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: Hyman Rosen on 29 Mar 2010 11:15 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.
From: Alexander Terekhov on 29 Mar 2010 11:53 Hyman Rosen wrote: [... claiming that non-automatic aggregation isn't mere aggregation ...] > Instead, each case must be examined individually to see Where does the GPL say that "each case must be examined individually" silly Hyman? > which kind of aggregation LOL. It's mere aggegation stupid. 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 See also http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ambiguity "Courts frequently interpret an ambiguous contract term against the interests of the party who prepared the contract and created the ambiguity. This is common in cases of adhesion contracts and insurance contracts. A drafter of a document should not benefit at the expense of an innocent party because the drafter was careless in drafting the agreement. In Constitutional Law, statutes that contain ambiguous language are void for vagueness. The language of such laws is considered so obscure and uncertain that a reasonable person cannot determine from a reading what the law purports to command or prohibit. This statutory ambiguity deprives a person of the notice requirement of Due Process of Law, and, therefore, renders the statute unconstitutional. " 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 12:02 On 3/29/2010 11:53 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Where does the GPL say that "each case must be examined individually"? By specifying different kinds of permissions granted for different kinds of copying and distribution.
From: Alexander Terekhov on 29 Mar 2010 12:13 Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/29/2010 11:53 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Where does the GPL say that "each case must be examined individually"? > > By specifying ... You have nothing meaningful to quote from. Stop ignoring the facts Hyman. Recall that the FSF itself is on record: http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf "In his Response, Plaintiff claims that FSF uses the GPL "to pool and cross-license [FSF's] intellectual property with others." However, as is evident on the face of the agreement itself, the GPL is not a "pooling" or "cross-licensing" agreement. To the contrary, the GPL, which is the target of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, is a software licensing agreement under which the GNU/Linux Operating System is licensed to users. The express purpose of the GPL is to make certain that "the software is free for all its users." (GPL, Preamble, Ex. A.) 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 miscaracterization 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 See also http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ambiguity "Courts frequently interpret an ambiguous contract term against the interests of the party who prepared the contract and created the ambiguity. This is common in cases of adhesion contracts and insurance contracts. A drafter of a document should not benefit at the expense of an innocent party because the drafter was careless in drafting the agreement. In Constitutional Law, statutes that contain ambiguous language are void for vagueness. The language of such laws is considered so obscure and uncertain that a reasonable person cannot determine from a reading what the law purports to command or prohibit. This statutory ambiguity deprives a person of the notice requirement of Due Process of Law, and, therefore, renders the statute unconstitutional. " 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 12:57
David Kastrup wrote: [... "the GPL is not a contract" baloney ...] > Really, you should stop quoting stuff ... How about the following quote, dak? http://www.ifross.org/artikel/russische-foederation-wirtschaftsministerium-wirksamkeit-gpl "Grundlage hierf�r sieht es vor allem in Art. 1286 Pkt. 3 ZGB, wonach durch die Aufnahme von Nutzungshandlungen ein Vertragsschluss bewirkt werden kann. Damit ist das Wirtschaftsministerium eine weitere f�derale Institution (vgl. Nachricht der Woche vom 26.1.2009), die sich grunds�tzlich f�r eine Geltung von Open-Source-Softwarelizenzen in der russischen Rechtsordnung ausgesprochen hat. Dies ist auch deshalb bemerkenswert, da zwar eine gerichtliche Entscheidung hierzu wohl nicht in Sicht ist, jedoch damit ein gesteigertes Interesse an der rechtskonformen bzw. rechtssicheren Nutzung von Open-Source-Software zu verzeichnen ist. Hintergrund: Ausgehend von den vertragsrechtlichen Bestimmungen des russischen Zivilgesetzbuches unterliegen Lizenzvertr�ge der Schriftform, jedoch sieht das Gesetz Ausnahmen f�r Software- und Datenbanklizenzen vor. So k�nnen gem�� Art. 1286 Pkt. 3 ZGB im Wege eines sog. Beitrittsvertrages (vergleichbar vorformulierten Vertr�gen i.S.v. AGB) Nutzungsrechte einger�umt werden, dessen Bedingungen auf dem erworbenen Exemplar solcher Programme oder Datenbanken oder auf der Verpackung eines Exemplars dargelegt sind. Der Beginn der Nutzung solcher Programme oder Datenbanken durch den Nutzer entsprechend der Lizenzbedingungen, bedeutet eine Zustimmung zum Abschluss des Lizenzvertrages. Der Sache nach handelt es sich � vergleichbar � 151 BGB � um einen Vertragsschluss, der sich durch die Ausf�hrung des Lizenzvertrags manifestiert. Allerdings bleiben eine ganze Reihe von rechtlichen Fragen unbeantwortet, die sich aus den Besonderheiten des russischen Rechts ergeben. Fraglich ist beispielsweise, inwieweit nach der Diktion des Gesetzes, die entsprechenden Lizenzbestimmungen wahrnehmbar sein m�ssen, ob es also ausreicht, wenn die entsprechenden Lizenzbestimmungen � wie �blich � in einer Textdatei der Software beigef�gt sind. Die gesetzlichen Regelungen legen n�mlich nahe, dass die entsprechenden Bedingungen von au�en sichtbar sein m�ssen. Ungekl�rt ist ebenfalls die Frage, inwieweit diese Erleichterungen auch in Bezug auf grenz�berschreitende Lizenzvereinbarungen gelten. Grunds�tzlich unterliegt der Abschluss von Lizenzvertr�gen im grenz�berschreitenden wirtschaftlichen Verkehr (wozu auch der Austausch von Rechten an Geistigem Eigentum z�hlt) zwingend der einfachen Schriftform (Art. 162 Pkt. 3 ZGB). Weiterhin ist die vor einiger Zeit vom russischen Finanzministerium aufgeworfene Einordnung einer Open-Source-Lizenz als Schenkung und die sich daraus ergebende Frage zur Geltung nicht thematisiert worden (vgl. dazu: Nachricht der Woche vom 26.1.2009). Und schlie�lich ist zu ber�cksichtigen, dass die erleichterten Vertragsschlussregeln des Art. 1286 Pkt. 3 ZGB lediglich f�r Software und Datenbanken gelten. Damit d�rften Lizenzen f�r Open Content (Creative Commons, FDL etc.) keine Geltung entfalten, soweit kein schriftlicher Vertragsschluss vorliegt. " 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.) |