26 Mar 2010 10:13 David Kastrup wrote: > Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> writes: > >> On 3/25/2010 2:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >>> Hyman Rosen<hyrosen(a)mail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: >>>>> it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the >>>>> rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate work >>>>> after the original work has been created! >>>> Well, actually, let me take this part back. >>> What changes is not the rights to the copyrightable work (those >>> remain with the author), but whether it legally constitutes an >>> integral part of a larger whole or not. When it can be usefully >>> combined with different other parts, this is definitely not the >>> case. >> No, that's not it at all. I was wrong because the author of a >> license can put in any conditions he wants, > The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is > extending the rights a user will normally have, so that agreement to > the license can be assumed without prejudicing the software user. The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is to establish an alternate, imaginary reality where federal courts don't universally hold a copyright license to be a contract thus extending the rights a user will normally have, so that agreement to the license can be assumed without prejudicing the software user. It's kind of like extending the structure of frogs so they have wings and thus don't bump their asses. > So the GPL takes care not to go further than copyright does. > >> But permission to copy and distribute a library cannot affect the >> right to copy and distribute a separate work when that work does >> not contain the library. > > The courts ultimately determine the meaning of "separate" and > "contain". > Sincerely, RJack :)
From: David Kastrup on 26 Mar 2010 09:39 Alexander Terekhov <terekhov(a)web.de> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is > > Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: > > It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB > contract. > > http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf > > "The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor > the right to copy, ..." Germany might call things different, but you still have the situation that a contractual arrangement to which one party has not given its implicit or explicit consent differs in the details of execution and enforcement. For one thing, the license can't stipulate contractual penalties for non-conformance. > http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf > > "To begin with, the Panel has no doubt whatsoever that the general > business conditions have been effectively incorporated into a possible > contractual relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff > pursuant to German Civil Code Section 305 Para. 2. " "into a possible": the court says that _if_ one stipulates a contractual relationship, _then_ the GPL spells the conditions. So the defendant can't claim _both_ having a contractual relationship _and_ the GPL _not_ being involved in this particular case. -- David Kastrup
From: Alexander Terekhov on 26 Mar 2010 10:58 David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <terekhov(a)web.de> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is > > > > Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: > > > > It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB > > contract. > > > > http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf > > > > "The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor > > the right to copy, ..." > > Germany might call things different, but you still have the situation > that a contractual arrangement to which one party has not given its > implicit or explicit consent differs in the details of execution and > enforcement. > > For one thing, the license can't stipulate contractual penalties for > non-conformance. http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20061123091221786 "SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is "well settled" that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp., 612 N.E.2d 289, 292 (N.Y. 1993) ("Nominal damages are always available in breach of contract action".). Thus, SCO's footnoted damages argument is no basis for summary judgment as to liability. Moreover, IBM has proffered expert evidence that it was financially damaged by SCO's violations of the GPL. First, as IBM expert Professor J. R. Kearl will testify at trial, under the methodology of SCO's own experts (offered in support of SCO's affirmative case), IBM has suffered quantifiable damages resulting from SCO's wrongful conduct, including its GPL violations. (� 28; Ex. 591 �� 1.C, 33-34.) " > > > http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf > > > > "To begin with, the Panel has no doubt whatsoever that the general > > business conditions have been effectively incorporated into a possible > > contractual relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff > > pursuant to German Civil Code Section 305 Para. 2. " > > "into a possible": the court says that _if_ one stipulates a contractual > relationship, _then_ the GPL spells the conditions. http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf "The Panel considers the license conditions to be general business conditions which are to be examined under application of German Civil Code Sections 305 et seqq. " In the original it says "Die Kammer stuft die Lizenzbedingungen als allgemeine Gesch�ftsbedingungen ein, die einer Pr�fung nach �� 305 ff. BGB zu unterziehen sind. " Now, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#BGBengl_000P305 "Section 305 Incorporation of standard business terms into the contract (1) Standard business terms are all contract terms pre-formulated for more than two contracts which one party to the contract (the user) presents to the other party upon the entering into of the contract. It is irrelevant whether the provisions take the form of a physically separate part of a contract or are made part of the contractual document itself, what their volume is, what typeface or font is used for them and what form the contract takes. Contract terms do not become standard business terms to the extent that they have been negotiated in detail between the parties. (2) Standard business terms only become a part of a contract if the user, when entering into the contract, 1. refers the other party to the contract to them explicitly or, where explicit reference, due to the way in which the contract is entered into, is possible only with disproportionate difficulty, by posting a clearly visible notice at the place where the contract is entered into, and 2. gives the other party to the contract, in an acceptable manner, which also takes into reasonable account any physical handicap of the other party to the contract that is discernible to the user, the opportunity to take notice of their contents, and if the other party to the contract agrees to their applying. (3) The parties to the contract may, while complying with the requirements set out in subsection (2) above, agree in advance that specific standard business terms are to govern a specific type of legal transaction. " Furthermore: http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf "The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor the right to copy, . . . Plaintiff, or the licensors from whom Plaintiff derives his right, have not violated any contractual obligations themselves. Rather, Defendant, who violated contractual obligations, relies on rights granted by contract. " regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
From: David Kastrup on 26 Mar 2010 11:13
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov(a)web.de> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov(a)web.de> writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> > [...] >> >> The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is >> > >> > Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: >> > >> > It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB >> > contract. >> > >> > http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf >> > >> > "The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor >> > the right to copy, ..." >> >> Germany might call things different, but you still have the situation >> that a contractual arrangement to which one party has not given its >> implicit or explicit consent differs in the details of execution and >> enforcement. >> >> For one thing, the license can't stipulate contractual penalties for >> non-conformance. > > http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20061123091221786 > > "SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the > Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC > 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is "well settled" that > nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Get somebody to explain the difference of "contractual penalties" and "nominal damages" to you. The former can be an arbitrary amount agreed upon in advance by the contract parties. -- David Kastrup |