Re: Question About GNU General Public License

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov <at> web.de> wrote in message news:<40F792A9.F6F3AC95 <at> web.de>...
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> 
> [... linking with GPL'ed module ...]
> 
> > You might not be allowed to distribute the result of the linking though.
> 
> Dream on.

  Your incorrect assumption is that he's not bound by the GPL.  He
might well be (without an intent of arguing is it possible at all to
lawfully obtain a copy of a GPL'ed work without being bound to the
GPL).

Re: Question About GNU General Public License

Momchil Velikov wrote:
[...]
> lawfully obtain a copy of a GPL'ed work without being bound to the
> GPL).

Wanna have a copy or two not signing anything (or clicking on "I 
accept"? I can sell you everything that is available out there 
for the price of a copy charged by the distributor you like plus 
3% commission (but no less than 10 bucks). On any media you like
(priced extra) or, more preferably and convenient for me, via 
electronic distribution. Deal?

regards,
alexander.

Re: Question About GNU General Public License

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov <at> web.de> writes:

> Momchil Velikov wrote:
> [...]
> > lawfully obtain a copy of a GPL'ed work without being bound to the
> > GPL).
> 
> Wanna have a copy or two not signing anything (or clicking on "I 
> accept"? I can sell you everything that is available out there 
> for the price of a copy charged by the distributor you like plus 
> 3% commission (but no less than 10 bucks). On any media you like
> (priced extra) or, more preferably and convenient for me, via 
> electronic distribution. Deal?

You need not sign or accept anything for using a copy of GPLed
software.  But if you don't accept the GPL, you don't get any rights
for duplication, modification, or redistribution short of the defaults
given by copyright law.  And those are not sufficient for the intended
purpose of the OP.

--

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Question About GNU General Public License

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> You need not sign or accept anything for using a copy of GPLed
> software.  But if you don't accept the GPL, you don't get any rights
> for duplication, modification, or redistribution short of the defaults
> given by copyright law.  And those are not sufficient for the intended
> purpose of the OP.

Dak, we're missing you on misc.legal.computing. How many copies of
GNU readline do you need?

regards,
alexander.

Re: Question About GNU General Public License

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov <at> web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > You need not sign or accept anything for using a copy of GPLed
> > software.  But if you don't accept the GPL, you don't get any rights
> > for duplication, modification, or redistribution short of the defaults
> > given by copyright law.  And those are not sufficient for the intended
> > purpose of the OP.
> 
> Dak, we're missing you on misc.legal.computing. How many copies of
> GNU readline do you need?

I can get all the GPLed copies I need to, thank you.  If you want to
make it a business to sell copies of Readline with a _written_
_guarantee_ that the recipient may link each copy to proprietary
software of his own choosing and redistribute the combined product for
profit, and that you will reimburse him for any damages resulting from
the FSF suing him for compliance, go ahead.

According to you, it should be a sure-fire income opportunity for you.
Without such a guarantee, your offer is worthless.

--

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Question About GNU General Public License

David Kastrup wrote: ...

You sound extremely SCOish. BTW, even Stallman allows "for profit". 

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

regards,
alexander.

Re: Question About GNU General Public License

On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 15:23 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> David Kastrup wrote: ...
> 
> You sound extremely SCOish. BTW, even Stallman allows "for profit". 
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

What David said was:

    If you want to make it a business to sell copies of Readline with a
    _written_ _guarantee_ that the recipient may link each copy to
    proprietary software of his own choosing and redistribute the
    combined product for profit, and that you will reimburse him for any
    damages resulting from the FSF suing him for compliance, go ahead.

    According to you, it should be a sure-fire income opportunity for
    you. Without such a guarantee, your offer is worthless.

What this has to do with SCO I can't fathom.
But that what you say is worthless, that doesn't come as much of a
surprise... given that you don't base your "facts" without self
reference (or to posts from people like you), you intentionally ignore
current reality (where many experienced lawyers decide to settle and
comply, rather than go all the way), and now you don't even make a
compelling offer.

Rui

--

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

Re: Question About GNU General Public License

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov <at> web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote: ...
> 
> You sound extremely SCOish.

Your old strategy.  Whenever you run out of arguments, you revert to
insults.  This time even snipping the complete context.

> BTW, even Stallman allows "for profit". 

The last time I looked, he did not particularly condone breaking the
GPL or copyright law for profit.  You should take a look at _what_ he
"allows for profit".

--

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Question About GNU General Public License

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov <at> web.de> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote: ...
> >
> > You sound extremely SCOish.
> 
> Your old strategy.  Whenever you run out of arguments, you revert to
> insults. 

I mean that what you've suggested is pretty much exactly what folks 
at OSRM are doing with respect to "SCO risk" ("Potential Corporate 
SCO Defendants... Membership in the program is $100,000 annually"). 

http://www.osriskmanagement.com/offerings.shtml

I consider FSF to be in the same class of "tiger" animals, so to say.

>          This time even snipping the complete context.

It's all in the thread, stupid.

> 
> > BTW, even Stallman allows "for profit". 
> 
> The last time I looked, he did not particularly condone breaking the
> GPL or copyright law for profit.  You should take a look at _what_ he
> "allows for profit".

Re: Question About GNU General Public License

On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 15:45 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Yeah. He allows "freedom for profit". 

Stallman doesn't really has anything against profit. Just against undue
profit, like that you get when you abuse the other part (like in non-
free software).

Rui

--

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

_______________________________________________
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss