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: RJack on 29 Mar 2010 11:13 Hyman Rosen wrote: > On 3/29/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective >> works aka compilations. How come that now it's called "a unified >> program"? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL >> and/or copyright law? > > The "unified program" is an extension of a GPL-covered work or a > larger program which has been formed by being combined with a GPL- > covered work, just as the GPL describes. > > Separate permission is required from rights holders every time a > work is copied and distributed as part of a collective work, and > the rights holders may choose to distinguish what permissions they > grant based on the nature of the collective work, or in fact based > on anything at all. > > The creators of the GPL choose to grant different permission based > upon whether a covered work is included as part of an aggregate on > a distribution medium, or whether it is integrated into a single > program. > > Your willful misinterpretation of the permissions granted by the > GPL serves your purposes as an anti-GPL crank, but fools no one. > As a delusional GPL advocate you choose to deliberately ignore the plain consequences of U.S. Copyright law. The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301, it is unenforceable under contract law and is a misuse of copyright. All this discussion of the legal consequences of the GPL is delusional tilting at Windmills. Even a dysfunctional mind is a terrible thing to waste. Sincerely, RJack :)
From: Alexander Terekhov on 29 Mar 2010 10:22 Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/29/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective > > works aka compilations. How come that now it's called "a unified > > program"? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL > > and/or copyright law? > > The "unified program" is an extension of a GPL-covered work or a You must mean a derivative work of a GPL-covered work because the term "extension" is also not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law. > or a larger program ... Full stop once again for the same reason: the term "larger program" is also not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law. To repeat, snipping ambiguity/undefined terms it says just exactly what the GFDL says (recall that under copyright law software is protected as literary works modulo the AFC test): "A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" <snip "if" nonsense>. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document. " IOW, it's "mere aggegation" just like in the GPLv2, stupid. > which has been formed by being combined with a GPL- > covered work, just as the GPL describes. <chuckles> Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. Stop moving the goalposts. 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: Hyman Rosen on 29 Mar 2010 10:27 On 3/29/2010 11:04 AM, RJack wrote: > The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301 The GPL is a copyright license which authorizes certain actions based on the exclusive rights given to copyright holders by federal copyright law. The federal preemption of state copyright equivalence provisions is completely irrelevant to the GPL. > it is unenforceable under contract law The GPL is a copyright license which authorizes certain actions based on the exclusive rights given to copyright holders by federal copyright law. No one has permission to otherwise copy and distribute GPL-covered works, so anyone who does so without obeying the requirements of the GPL is infringing copyright. > and is a misuse of copyright Misuse of copyright, when applied at all (its appearance is rare as hen's teeth), is found in anti-competitive and anti-trust contexts. As Daniel Wallace found, courts do not find that the GPL creates such a context, because competition laws exist to benefit the public, not to benefit competitors. > All this discussion of the legal consequences of the GPL is > delusional tilting at Windmills. Rather, all of this anti-GPL crankery consists of deliberately distorting copyright law and case law to reach false conclusions. None of these false conclusions have been upheld by courts, nor are they likely to be, leaving anti-GPL cranks no outlet but to rail on the internet.
From: Hyman Rosen on 29 Mar 2010 10:30 On 3/29/2010 10:11 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > IOW, it's "mere aggegation" just like in the GPLv2 Yes, the mere aggregation part is mere aggregation, just as the combined program part is the combined program part. The GPL grants permission for covered works to be copied and distributed as part of a collective work differently depending on the nature of the integration of the covered work into the collective work. Since permission to be copied and distributed as part of a collective work must be obtained separately for each collective work, there is no problem in doing so.
From: Hyman Rosen on 29 Mar 2010 10:31
On 3/29/2010 11:04 AM, RJack wrote: > The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301 The GPL is a copyright license which authorizes certain actions based on the exclusive rights given to copyright holders by federal copyright law. The federal preemption of state copyright equivalence provisions is completely irrelevant to the GPL. > it is unenforceable under contract law The GPL is a copyright license which authorizes certain actions based on the exclusive rights given to copyright holders by federal copyright law. No one has permission to otherwise copy and distribute GPL-covered works, so anyone who does so without obeying the requirements of the GPL is infringing copyright. > and is a misuse of copyright Misuse of copyright, when applied at all (its appearance is rare as hen's teeth), is found in anti-competitive and anti-trust contexts. As Daniel Wallace found, courts do not find that the GPL creates such a context, because competition laws exist to benefit the public, not to benefit competitors. > All this discussion of the legal consequences of the GPL is > delusional tilting at Windmills. Rather, all of this anti-GPL crankery consists of deliberately distorting copyright law and case law to reach false conclusions. None of these false conclusions have been upheld by courts, nor are they likely to be, leaving anti-GPL cranks no outlet but to rail on the internet. |