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 1 Apr 2010 23:12 On 4/1/2010 4:37 PM, RJack wrote: > Do you make this stuff up on the fly or do you sit > around and dream about it first? On the fly, generally, since your errors are simple enough to explain and refute without much effort.
From: Alexander Terekhov on 3 Apr 2010 08:00 Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/1/2010 4:37 PM, RJack wrote: > > Do you make this stuff up on the fly or do you sit > > around and dream about it first? > > On the fly, generally, since your errors are simple > enough to explain and refute without much effort. You mean like refuting "the GPL is a license not a contract" nonsense by FSF's own words in court of law? http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf "as is evident on the face of the agreement itself ... the GPL, which is the target of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, is a software licensing agreement ... "[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)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract "In law, a contract is a binding legal agreement that is enforceable in a court of law[1] or by binding arbitration. That is to say, a contract is an exchange of promises with a specific remedy for breach." 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 3 Apr 2010 21:18 On 4/3/2010 8:00 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf > "as is evident on the face of the agreement itself ... the GPL, which is > the target of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, is a software licensing > agreement ... "[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)" Rather, <http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf>: 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). The quote about contracts merely reinforces the fact that the court can read the GPL for itself, and not rely on cranks who misinterpret it. It does not imply that the GPL is a contract.
From: RJack on 4 Apr 2010 09:51 Hyman Rosen wrote: > On 4/3/2010 8:00 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf "as is evident on the >> face of the agreement itself ... the GPL, which is the target of >> Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, is a software licensing agreement >> ... "[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)" > [...] > The quote about contracts merely reinforces the fact that the court > can read the GPL for itself, and not rely on cranks who misinterpret > it. Thanks for removing solipsistic deniers like yourself from the picture. > It does not imply that the GPL is a contract. Denial through solipsism is unfalsifiable and unassailable through rational argument. Stick to solipsism and you shall forever prevail Hyman. Construct for yourself a comfortable cocoon. If truth dares to intrude into your GNU World just deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeny it. Sincerely, RJack :)
From: David Kastrup on 6 Apr 2010 04:29
RJack <user(a)example.net> writes: > As a delusional GPL advocate you choose to deliberately ignore the > plain consequences of U.S. Copyright law. "delusional" and "deliberately" are not quite compatible. > The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301, it is unenforceable under > contract law and is a misuse of copyright. Now _that_ is at its surface delusional, but likely a deliberate utterance of a mixture of nonsense, non-sequiturs and half-truths. The GPL is not preempted by any law, since a law can't "preempt" a permission. It _is_ unenforceable and states so itself: the licensee _retains_ the option to use it or ignore it, at will. However, _copyright_ is enforceable under _state_ law. If you want to make use of the GPL in order _not_ to be liable to state law for certain uses of the copyrighted material, you have to adhere to the conditions of the GPL. In that case, your compliance with the GPL's conditions will be held to pretty much the same standards as contract law, with some exceptions pertaining to the difference between licenses and contracts. > 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. So why are you wasting away in that manner? -- David Kastrup |