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: Hyman Rosen on 29 Mar 2010 10:34 On 3/29/2010 10:22 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > 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. > Full stop once again for the same reason: the term "larger program" is > also not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law. The GPL is written in English, and the English language is sufficient to determine what these things mean. Again, as an anti-GPL crank, you prefer to claim ambiguity, but it isn't your opinion which matters.
From: Alexander Terekhov on 29 Mar 2010 10:44 Hyman Rosen wrote: > > 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. To quote the FSF itself, the GPL itself rejects ANY (to repeat: ANY, ANY, ANY) automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL, you retard: http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf "In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005)" Philip A. Whistler (#1205-49) Curtis W. McCauley (#16456-49) Attorneys for Defendant, Free Software Foundation, Inc. ICE MILLER One American Square Box 82001 Indianapolis, IN 46282-0002 317.236.2100 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: Alexander Terekhov on 29 Mar 2010 10:44 Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/29/2010 10:22 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > 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. > > Full stop once again for the same reason: the term "larger program" is > > also not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law. > > The GPL is written in English, and the English language is sufficient > to determine what these things mean. Again, as an anti-GPL crank, you > prefer to claim ambiguity, but it isn't your opinion which matters. To quote the FSF itself, the GPL itself rejects ANY (to repeat: ANY, ANY, ANY) automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL, you retard: http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf "In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005)" Philip A. Whistler (#1205-49) Curtis W. McCauley (#16456-49) Attorneys for Defendant, Free Software Foundation, Inc. ICE MILLER One American Square Box 82001 Indianapolis, IN 46282-0002 317.236.2100 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 11:12 On 3/29/2010 10:39 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > The courts have yet to analyze a copyleft provision for misuse, > but the courts have addressed an analogous provision - the > grantback. <http://www.jstor.org/pss/1285278> The Supreme Court held that though grant-back clauses can easily be used to violate antitrust laws, they are not illegal per se as a patent misuse.
From: Hyman Rosen on 29 Mar 2010 11:14
On 3/29/2010 10:44 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > To quote the FSF itself, the GPL itself rejects ANY (to repeat: ANY, > ANY, ANY) automatic aggregation of software > copyrights under the GPL That's correct. It rejects any *automatic* aggregation of software copyrights. Instead, each case must be examined individually to see which kind of aggregation is occurring, and then the correct part of the GPL must be applied to that case if the aggregate is to be legally copied and distributed. |