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 15:44 On 3/29/2010 3:29 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Recall that the FSF itself is on record: > http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf Yes, you have quoted this many times. But I do not think this means what you (pretend to) think it means. What the FSF has said is correct, but none of what it said supports the strange theories of anti-GPL cranks. > "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. Yes, it is neither of those. > 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." And this is also obviously true, as can be determined by reading the GPL. > 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. Fortunately the GPL carefully defines when a collective work must as a whole be licensed under the GPL and when it need not be. There is no ambiguity for computer programs statically linked with GPL-covered code, or with GPL-covered programs distributed as part of GNU/Linux distributions. It is true that anti-GPL cranks would like to claim that such ambiguity exists, but courts can read the text of the GPL and do not have to listen to the rantings of cranks except to dismiss them.
From: Peter Keller on 29 Mar 2010 15:45 In comp.lang.lisp Alexander Terekhov <terekhov(a)web.de> wrote: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 3/29/2010 3:07 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> > Hyman Rosen wrote: fix(f) != f
From: Alexander Terekhov on 29 Mar 2010 15:48 Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > <http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceFSFGrantingDismiss.pdf> > copyright protection. As such, the GPL encourages, rather > than discourages, free competition... http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html "GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete in other areas..." Still not feeling the contradiction, silly Hyman? 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 15:53 Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Fortunately the GPL carefully defines when a collective work > must as a whole be licensed under the GPL and when it need not 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 16:04
On 3/29/2010 3:48 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Hyman Rosen wrote: > [...] >> <http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceFSFGrantingDismiss.pdf> >> copyright protection. As such, the GPL encourages, rather >> than discourages, free competition... > > http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html > > "GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of > competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but > neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and > they will compete in other areas..." > > Still not feeling the contradiction? Not at all. It is every competitors intention to corner the market based on what they offer. The GNU manifesto does not say that it will prevent people from developing operating systems, but that it will be unprofitable for them to do so. <http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceFSFGrantingDismiss.pdf> As the court stated in its November 28, 2005 Entry, reduced opportunity as a competitor does not necessarily equate to an antitrust injury as recognized by the courts. Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 488. Indeed, injury in fact is �a different beast� than antitrust injury. Prof�l Sports Ltd. P�ship v. Nat�l Basketball Assoc., 961 F.2d 667, 669 (7th Cir. 1992). And �whenever the plaintiff and consumers have divergent rather than congruent interests, there is a potential problem in finding �antitrust injury�. . . . When the plaintiff is a poor champion of consumers, a court must be especially careful not to grant relief that may undercut the proper functions of antitrust.� Ball Mem�l Hosp., Inc. v. Mutual Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1334 (7th Cir. 1986). Mr. Wallace has not alleged that anyone interfered with his freedom to compete in computer software market by creating his own operating system, one perhaps with features different from, or in addition to, that of the GNU/Linux operating system. Indeed, Mr. Wallace has that ability, regardless of whether the GPL is in force or not. |