Linux Makes it to the NASDAQ-100 Index with Red Hat
Roy Culley
The following 12 issues will be added to the NASDAQ-100 Index:
Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG), NII Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:NIHD) ,
Expedia, Inc. (NASDAQ:EXPE) , Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc
(NASDAQ:PTEN) , NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ:NVDA) , Urban
Outfitters, Inc. (NASDAQ:URBN) , Cadence Design Systems,
Inc. (NASDAQ:CDNS) , Activision, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATVI) , RedHat,
Inc. (NASDAQ:RHAT), Monster Worldwide, Inc. (NASDAQ:MNST) ,
CheckFree Corporation (NASDAQ:CKFR) , and Discovery Holding
Company (NASDAQ:DISCA).
Hmm, how is it possible that any company can make money based on OSS
far less than being included in the NASDAQ-100?
--
Windows rootkit install HOWTO:
1. Open CD drive
2. Insert music CD
3. Close CD drive
All done - Windows: Insecure by design
Mark Kent
Roy Culley <r...@nodomain.none> espoused:
> http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20051211105521477
>
> The following 12 issues will be added to the NASDAQ-100 Index:
> Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG), NII Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:NIHD) ,
> Expedia, Inc. (NASDAQ:EXPE) , Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc
> (NASDAQ:PTEN) , NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ:NVDA) , Urban
> Outfitters, Inc. (NASDAQ:URBN) , Cadence Design Systems,
> Inc. (NASDAQ:CDNS) , Activision, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATVI) , RedHat,
> Inc. (NASDAQ:RHAT), Monster Worldwide, Inc. (NASDAQ:MNST) ,
> CheckFree Corporation (NASDAQ:CKFR) , and Discovery Holding
> Company (NASDAQ:DISCA).
>
> Hmm, how is it possible that any company can make money based on OSS
> far less than being included in the NASDAQ-100?
>
That's hitting the big time, I think. It would be interesting to
examine their business to determine exactly what they're making money
on, but in general, it has to be support related...
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Prices subject to change without notice.
Roy Culley
<grjv63-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> writes:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Roy Culley <r...@nodomain.none> espoused:
>> http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20051211105521477
>>
>> The following 12 issues will be added to the NASDAQ-100 Index:
>> Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG), NII Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:NIHD) ,
>> Expedia, Inc. (NASDAQ:EXPE) , Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc
>> (NASDAQ:PTEN) , NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ:NVDA) , Urban
>> Outfitters, Inc. (NASDAQ:URBN) , Cadence Design Systems,
>> Inc. (NASDAQ:CDNS) , Activision, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATVI) , RedHat,
>> Inc. (NASDAQ:RHAT), Monster Worldwide, Inc. (NASDAQ:MNST) ,
>> CheckFree Corporation (NASDAQ:CKFR) , and Discovery Holding
>> Company (NASDAQ:DISCA).
>>
>> Hmm, how is it possible that any company can make money based on OSS
>> far less than being included in the NASDAQ-100?
>
> That's hitting the big time, I think. It would be interesting to
> examine their business to determine exactly what they're making
> money on, but in general, it has to be support related...
We had to buy a couple of RHES licenses about a year ago as it was
required for support of a product we use. As the systems were multi-
cpu it cost about SFr.3,500 (about 1,500 quid) each. As I never needed
any RH support that was money for nothing. Since then the product is
now supported under FC3 so I don't use RHES any more.
Roy Schestowitz
I hear quite often about Red Hat in the context of Linux support. QT and
Novell likewise. They prosper owing to the availability of OSS, which I
think is wonderful. Canonical offer similar services, but with such a re-
aliable and user-friendly distribution, I wouldn't be surprised if they
rarely get an enquiry. They have excellent support forums.
Roy
billwg
"Roy Culley" <r...@nodomain.none> wrote in message
news:sqvu63-...@dog.did.it...
> http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20051211105521477
>
> Hmm, how is it possible that any company can make money based on OSS
> far less than being included in the NASDAQ-100?
>
and fix some of the more glaring errors and sell licenses to use it
along with your fixes at about the same price as Microsoft sells Windows
Server editions. Then you have a product that you think can compete
with Windows without having to pay for all the development to get there.
Sweet, eh?
The only problem you (and your customers) might have is if the system
developers get wise to the scam and start demanding some kind of
compensations. Witness how Torvalds is now collecting a few thousand
bucks from anyone wanting to use the name.
Linønut
> Simple. Take a lot of code that is being created for free, like linux,
> and fix some of the more glaring errors and sell licenses to use it
> along with your fixes at about the same price as Microsoft sells Windows
> Server editions. Then you have a product that you think can compete
> with Windows without having to pay for all the development to get there.
> Sweet, eh?
Very.
> The only problem you (and your customers) might have is if the system
> developers get wise to the scam and start demanding some kind of
> compensations. Witness how Torvalds is now collecting a few thousand
> bucks from anyone wanting to use the name.
How much does it cost to be able to use the Microsoft name?
--
I love the smell of code compiling in the morning. It smells like... Freedom.
Kier
<snip>
>
> The only problem you (and your customers) might have is if the system
> developers get wise to the scam and start demanding some kind of
> compensations. Witness how Torvalds is now collecting a few thousand
> bucks from anyone wanting to use the name.
I see you're *still* peddling that lie. Why am I not surprised?
--
Kier
chrisv
billwg is a proven liar.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Simple. Take a lot of code that is being created for free, like linux,
> and fix some of the more glaring errors and sell licenses to use it
> along with your fixes at about the same price as Microsoft sells Windows
> Server editions. Then you have a product that you think can compete
> with Windows without having to pay for all the development to get there.
> Sweet, eh?
license does, and a few companies, such as BSDi, have tried exactly
the business model you suggest. Interestingly, BSDi's version of
Unix never caught on. Linux, on the other hand, has become immensely
popular exactly because the GPL resists the type of commercial code
forking that you advocate. All major distributions of Linux are
essentially compatible with one another, exactly because the kernel
and libraries use a license that resists the hording of improvements
by individual distributions.
An added strength of this model is that improvements are not lost
with the death of the company that sells them, they accrue to the
community and are built upon. This is the essence of why Linux
will continues to improve and grow despite anything that Microsoft
or any other commercial player throws at it.
> The only problem you (and your customers) might have is if the system
> developers get wise to the scam and start demanding some kind of
> compensations. Witness how Torvalds is now collecting a few thousand
> bucks from anyone wanting to use the name.
As for the Linux trademark issue, I suggest you check out
www.linuxmark.org for the real scoop. It is not as bad as some
people make out. You only need a license if you are using 'Linux'
as part of your own product name, and even then in most cases the
license is free. Linus Torvalds does not get any of the money; it
all goes to the foundation that protects the trademark.
Later,
Thad
billwg
"Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
news:SP6dnZj6IoZ...@comcast.com...
>
> How much does it cost to be able to use the Microsoft name?
>
$8 per unit shipped to OEMs who would feature the "Designed For
Microsoft Windows XX" logo. So it would appear that the shoe is on the
other foot here.
billwg
"Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.12.12....@tiscali.co.uk...
reference?
Kier
> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> The only problem you (and your customers) might have is if the system
>> developers get wise to the scam and start demanding some kind of
>> compensations. Witness how Torvalds is now collecting a few thousand
>> bucks from anyone wanting to use the name.
>
> As for the Linux trademark issue, I suggest you check out
> www.linuxmark.org for the real scoop. It is not as bad as some
> people make out. You only need a license if you are using 'Linux'
> as part of your own product name, and even then in most cases the
> license is free. Linus Torvalds does not get any of the money; it
> all goes to the foundation that protects the trademark.
He's been told this before, repeatedly in fact. It fails to permeate the
concrete that passes for his brain.
He loves to falsely imply that Linus is extorting money from Linux users,
when this is absolutely not the case.
--
Kier
Kier
There is no 'edict', and he does not 'collect' the money. Stop being
dishonest for ten seconds. You have been corrected on this issue before.
--
Kier
Kumwumiza Kujiingiza
> I know that most girls trim or shave their pubes but I am wondering is
> there any girl in this newsgroup who is very hairy down there and keeps
> her bush untrimmed because she likes it hairy?
Jij bent nu echt een uit de kluiten gewassen halve schuinsmarcheerder
> I've got a computer... I don't NEED a life!
Colin Day
No. If I wanted to release a "Microsoft text editor", how much would I
have to pay
Microsoft?
Colin Day
Linønut
> "Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
>>
>> How much does it cost to be able to use the Microsoft name?
>>
> Well during the DOJ trial it was claimed that Microsoft was paying up to
> $8 per unit shipped to OEMs who would feature the "Designed For
> Microsoft Windows XX" logo. So it would appear that the shoe is on the
> other foot here.
No, man. I'm talking about using it a designation such as "Blue Cap
Windows", or "McDoogle's Virus Scanner for Microsoft Windows", not some
kick-back scheme to make sure the OEM advertises the Microsoft Windows
name to the exclusion of other products.
Linønut
Surely bilge knows by now that a trademark must be actively protected,
if someone else is not to appropriate it. If he does not know,
there surely is no point in arguing with him, because he's arguing from
a basis of ignorance. If he does know, the mendacious tendency he
exhibits would also preclude arguing with him.
Kier
I usually leave it to Ray shoot holes through what passes for bill's idea
of the truth, because he's so good at it. But bill's active and malicious
dishonesty on this issue needs ramming home whenever he tries to peddle it.
--
Kier
Ray Ingles
> I usually leave it to Ray shoot holes through what passes for bill's idea
> of the truth, because he's so good at it. But bill's active and malicious
> dishonesty on this issue needs ramming home whenever he tries to peddle it.
Remember when Bill was saying that Linus would get into trouble with
the IRS because the (then-pending) 501(c) status wouldn't be granted?
The Linuxmark website's been updated:
"LMI is an Oregon non profit mutual benefit corporation exempt from
federal taxation under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended."
http://linuxmark.org/lmi_news.html#IRS_Grants_LMI_Tax-Exempt_Status
Oh, yeah, and his complaint about the minimum fee being $200/year? The
next news item up:
http://linuxmark.org/lmi_news.html#LMI_Revises_Sublicense_Fee_Structure
"The zero-fee sublicense applies to all trademark uses that generated
less than US $50,000."
Kind of surprising he'd still be flogging this particular deceased
equine, but whatever.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Wirth made a language acclaimed in theory, but useless in
practice. He appropriately named it after the guy who came
up with 'Pascal's Wager'." - Dunbar the Inept, on Slashdot
Ray Ingles
> Simple. Take a lot of code that is being created for free, like linux,
Could you point out a couple? I can't see them. Perhaps it's all this
'glare'?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Your manuscript is both good and original, but the part
that is good is not original and the part that is original
is not good." -- Samuel Johnson
Kier
> On 2005-12-13, Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> I usually leave it to Ray shoot holes through what passes for bill's idea
>> of the truth, because he's so good at it. But bill's active and malicious
>> dishonesty on this issue needs ramming home whenever he tries to peddle it.
>
> Remember when Bill was saying that Linus would get into trouble with
> the IRS because the (then-pending) 501(c) status wouldn't be granted?
> The Linuxmark website's been updated:
>
> "LMI is an Oregon non profit mutual benefit corporation exempt from
> federal taxation under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of
> 1986, as amended."
>
> http://linuxmark.org/lmi_news.html#IRS_Grants_LMI_Tax-Exempt_Status
>
> Oh, yeah, and his complaint about the minimum fee being $200/year? The
> next news item up:
>
> http://linuxmark.org/lmi_news.html#LMI_Revises_Sublicense_Fee_Structure
>
> "The zero-fee sublicense applies to all trademark uses that generated
> less than US $50,000."
>
> Kind of surprising he'd still be flogging this particular deceased
> equine, but whatever.
He's flogged deader horses than this one :-)
--
Kier
Linønut
> Kind of surprising he'd still be flogging this particular deceased
> equine, but whatever.
As I've remarked before, bilge is essentially a tholen.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
I've noticed, though, that if you pile on with enough irrefutable
evidence that completely disproves his point, he tends to just slink
away and not respond. This is the great irony of trolls: they
provides a great opportunity to dismantle the common FUD, to the
benefit of any third parties that might be following the thread.
Thad
billwg
protection consists of not allowing anyone to infringe. Here we have a
sort of commercial trade built from charging infringers a subscription
fee for the infringing. Quite a different situation, IMO.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrndptthl....@localhost.localdomain...
> On 2005-12-13, Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> I usually leave it to Ray shoot holes through what passes for bill's
>> idea
>> of the truth, because he's so good at it. But bill's active and
>> malicious
>> dishonesty on this issue needs ramming home whenever he tries to
>> peddle it.
>
> Remember when Bill was saying that Linus would get into trouble with
> the IRS because the (then-pending) 501(c) status wouldn't be granted?
> The Linuxmark website's been updated:
>
> "LMI is an Oregon non profit mutual benefit corporation exempt from
> federal taxation under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code
> of
> 1986, as amended."
>
position to be that they were making the claim without having the
certification in hand. Now that they do, we shall see what happens
after they file their tax forms this March.
> http://linuxmark.org/lmi_news.html#IRS_Grants_LMI_Tax-Exempt_Status
>
> Oh, yeah, and his complaint about the minimum fee being $200/year? The
> next news item up:
>
> http://linuxmark.org/lmi_news.html#LMI_Revises_Sublicense_Fee_Structure
>
> "The zero-fee sublicense applies to all trademark uses that generated
> less than US $50,000."
>
Well it would seem that my protests had some effect on their money
grubbing, eh? They are letting the little guys off the hook, just as I
said they should.
billwg
<tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
news:dnkerq$ipc$1...@tux.glaci.com...
> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> Simple. Take a lot of code that is being created for free, like
>> linux,
>> and fix some of the more glaring errors and sell licenses to use it
>> along with your fixes at about the same price as Microsoft sells
>> Windows
>> Server editions. Then you have a product that you think can compete
>> with Windows without having to pay for all the development to get
>> there.
>> Sweet, eh?
>
> But of course you know that the GPL does not allow this. The BSD
> license does, and a few companies, such as BSDi, have tried exactly
> the business model you suggest. Interestingly, BSDi's version of
> Unix never caught on. Linux, on the other hand, has become immensely
> popular exactly because the GPL resists the type of commercial code
> forking that you advocate. All major distributions of Linux are
> essentially compatible with one another, exactly because the kernel
> and libraries use a license that resists the hording of improvements
> by individual distributions.
>
any result, thad. But Red Hat and Novell both do exactly this.
billwg
> After takin' a swig o' grog, billwg belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> "Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> How much does it cost to be able to use the Microsoft name?
>>>
>> Well during the DOJ trial it was claimed that Microsoft was paying up
>> to
>> $8 per unit shipped to OEMs who would feature the "Designed For
>> Microsoft Windows XX" logo. So it would appear that the shoe is on
>> the
>> other foot here.
>
> No, man. I'm talking about using it a designation such as "Blue Cap
> Windows", or "McDoogle's Virus Scanner for Microsoft Windows", not
> some
> kick-back scheme to make sure the OEM advertises the Microsoft Windows
> name to the exclusion of other products.
>
your product name, you don't pay anyone anything. If you want to name
it Microsoft Pornreader Version 7.1 or whatever level you are up to, you
will get sued and will ultimately quit using the name. The trademark is
certainly not for sale at any level that you could afford.
Ray Ingles
> Well you are free to research the exact terms, Ray. I rememeber my
> position to be that they were making the claim without having the
> certification in hand.
Even that would have been wrong, since even at the time, they were an
Oregon nonprofit corporation, and fully entitled to state that they were
a non-profit.
But instead you actively predicted that they wouldn't get the
certification from the IRS that they'd applied for:
"I personally find it hard to believe that the IRS and even the state
of Oregon will accept a non-tax status for an organization that serves
to only enforce a registered trademark."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f60132c43087e9b8
"What do you think that Linus will do when the application is denied?"
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/19631c2f3311e3a1
"What chance do you think this application might have? 'Dear IRS: I
am in the business of selling the rights to use my trademark and I
expect to spend all my profits from the sale in maintaining it. Please
do not charge me any tax. Thank you, your friend, (signed) Linus". A
fat chance?"
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/54fc4a49b78de29c
> Now that they do, we shall see what happens after they file their tax
> forms this March.
Care to make a concrete, falsifiable prediction, Bill? Your record
hasn't been too good on that score so far...
>> "The zero-fee sublicense applies to all trademark uses that generated
>> less than US $50,000."
> Well it would seem that my protests had some effect on their money
> grubbing, eh? They are letting the little guys off the hook, just as I
> said they should.
No, you didn't say that. What you said was that "I think it is a smart
move. [Linus] did all the work, he deserves some cash, even a lot of
cash."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/7b64a77c133b0a53
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Engineering does not require science. Science helps a lot but people
built perfectly good brick walls long before they knew why cement works."
- Alan Cox
Peter Köhlmann
You are wrong, LOLboy, as usual
--
Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2005-12-12, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> Simple. Take a lot of code that is being created for free, like
>> linux,
>> and fix some of the more glaring errors...
>
> Could you point out a couple? I can't see them. Perhaps it's all this
> 'glare'?
>
there doesn't seem to be much reason to do so, but Red Hat sells a lot
of it and they have quite a bit to say. For example linux is apparently
not very well coded and susceptible to various hacking attacks. Red Hat
has fixed these problems and presents a summary to their prospective
customers here:
http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/rhel4/RHEL4SecurityFeatures.pdf
Linønut
>> Surely bilge knows by now that a trademark must be actively
>> protected, if someone else is not to appropriate it. If he does not
>> know, there surely is no point in arguing with him, because he's
>> arguing from a basis of ignorance. If he does know, the mendacious
>> tendency he exhibits would also preclude arguing with him.
>>
> Well commercial company trademarks might need that protection, but the
> protection consists of not allowing anyone to infringe. Here we have
> a sort of commercial trade built from charging infringers a
> subscription fee for the infringing. Quite a different situation,
> IMO.
Horse crap.
Linønut
> Well, IIRC, if you say Nuts Pornreader for Windows XP or similar for
> your product name, you don't pay anyone anything. If you want to name
> it Microsoft Pornreader Version 7.1 or whatever level you are up to, you
> will get sued and will ultimately quit using the name. The trademark is
> certainly not for sale at any level that you could afford.
Thanks for agreeing with me that Microsoft protects its trademark far
more aggressively than does Linus.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Well, the GPL hasn't been tested in the court so well as to guarantee
> any result, thad. But Red Hat and Novell both do exactly this.
OK, two points to address here:
1) The GPL has been testing plenty. The FSF regularly goes after
companies in violation of the GPL. To date, they have all backed
down and brought themselves into compliance because they know they
would lose big time if they took it to court. If you are looking
for a court ruling, you may have to wait a while. Lawyers that
have anything resembling a clue seem to know better than to take
on the GPL (SCO being a notable acception). Speaking of SCO...
look where challenging the GPL got them. IBM is hammering them with
copyright infringement charges regarding SCO's violation of the GPL,
and SCO has yet to mount any kind of credible defense.
2) In what way do Red Hat or Novell make proprietary changes to
Linux internals? Note that my earlier post specfically addressed
the kernel, libraries, and related components covered by the GPL
keeping the system 'essentially compatible'. Proprietery
application frosting does not count. I actually mentioned that
as one of your options for customizing and leveraging Linux
as part of your own product.
I look forward to your reply.
Thad
Peter Köhlmann
> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, the GPL hasn't been tested in the court so well as to guarantee
>> any result, thad. But Red Hat and Novell both do exactly this.
>
> OK, two points to address here:
>
> 1) The GPL has been testing plenty. The FSF regularly goes after
> companies in violation of the GPL. To date, they have all backed
> down and brought themselves into compliance because they know they
> would lose big time if they took it to court. If you are looking
> for a court ruling, you may have to wait a while.
No. There have been at least two in europe alone
< snip >
--
The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
Ray Ingles
> news:slrndpttjt....@localhost.localdomain...
>> On 2005-12-12, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Simple. Take a lot of code that is being created for free, like
>>> linux, and fix some of the more glaring errors...
>>
>> Could you point out a couple? I can't see them. Perhaps it's all this
>> 'glare'?
> Well, Ray, I don't pay that much detailed attention to linux, since
> there doesn't seem to be much reason to do so
And yet you post here multiple times daily. You need to manage your
time better, if Linux is so unimportant to you. But in any case...
> For example linux is apparently
> not very well coded and susceptible to various hacking attacks.
All software is vulnerable to attacks, but Linux has been far less
vulnerable than Windows, in a documented way. Of course, you knew that,
you just like to make unsubstantiated statements.
> Red Hat has fixed these problems
Um, actually, they've collected features developed elsewhere (e.g.
SELinux, or just new developments in the mainline kernel). And they
don't describe them as "fixes", they describe them as "enhancements".
You still haven't actually pointed out any errors...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Any code of your own that you haven't looked at for six or
more months, might as well have been written by someone else."
- Eagleson's Law
Linønut
>> Could you point out a couple? I can't see them. Perhaps it's all this
>> 'glare'?
>>
> Well, Ray, I don't pay that much detailed attention to linux, since
> there doesn't seem to be much reason to do so, but Red Hat sells a lot
> of it and they have quite a bit to say. For example linux is apparently
> not very well coded and susceptible to various hacking attacks. Red Hat
> has fixed these problems and presents a summary to their prospective
> customers here:
>
> http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/rhel4/RHEL4SecurityFeatures.pdf
You ought to download it and look at Fig. 1 and the accompanying text.
You'll get a big-ass LOL out of that one!
Mark Kent
Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> espoused:
> begin virus.txt.scr tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
>
>> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, the GPL hasn't been tested in the court so well as to guarantee
>>> any result, thad. But Red Hat and Novell both do exactly this.
>>
>> OK, two points to address here:
>>
>> 1) The GPL has been testing plenty. The FSF regularly goes after
>> companies in violation of the GPL. To date, they have all backed
>> down and brought themselves into compliance because they know they
>> would lose big time if they took it to court. If you are looking
>> for a court ruling, you may have to wait a while.
>
> No. There have been at least two in europe alone
>
>< snip >
I recall that one was in Germany - were they both, or just one?
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
The time spent on any item of the agenda [of a finance committee] will be
in inverse proportion to the sum involved.
-- C.N. Parkinson
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> No. There have been at least two in europe alone
>
Interesting. I admittedly pay more attentions to the American
legal news, so I must have missed those. Do you remember the
names of the parties involved? Was a specific ruling on the
validity of the GPL handed down (i.e. a party was found in
violation, thus the GPL is proven to be enforceable).
As far as I know, all the American cases have been resolved with
out of court settlements in favor of the GPL. There was one
nutball that tried to challenge the GPL on constitutional grounds,
but the case was thrown out (if memory serves).
Thanks,
Thad
George Ellison
Check wikipedia under 'GPL'. Can't account for accuracy, but it's got a
summary of the past cases.
Peter Köhlmann
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> espoused:
>> begin virus.txt.scr tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
>>
>>> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, the GPL hasn't been tested in the court so well as to guarantee
>>>> any result, thad. But Red Hat and Novell both do exactly this.
>>>
>>> OK, two points to address here:
>>>
>>> 1) The GPL has been testing plenty. The FSF regularly goes after
>>> companies in violation of the GPL. To date, they have all backed
>>> down and brought themselves into compliance because they know they
>>> would lose big time if they took it to court. If you are looking
>>> for a court ruling, you may have to wait a while.
>>
>> No. There have been at least two in europe alone
>>
>>< snip >
>
> I recall that one was in Germany - were they both, or just one?
>
I think both were. But actually, I did not pay too much attention. Both
were, as far as I recall, clear breaches of GPL, and it was clear from the
beginning how they had to end. As they, expectedly, did
Very contrary to Bill Weisgerbers (LOLboy) and Eriks claims it is actually
not at all ambigious what would happen with the GPL in court, as judges
tend not to be as stupid as Erik would hope
--
What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog,
we can assume it will be pretty bad. --- Dave Barry
Adonai Brilowitz
> I smoked a salmon once, but I didn't inhale.
Mark Kent
Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> espoused:
> begin virus.txt.scr Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> espoused:
>>> begin virus.txt.scr tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, the GPL hasn't been tested in the court so well as to guarantee
>>>>> any result, thad. But Red Hat and Novell both do exactly this.
>>>>
>>>> OK, two points to address here:
>>>>
>>>> 1) The GPL has been testing plenty. The FSF regularly goes after
>>>> companies in violation of the GPL. To date, they have all backed
>>>> down and brought themselves into compliance because they know they
>>>> would lose big time if they took it to court. If you are looking
>>>> for a court ruling, you may have to wait a while.
>>>
>>> No. There have been at least two in europe alone
>>>
>>>< snip >
>>
>> I recall that one was in Germany - were they both, or just one?
>>
>
> I think both were. But actually, I did not pay too much attention. Both
> were, as far as I recall, clear breaches of GPL, and it was clear from the
> beginning how they had to end. As they, expectedly, did
>
> Very contrary to Bill Weisgerbers (LOLboy) and Eriks claims it is actually
> not at all ambigious what would happen with the GPL in court, as judges
> tend not to be as stupid as Erik would hope
Perhaps all those years of legal training helps them...
Harrison Dommlehood-Garryfick
> The UFO hotline limits me to 1 call per day.
Roy Culley
<dnnk4r$6io$02$1...@news.t-online.com>,
Well until it is tested in a US court of law I'm not sure '[US] judges
tend not to be as stupid as Erik would hope'.
--
Windows rootkit install HOWTO:
1. Open CD drive
2. Insert music CD
3. Close CD drive
All done - Windows: Insecure by design
billwg
> After takin' a swig o' grog, billwg belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> Surely bilge knows by now that a trademark must be actively
>>> protected, if someone else is not to appropriate it. If he does not
>>> know, there surely is no point in arguing with him, because he's
>>> arguing from a basis of ignorance. If he does know, the mendacious
>>> tendency he exhibits would also preclude arguing with him.
>>>
>> Well commercial company trademarks might need that protection, but
>> the
>> protection consists of not allowing anyone to infringe. Here we have
>> a sort of commercial trade built from charging infringers a
>> subscription fee for the infringing. Quite a different situation,
>> IMO.
>
> Horse crap.
>
LOL!!!
billwg
<tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
news:dnnbqa$9ju$1...@tux.glaci.com...
> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, the GPL hasn't been tested in the court so well as to guarantee
>> any result, thad. But Red Hat and Novell both do exactly this.
>
> OK, two points to address here:
>
> 1) The GPL has been testing plenty. The FSF regularly goes after
> companies in violation of the GPL. To date, they have all backed
> down and brought themselves into compliance because they know they
> would lose big time if they took it to court. If you are looking
> for a court ruling, you may have to wait a while. Lawyers that
> have anything resembling a clue seem to know better than to take
> on the GPL (SCO being a notable acception). Speaking of SCO...
> look where challenging the GPL got them. IBM is hammering them with
> copyright infringement charges regarding SCO's violation of the GPL,
> and SCO has yet to mount any kind of credible defense.
>
thad, but keep up the myth. The FSF has one guy jawboning around on
issues that no one gives a hoot about and occasionally makes settlements
that have to effect on the landscape. No one is really poaching because
there is nothing really worth poaching. The exception may be RHAT and
NOVL now providing fairly strict and limited licenses for using linux in
conjunction with their add-ons.
> 2) In what way do Red Hat or Novell make proprietary changes to
> Linux internals? Note that my earlier post specfically addressed
> the kernel, libraries, and related components covered by the GPL
> keeping the system 'essentially compatible'. Proprietery
> application frosting does not count. I actually mentioned that
> as one of your options for customizing and leveraging Linux
> as part of your own product.
Make all the fine distinctions and rules that you want, thad, the bottom
line is that RHAT and NOVL are charging license fees for linux that
rival those for Windows Server and restrict the software usage to the
specific term that is in the contract. At least MSFT will let you
continue to use the Windows Server software you purchased as long as you
wish. RHAT only gives it to you for a year at a time and then you have
to shut down or pay again.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> The Iraqi information minister had the same kind of fearless bravado,
> thad, but keep up the myth. The FSF has one guy jawboning around on
> issues that no one gives a hoot about and occasionally makes settlements
> that have to effect on the landscape. No one is really poaching because
> there is nothing really worth poaching. The exception may be RHAT and
> NOVL now providing fairly strict and limited licenses for using linux in
> conjunction with their add-ons.
(general council for the FSF) being the least of it. The IBM legal
team (affectionately called The Nazgul) can be counted among its
ranks, as well as lawyers from a variety of Linux distributors.
Add to that the EFF, OSDL, and a few other non-profits, and the GPL
has no shortage of talent in its corner.
And the record on GPL violation is quite clear. A variety of
organizations have indeed 'poached' GPL code, sometimes by accident,
sometimes on-purpose... but it has always ended with the GPL winning.
The reason for this is quite clear: The GPL is grounded in well
established and time tested principals of copyright law. If the
GPL is not legal, then pretty much every software license is
equally void, including those used by Microsoft. You don't have
to take my word for it; powerhouse attorneys like Eben Moglen
and Lawrence Lessig have explained it much better than I. I
know of no reputable lawyer suggesting the GPL is unenforceable,
certainly no-one with Lessig's creds.
> Make all the fine distinctions and rules that you want, thad, the bottom
> line is that RHAT and NOVL are charging license fees for linux that
> rival those for Windows Server and restrict the software usage to the
> specific term that is in the contract. At least MSFT will let you
> continue to use the Windows Server software you purchased as long as you
> wish. RHAT only gives it to you for a year at a time and then you have
> to shut down or pay again.
How exactly was I making 'fine distinctions and rules'? I simply
explained what is and is not permissible under the GPL. You should
at least try to understand it if you wish to criticize it.
As for the RedHat enterprise linux offering, you are paying for a
support contract, not the software license. There is no requirement
to 'shut down' if you decide to cancel the contract. They do not
restrict what you do with the software, only the uses that they
are willing to support (like any support contract). I expect the
Novell option is pretty much the same. Your claims are at best
mistaken, and more likely intentional FUD.
Cheers,
Thad
Roy Culley
<OXKnf.30401$6e.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
"billwg" <bi...@twcf.rr.com> writes:
>
> Make all the fine distinctions and rules that you want, thad, the
> bottom line is that RHAT and NOVL are charging license fees for
> linux that rival those for Windows Server and restrict the software
> usage to the specific term that is in the contract. At least MSFT
> will let you continue to use the Windows Server software you
> purchased as long as you wish. RHAT only gives it to you for a year
> at a time and then you have to shut down or pay again.
The bottom line bilge is that you are spreading FUD yet again. You can
install RHES on as many systems as you want. You only get support from
Red Hat for those systems that you register with them and have paid
the support fee for. You do NOT need to shutdown any RHES system when
the support license expires.
You post utter bullshit as usual.
William Poaster
weary, came a tapping at my door when Roy Culley posted this, & nothing
more...
> begin risky.vbs
> <OXKnf.30401$6e.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "billwg"
> <bi...@twcf.rr.com> writes:
>>
>> Make all the fine distinctions and rules that you want, thad, the bottom
>> line is that RHAT and NOVL are charging license fees for linux that
>> rival those for Windows Server and restrict the software usage to the
>> specific term that is in the contract. At least MSFT will let you
>> continue to use the Windows Server software you purchased as long as you
>> wish. RHAT only gives it to you for a year at a time and then you have
>> to shut down or pay again.
>
> The bottom line bilge is that you are spreading FUD yet again. You can
> install RHES on as many systems as you want. You only get support from Red
> Hat for those systems that you register with them and have paid the
> support fee for. You do NOT need to shutdown any RHES system when the
> support license expires.
>
> You post utter bullshit as usual.
Not surprising, billwg hasn't the *faintest* idea what he's talking
about...as usual.
--
The difference between Civil Engineers
& Mechanical Engineers is,
Civil Engineers build targets,
Mechanical Engineers build weapons.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 08:43 PM, tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com said:
>1) The GPL has been testing plenty. The FSF regularly goes after
>companies in violation of the GPL. To date, they have all backed
>down and brought themselves into compliance because they know they
>would lose big time if they took it to court. If you are looking for
>a court ruling, you may have to wait a while. Lawyers that have
>anything resembling a clue seem to know better than to take on the
>GPL (SCO being a notable acception)
What is your evidence that SCO has anything remotely resembling a
clue?
>IBM is hammering them with copyright infringement charges regarding
>SCO's violation of the GPL, and SCO has yet to mount any kind of
>credible defense.
Had they anything remotely resembling a clue they would have
anticipated IBM's response. IBM typically folds on small things not
worth fighting over. On things they care about, they go for the
jugular. Grandma, what big teeth you have!
IMHO it's chickens coming home to roost.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Linønut
> "Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>> Well commercial company trademarks might need that protection, but
>>> the protection consists of not allowing anyone to infringe. Here we
>>> have a sort of commercial trade built from charging infringers a
>>> subscription fee for the infringing. Quite a different situation,
>>> IMO.
>>
>> Horse crap.
>>
> Now that is a forceful, logical argument, nut. For you guys anyway!
> LOL!!!
A turd doesn't require much in the way of analysis.
Linønut
> Make all the fine distinctions and rules that you want, thad, the bottom
> line is that RHAT and NOVL are charging license fees for linux that
> rival those for Windows Server and restrict the software usage to the
> specific term that is in the contract. At least MSFT will let you
> continue to use the Windows Server software you purchased as long as you
> wish. RHAT only gives it to you for a year at a time and then you have
> to shut down or pay again.
Prove that you have to shut down, that is, stop using RedHat Enterprise.
Ray Ingles
> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Iraqi information minister had the same kind of fearless bravado,
>> thad, but keep up the myth.
If you want to peek into the future of this thread, see here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a5cf38f130206a35
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test
a man's character, give him power." --Abraham Lincoln
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> What is your evidence that SCO has anything remotely resembling a
> clue?
know what he was getting into when he agreed to represent SCO. He
seemed to know what he was doing on the MS v DOJ case, but has not
really hit one out of the park since then.
> Had they anything remotely resembling a clue they would have
> anticipated IBM's response. IBM typically folds on small things not
> worth fighting over. On things they care about, they go for the
> jugular. Grandma, what big teeth you have!
>
> IMHO it's chickens coming home to roost.
Yes, I think Boise and the SCO management thought they would get a
quick settlement out of IBM, perhaps even a buyout offer. IBM
prefers to set a precedent with this case. To bad for SCO. They
are on life support and would already have gone under if not for
continual infusions of cash from anonymous investors. It is just
prolonging the inevitable.
Thad
Ray Ingles
> Yes, I think Boise and the SCO management thought they would get a
> quick settlement out of IBM, perhaps even a buyout offer. IBM
> prefers to set a precedent with this case. To bad for SCO. They
> are on life support and would already have gone under if not for
> continual infusions of cash from anonymous investors. It is just
> prolonging the inevitable.
I wish the wheels of justice turned a bit more swiftly, but I'm
actually glad that the case is still proceeding.
Why? Because, among the other counterclaims that IBM is pursuing
against SCO, there's the claim that SCO is in violation of the GPL. Now,
a district court judge has stated that they "saw no reason" that the GPL
would not be enforceable in the MySQL vs. NuSphere case, but that was
dicta and not an actual ruling. It's been ruled valid in Germany. But it
would be nice to get it ruled valid once and for all in a United States
court.
I don't know when it'll happen; at the current rate we've got another
couple years to go. But it'll be fun when it does. :->
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Look, you can't 'show' someone why the fish slapping dance is funny.
A person either appreciates it, or not all, on a totally fundamental
level and you can't change someone in that kind of way." - Nermal
billwg
<tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
news:dnobo7$d7i$1...@tux.glaci.com...
> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Iraqi information minister had the same kind of fearless bravado,
>> thad, but keep up the myth. The FSF has one guy jawboning around on
>> issues that no one gives a hoot about and occasionally makes
>> settlements
>> that have to effect on the landscape. No one is really poaching
>> because
>> there is nothing really worth poaching. The exception may be RHAT
>> and
>> NOVL now providing fairly strict and limited licenses for using linux
>> in
>> conjunction with their add-ons.
>
> The GPL has consider legal weight lined up behind it, Eben Moglen
> (general council for the FSF) being the least of it. The IBM legal
> team (affectionately called The Nazgul) can be counted among its
> ranks, as well as lawyers from a variety of Linux distributors.
> Add to that the EFF, OSDL, and a few other non-profits, and the GPL
> has no shortage of talent in its corner.
>
They are defending the charges brought by SCO regarding the violation of
the original unix contract between IBM and ATT as a holder in due course
of that contract, but that has little to do with GPL per se.
> And the record on GPL violation is quite clear. A variety of
> organizations have indeed 'poached' GPL code, sometimes by accident,
> sometimes on-purpose... but it has always ended with the GPL winning.
>
Winning what? The one case most often cited involved some router makers
using some IP table or such without disclosing the source and the
settlement agreed upon was to disclose the IP table source being used,
but it was already well known AFAICT, so that was a mox nix sort of
thing to agree to in order to get that puppy off the street.
> The reason for this is quite clear: The GPL is grounded in well
> established and time tested principals of copyright law. If the
> GPL is not legal, then pretty much every software license is
> equally void, including those used by Microsoft. You don't have
> to take my word for it; powerhouse attorneys like Eben Moglen
> and Lawrence Lessig have explained it much better than I. I
> know of no reputable lawyer suggesting the GPL is unenforceable,
> certainly no-one with Lessig's creds.
>
Lessig and Moglen are law school profs to begin with and Lessig has
never done any work for the GPL effort that I ever heard of. Do you
have a cite? As to copyright protection, guess again. The GPL relies
on contract law and suffers from a lot of contestable elements. The
thing survives because there is no reason to try to make a commercial
business out of some freeware that cannot be protected in the first
place, RHAT and NOVL notwithstanding.
>> Make all the fine distinctions and rules that you want, thad, the
>> bottom
>> line is that RHAT and NOVL are charging license fees for linux that
>> rival those for Windows Server and restrict the software usage to the
>> specific term that is in the contract. At least MSFT will let you
>> continue to use the Windows Server software you purchased as long as
>> you
>> wish. RHAT only gives it to you for a year at a time and then you
>> have
>> to shut down or pay again.
>
> How exactly was I making 'fine distinctions and rules'? I simply
> explained what is and is not permissible under the GPL. You should
> at least try to understand it if you wish to criticize it.
>
> As for the RedHat enterprise linux offering, you are paying for a
> support contract, not the software license. There is no requirement
> to 'shut down' if you decide to cancel the contract. They do not
> restrict what you do with the software, only the uses that they
> are willing to support (like any support contract). I expect the
> Novell option is pretty much the same. Your claims are at best
> mistaken, and more likely intentional FUD.
>
Ah, chad, ask around! You do indeed have to shut down your use of a
system that was installed with the Red Hat media, and there can only be
one. Go to the Red Hat web site and read their terms and conditions for
RHEL.
Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
>> The GPL has consider legal weight lined up behind it, Eben Moglen
>> (general council for the FSF) being the least of it. The IBM legal
>> team (affectionately called The Nazgul) can be counted among its
>> ranks, as well as lawyers from a variety of Linux distributors.
>> Add to that the EFF, OSDL, and a few other non-profits, and the GPL
>> has no shortage of talent in its corner.
>>
> I have never seen any account of IBM going to bat for a GPL issue, thad.
> They are defending the charges brought by SCO regarding the violation of
> the original unix contract between IBM and ATT as a holder in due course
> of that contract, but that has little to do with GPL per se.
>
Just because you dimwit choose not to look does not mean it is that way,
though.
< snip more bilge idiocy >
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
It could be worse, but it'll take time.
Ray Ingles
> I have never seen any account of IBM going to bat for a GPL issue, thad.
> They are defending the charges brought by SCO regarding the violation of
> the original unix contract between IBM and ATT as a holder in due course
> of that contract, but that has little to do with GPL per se.
Read more carefully. They are going after SCO for GPL violations and
patent infringement as well, among several other counterclaims.
>> And the record on GPL violation is quite clear. A variety of
>> organizations have indeed 'poached' GPL code, sometimes by accident,
>> sometimes on-purpose... but it has always ended with the GPL winning.
>>
> Winning what? The one case most often cited involved some router makers
> using some IP table or such without disclosing the source and the
> settlement agreed upon was to disclose the IP table source being used,
http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bulletin-001.html#GPLViolations
> but it was already well known AFAICT, so that was a mox nix sort of
> thing to agree to in order to get that puppy off the street.
Conforming with the license *is* pretty simple. Glad you agree it's
easy and not any kind of burden at all!
> As to copyright protection, guess again. The GPL relies
> on contract law and suffers from a lot of contestable elements.
None you've ever really elaborated on. There's the simple question: if
you assume arguendo that the GPL is invalid, why would anything but
normal copyright restrictions apply?
To be explicit: you've taken some code distributed under the GPL and
modified it. You believe that the GPL is invalid. Under what doctrine do
you think it would be legal to distribute the modified version to
others?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"You don't win wars by dying for your country. You win wars by
making the other guy die for *his* country." - General Patton
billwg
"Roy Culley" <r...@nodomain.none> wrote in message
news:d68573-...@dog.did.it...
> begin risky.vbs
Still tryintg to get some milk out of that old cow, roy? LOL!!!
> <OXKnf.30401$6e.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "billwg" <bi...@twcf.rr.com> writes:
>>
>> Make all the fine distinctions and rules that you want, thad, the
>> bottom line is that RHAT and NOVL are charging license fees for
>> linux that rival those for Windows Server and restrict the software
>> usage to the specific term that is in the contract. At least MSFT
>> will let you continue to use the Windows Server software you
>> purchased as long as you wish. RHAT only gives it to you for a year
>> at a time and then you have to shut down or pay again.
>
> The bottom line bilge is that you are spreading FUD yet again. You can
> install RHES on as many systems as you want. You only get support from
> Red Hat for those systems that you register with them and have paid
> the support fee for. You do NOT need to shutdown any RHES system when
> the support license expires.
>
> You post utter bullshit as usual.
>
Au contraire, roy boy! It is you and thad and other COLA choirboys that
have their head sup their collective ass! LOL!!!
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_rha_eula.html
"Customer should read the information found at
http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/ before distributing a
copy of the Software, regardless of whether it has been modified. If
Customer makes a commercial redistribution of the Software, unless a
separate agreement with Red Hat is executed or other permission granted,
then Customer must modify any files identified as "REDHAT-LOGOS" and
"anaconda-images" to remove all images containing the "Red Hat"
trademark or the "Shadowman" logo. MERELY DELETING THESE FILES MAY
CORRUPT THE SOFTWARE."
I.E. YOU CANNOT USE THE RHEL MEDIA FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE AGREED
UPON, NAMED SYSTEM.
https://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/renew/faqs/#1
"6. If I don't renew, can I continue to use the software?
Yes, under the General Public License (GP), you may use the software and
maintain your own custom version of Linux. However, you will not have
access to:
Technical support from Red Hat.
Security or software updates via Red Hat Network. You will have to find
updates from alternative resources that provide reliable, secure
downloads.
Support from certified hardware suppliers or software vendors like
Oracle for applications running on an expired Red Hat Enterprise Linux
subscription.
Coverage from the Red Hat Open Source Assurance program, featuring an
Intellectual Property Warranty for Red Hat Enterprise Linux customers.
Red Hat designed the program to protect customers using open source
solutions.
Please note that when your subscription expires you will still be bound
by the terms and conditions of the End User License Agreement and WILL
HAVE TO REMOVE ALL COPIES OF RED HAT NETWORK CODE."
But that "corrupts the software"!!!!!!!!
So you tell me, fellas, what's the bottom line here?
GreyCloud
> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>
>>The UFO hotline limits me to 1 call per day.
>
>
Notice how everyone is ignoring your stupid queer ass, flathead.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... Your lame posts will no longer be noted.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAA!!!!
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
billwg
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:dnpnqv$6v2$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> Just because you dimwit choose not to look does not mean it is that
> way,
> though.
>
out on a limb! LOL!!!
Peter Köhlmann
Wrong, LOLboy. I simply don't supply any, since you are going to ignore it
anyway
--
"Last I checked, it wasn't the power cord for the Clue Generator that
was sticking up your ass." - John Novak, rasfwrj
Carbophilus Tenuicula Lily
> Urrr did you actually think eskimos were real, they are make believe
> idiot!
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrndq0pkj....@localhost.localdomain...
> On 2005-12-14, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> I have never seen any account of IBM going to bat for a GPL issue,
>> thad.
>> They are defending the charges brought by SCO regarding the violation
>> of
>> the original unix contract between IBM and ATT as a holder in due
>> course
>> of that contract, but that has little to do with GPL per se.
>
> Read more carefully. They are going after SCO for GPL violations and
> patent infringement as well, among several other counterclaims.
>
case, but only because of the SCO suit. If SCO were to offer to drop
their suit, all the others would be gone in 60 seconds.
>>> And the record on GPL violation is quite clear. A variety of
>>> organizations have indeed 'poached' GPL code, sometimes by accident,
>>> sometimes on-purpose... but it has always ended with the GPL
>>> winning.
>>>
>> Winning what? The one case most often cited involved some router
>> makers
>> using some IP table or such without disclosing the source and the
>> settlement agreed upon was to disclose the IP table source being
>> used,
>
> http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bulletin-001.html#GPLViolations
>
BFD, Ray. All this says is that the cases almost always involve someone
distributing something with GPL software embedded and not supplying
source the way they are supposed to. Who cares? The source is
available in other ways, just not from the guy being zinged. I want to
see something about a case where someone took the GPL stuff, extended it
in some wonderful way, and then started selling it as a new proprietary
thing and then having to give away the extensions as source.
>> but it was already well known AFAICT, so that was a mox nix sort of
>> thing to agree to in order to get that puppy off the street.
>
> Conforming with the license *is* pretty simple. Glad you agree it's
> easy and not any kind of burden at all!
>
>> As to copyright protection, guess again. The GPL relies
>> on contract law and suffers from a lot of contestable elements.
>
> None you've ever really elaborated on. There's the simple question: if
> you assume arguendo that the GPL is invalid, why would anything but
> normal copyright restrictions apply?
>
> To be explicit: you've taken some code distributed under the GPL and
> modified it. You believe that the GPL is invalid. Under what doctrine
> do
> you think it would be legal to distribute the modified version to
> others?
>
The first thing that comes to mind is that I would make the claim that
the changes that I made substantially modified the expression of the
original work to the point that it was not the same thing. Further, the
idea expressed by the original was self-evident and that the expression
of the original was not unique in the first place, since the language of
the expression was so restrictive that the idea could only be expressed
in a few, limited ways, none of which met the requirements that they be
a unique expression fixed in a media.
George Ellison
Tell it to CentOS, WhiteBox, or one of the multitude of others who had little
problem with this section and distribute RHEL-based Linux without RH's
trademarks.
>
>
> https://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/renew/faqs/#1
>
> "6. If I don't renew, can I continue to use the software?
>
> Yes, under the General Public License (GP), you may use the software and
> maintain your own custom version of Linux. However, you will not have
> access to:
>
> Technical support from Red Hat.
> Security or software updates via Red Hat Network. You will have to find
> updates from alternative resources that provide reliable, secure
> downloads.
> Support from certified hardware suppliers or software vendors like
> Oracle for applications running on an expired Red Hat Enterprise Linux
> subscription.
> Coverage from the Red Hat Open Source Assurance program, featuring an
> Intellectual Property Warranty for Red Hat Enterprise Linux customers.
> Red Hat designed the program to protect customers using open source
> solutions.
> Please note that when your subscription expires you will still be bound
> by the terms and conditions of the End User License Agreement and WILL
> HAVE TO REMOVE ALL COPIES OF RED HAT NETWORK CODE."
>
> But that "corrupts the software"!!!!!!!!
>
> So you tell me, fellas, what's the bottom line here?
It doesn't corrupt anything, fuckstick. The passages earlier refer to
trademark images. This passage refers to software. It comes in rpm format
and is easy (well, as easy as anything goes with rpms) to uninstall.
What they're basically saying, is if your subscription ends, you take the same
chances as any other distro. They're well within their right, and within the
constructs of the GPL, to demand the removal of services.
Mark Kent
William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> espoused:
> Once upon a Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:19:25 +0100 dreary, as I laboured tired &
> weary, came a tapping at my door when Roy Culley posted this, & nothing
> more...
>
>> begin risky.vbs
>> <OXKnf.30401$6e.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "billwg"
>> <bi...@twcf.rr.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Make all the fine distinctions and rules that you want, thad, the bottom
>>> line is that RHAT and NOVL are charging license fees for linux that
>>> rival those for Windows Server and restrict the software usage to the
>>> specific term that is in the contract. At least MSFT will let you
>>> continue to use the Windows Server software you purchased as long as you
>>> wish. RHAT only gives it to you for a year at a time and then you have
>>> to shut down or pay again.
>>
>> The bottom line bilge is that you are spreading FUD yet again. You can
>> install RHES on as many systems as you want. You only get support from Red
>> Hat for those systems that you register with them and have paid the
>> support fee for. You do NOT need to shutdown any RHES system when the
>> support license expires.
>>
>> You post utter bullshit as usual.
>
> Not surprising, billwg hasn't the *faintest* idea what he's talking
> about...as usual.
>
Oh no, he knows /exactly/ what he's being disingenuous about. And why.
And who pays him to do it.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Identify your visitor.
Ray Ingles
> by the terms and conditions of the End User License Agreement and WILL
> HAVE TO REMOVE ALL COPIES OF RED HAT NETWORK CODE."
>
> But that "corrupts the software"!!!!!!!!
>
> So you tell me, fellas, what's the bottom line here?
Turns out it doesn't corrupt the software. CentOS did it without any
problems. You've been made aware of them before, you're just FUDding
now.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Westheimer's Discovery: A couple of months in the laboratory
can frequently save a couple of hours in the library.
Ray Ingles
>> Read more carefully. They are going after SCO for GPL violations and
>> patent infringement as well, among several other counterclaims.
>>
> Don't be silly, Ray. IBM is counter suing SCO where they can muster a
> case, but only because of the SCO suit. If SCO were to offer to drop
> their suit, all the others would be gone in 60 seconds.
You can say that, but IBM has rejected all opportunities to settle
before now. It certainly appears that they are planning to set some
precedents with this case. So far your crystal ball has not proven to be
of any value; why should we believe you now? What evidence can you
present?
> BFD, Ray. All this says is that the cases almost always involve someone
> distributing something with GPL software embedded and not supplying
> source the way they are supposed to. Who cares? The source is
> available in other ways, just not from the guy being zinged.
Actually, the point is that the modifications necessary to get it to
work on a particular device are what's sought. This allows people to
customize the device for their own needs, and in some cases has opened
up new business models:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/01/2326222
> I want to see something about a case where someone took the GPL stuff,
> extended it in some wonderful way, and then started selling it as a
> new proprietary thing and then having to give away the extensions as
> source.
You didn't see the cases about porting GCC to new platforms and selling
the compiler without source?
But even if you don't accept that... feel free to put your liability
where your mouth is.
It's funny, on the one hand you dismiss all GPL code as trivial. On the
other you think it's terribly unfair that people are trying to trick
others into using it by offering valuable code, then locking people into
abhorrent license terms. If the code were truly of no merit, then you
wouldn't be worried about people using it for anything of value...
>> To be explicit: you've taken some code distributed under the GPL and
>> modified it. You believe that the GPL is invalid. Under what doctrine
>> do you think it would be legal to distribute the modified version to
>> others?
>>
> The first thing that comes to mind is that I would make the claim that
> the changes that I made substantially modified the expression of the
> original work to the point that it was not the same thing.
You would have to rewrite it to the point where no original lines of
the work remained, barring perhaps a few things like errno.h and such.
If you incorporate bits of a copyrighted work into your work, then your
work is, ipso facto, a derived work and subject to copyright
restrictions.
> Further, the idea expressed by the original was self-evident
That'd be highly fact-specific, y'know. Or are you claiming that all
GPL code is self-evident?
> and that the expression
> of the original was not unique in the first place, since the language of
> the expression was so restrictive that the idea could only be expressed
> in a few, limited ways, none of which met the requirements that they be
> a unique expression fixed in a media.
Ah, yes, your contention that all source code is subject to merger
since there's only one way to express an algorithm. Aside from the fact
that this is self-evidently not true:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c9eb43dd3c5eb3e5
...it's also been ruled as untrue in courts of law, as people have been
found guilty of violating copyright on software. So, again, while this
could theoretically work in a few extremely limited and specific cases,
you can't claim it as any kind of general rule.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"You actually do more to support Al Qaeda by driving when you go
out to pick up your drugs! Hell, all of us can help by driving
less but, unfortunately, not everyone has a smack habit to give
up. (And among those who do, is 'George Bush really wants you to!'
going to be the thing that makes a junkie quit?) ... [H]eroin is
the only drug that really benefits terrorists."
- Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"
billwg
"George Ellison" <notam...@nerdshack.com> wrote in message
news:87oe3jf...@mail.nerdshack.com...
>
> Tell it to CentOS, WhiteBox, or one of the multitude of others who had
> little
> problem with this section and distribute RHEL-based Linux without RH's
> trademarks.
>
RHEL equivalent (they claim anyway) but they collect none of the money
paid to Red Hat. Red Hat is the premier linux supplier and they are
more restrictive than MS in terms of licensing.
>
> It doesn't corrupt anything, fuckstick. The passages earlier refer to
> trademark images. This passage refers to software. It comes in rpm
> format
> and is easy (well, as easy as anything goes with rpms) to uninstall.
>
> What they're basically saying, is if your subscription ends, you take
> the same
> chances as any other distro. They're well within their right, and
> within the
> constructs of the GPL, to demand the removal of services.
Well, georgie, you are talking through your hat. The stuff that has to
be removed, is said by Red Hat to corrupt the system. Maybe that is
FUD, maybe it is easily cured, maybe, maybe. But it is the stated
position of Red Hat, which is pay me to use the linux stuff, and pay me
a lot. When you quit paying me, then quit using what you got from me
and use something else or else.
That is what I said they said and what they say they say. All the Roys,
and peters, and georgies of the world with unfounded opinions
nothwithstanding.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2005-12-14, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Please note that when your subscription expires you will still be
>> bound
>> by the terms and conditions of the End User License Agreement and
>> WILL
>> HAVE TO REMOVE ALL COPIES OF RED HAT NETWORK CODE."
>>
>> But that "corrupts the software"!!!!!!!!
>>
>> So you tell me, fellas, what's the bottom line here?
>
> Turns out it doesn't corrupt the software. CentOS did it without any
> problems. You've been made aware of them before, you're just FUDding
> now.
>
infringing. They didn't just remove them. Red Hat says that removal
breaks the OS, not I. Red Hat says you must remove the modules when the
subscription is up. You could replace things, I am sure, but why buy
the support in the first place if you don't need it?
George Ellison
> "George Ellison" <notam...@nerdshack.com> wrote in message
> news:87oe3jf...@mail.nerdshack.com...
>>
>> Tell it to CentOS, WhiteBox, or one of the multitude of others who had
>> little
>> problem with this section and distribute RHEL-based Linux without RH's
>> trademarks.
>>
> Well, georgie, there is no issue with CentOS et al. They distribute the
> RHEL equivalent (they claim anyway) but they collect none of the money
> paid to Red Hat. Red Hat is the premier linux supplier and they are
> more restrictive than MS in terms of licensing.
>
>>
>> It doesn't corrupt anything, fuckstick. The passages earlier refer to
>> trademark images. This passage refers to software. It comes in rpm
>> format
>> and is easy (well, as easy as anything goes with rpms) to uninstall.
>>
>> What they're basically saying, is if your subscription ends, you take
>> the same
>> chances as any other distro. They're well within their right, and
>> within the
>> constructs of the GPL, to demand the removal of services.
>
> Well, georgie, you are talking through your hat. The stuff that has to
> be removed, is said by Red Hat to corrupt the system.
They don't say that removing it will corrupt the system. They pretty much say
that going into the appropriate directory and typing 'rm -r *' is going to
break shit. It needs to be modified, not removed, because the trademarked
stuff (mostly images) is linked to by anaconda and other progs, and they're
going to shit themselves if they find a blank directory.
But it's pointless telling this to you.
> Maybe that is
> FUD, maybe it is easily cured, maybe, maybe. But it is the stated
> position of Red Hat, which is pay me to use the linux stuff, and pay me
> a lot. When you quit paying me, then quit using what you got from me
> and use something else or else.
Which is why they point out the exact directories where their trademarked
images are stored and need to be removed when the license ends?
> That is what I said they said and what they say they say. All the Roys,
> and peters, and georgies of the world with unfounded opinions
> nothwithstanding.
Pack sand, fuckbrain.
Ray Ingles
> CentOS reportedly replaced the offending modules with ones that were not
> infringing. They didn't just remove them. Red Hat says that removal
> breaks the OS, not I. Red Hat says you must remove the modules when the
> subscription is up. You could replace things, I am sure, but why buy
> the support in the first place if you don't need it?
Wow, Bill finally got it! Customers have a *choice*! They can pay for
support from Red Hat, in which case they comply with Red Hat's terms, or
else they can get the same software from other sources and do their own
support, or even contract with a third party for support.
With Microsoft, you pay the license fees to get the software. And then
you have the extra cost of support contracts and such. Comparing "Red
Hat with support contract" to "Plain Windows" is disingenuous.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in
times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too
extravagant to endure." - Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall
Linønut
> begin virus.txt.scr billwg wrote:
>
>> "Peter K?hlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Just because you dimwit choose not to look does not mean it is that
>>> way, though.
>>>
>> So you have never seen any reference either, it seems. I think thad is
>> out on a limb! LOL!!!
>
> Wrong, LOLboy. I simply don't supply any, since you are going to ignore it
> anyway
Exactly. It's a method for keeping you on the hook. Like a fisherman
jerking the line, billwg jerks one around.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> I don't know when it'll happen; at the current rate we've got another
> couple years to go. But it'll be fun when it does. :->
>
discusses a lot of the issues, but they don't approach the situation as
a market issue.
Linønut
>> Read more carefully. They are going after SCO for GPL violations and
>> patent infringement as well, among several other counterclaims.
>>
> Don't be silly, Ray. IBM is counter suing SCO where they can muster a
> case, but only because of the SCO suit. If SCO were to offer to drop
> their suit, all the others would be gone in 60 seconds.
Don't bet on it.
> BFD, Ray. All this says is that the cases almost always involve someone
> distributing something with GPL software embedded and not supplying
> source the way they are supposed to. Who cares? The source is
> available in other ways, just not from the guy being zinged.
Pray tell how, if I modify the source code, but do not distribute it,
anyone else can get ahold of my modifications?
> I want to
> see something about a case where someone took the GPL stuff, extended it
> in some wonderful way, and then started selling it as a new proprietary
> thing and then having to give away the extensions as source.
LinkSys.
http://lwn.net/Articles/51570/
http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS7719522768.html
>> To be explicit: you've taken some code distributed under the GPL and
>> modified it. You believe that the GPL is invalid. Under what doctrine
>> do you think it would be legal to distribute the modified version to
>> others?
>>
> The first thing that comes to mind is that I would make the claim that
> the changes that I made substantially modified the expression of the
> original work to the point that it was not the same thing.
It doesn't matter if it is not the same thing -- it is derived from
GPL'd code, and hence falls under the GPL.
> Further, the
> idea expressed by the original was self-evident and that the expression
> of the original was not unique in the first place, since the language of
> the expression was so restrictive that the idea could only be expressed
> in a few, limited ways, none of which met the requirements that they be
> a unique expression fixed in a media.
Every so often you seem to emit sentences that are unparseable.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> I have never seen any account of IBM going to bat for a GPL issue, thad.
> They are defending the charges brought by SCO regarding the violation of
> the original unix contract between IBM and ATT as a holder in due course
> of that contract, but that has little to do with GPL per se.
a mighty big test of the GPL to me and one that places IBM squarely
in the camp of defending the validity of the GPL.
> Winning what? The one case most often cited involved some router makers
> using some IP table or such without disclosing the source and the
> settlement agreed upon was to disclose the IP table source being used,
> but it was already well known AFAICT, so that was a mox nix sort of
> thing to agree to in order to get that puppy off the street.
A company accused of violating the GPL decides to meet the GPL
requirements rather than fight it. And this supports your position
how?
> Lessig and Moglen are law school profs to begin with and Lessig has
> never done any work for the GPL effort that I ever heard of. Do you
> have a cite? As to copyright protection, guess again. The GPL relies
> on contract law and suffers from a lot of contestable elements. The
> thing survives because there is no reason to try to make a commercial
> business out of some freeware that cannot be protected in the first
> place, RHAT and NOVL notwithstanding.
Lessig has litigated multiple high profile copyright cases, written
three books that talk in depth about the GPL and related topics,
founded the Creative Commons, and is a board member of the EFF. In
layman's terms, he is what we call an 'expert'. And you got your law
degree from where? Can you even name a lawyer that shares your
viewpoint?
And you are dead wrong about the GPL relying on contract law. It
is a copyright license. Try reading it some time... it spells it
out quite clearly in the preamble. Heck try reading one of those
books written by Lessig; I suggest 'Code and Other Laws of
Cyberspace' or 'Free Culture'.
But since you don't seem willing to do even the most basic
research before flinging your opinions out there, I'll
save you some effort and supply this excerpt from the wiki
page on the GPL:
"The GPL was designed as a license, rather than a contract.
In some Common Law jurisdictions, the legal distinction between
a license and a contract is an important one: contracts are
enforceable by contract law, whereas the GPL, as a license,
is enforced under the terms of copyright law."
You must have known this already; it took less than two minutes
to find this and similar references via a google search. I just
wonder what your motive would be to post something so completely
wrong but so easily refuted. Are you trying to FUD linux or
indirectly advocated it?
> Ah, chad, ask around! You do indeed have to shut down your use of a
> system that was installed with the Red Hat media, and there can only be
> one. Go to the Red Hat web site and read their terms and conditions for
> RHEL.
Been there, done that. I run multiple Red Hat systems (I'm
posting from one right now) Heck, I wrote part of the original
Red Hat Linux Bible. Suffice it to say I've got some experience
with them. Show me the terms you speak of, because I find no
sign of them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Pony up the evidence.
I eagerly await your reply.
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> So you have never seen any reference either, it seems. I think thad is
> out on a limb! LOL!!!
"In an expanded counterclaim filed late Thursday in U.S. District
Court for Utah, IBM added charges of copyright violation based on
the GPL terms. The claim cites seven pieces of copyrighted software
IBM contributed to Linux under the GPL. By violating the terms of
the GPL, IBM states, SCO violated IBM's copyrights."
That is from a 2003 C/Net article that you can find here:
http://news.com.com/IBM+expands+SCO+countersuit/2100-1016_3-5082910.html
As a writer, I am actually familiar with something called 'research'.
It is very useful when one wishes to avoid going out on a limb. The
Internet makes it much easier. You should try it.
Cheers,
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> But that "corrupts the software"!!!!!!!!
>
> So you tell me, fellas, what's the bottom line here?
Did you even comprehend what you read? It says quite explicitly
that you can continue to use the software if you do not renew
the support license. The only restriction was on using Red Hat
trademarks if you repackage the software as your own commercial
distribution. They even helpfully tell you that deleting the
trademark/logo files might corrupt system behavior... so you
better replace those files with your own.
But really, you know this already. I am convinced that nobody
can be this consistently wrong by accident. I'm just not sure
what your motivation is.
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Read more carefully. They are going after SCO for GPL violations and
> patent infringement as well, among several other counterclaims.
Actually, they recently dropped the patent claims to speed things
along in the discovery process. They did reserve the right to
re-file the patent claims at a future date however, so SCO is not
off the hook by any stretch. Perhaps they think the copyright
claims are sufficient to bury SCO.
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Well, georgie, you are talking through your hat. The stuff that has to
> be removed, is said by Red Hat to corrupt the system. Maybe that is
> FUD, maybe it is easily cured, maybe, maybe. But it is the stated
> position of Red Hat, which is pay me to use the linux stuff, and pay me
> a lot. When you quit paying me, then quit using what you got from me
> and use something else or else.
Please point out that exact line in the license? (shhhh, don't
tell him that it says the opposite... lets see how long he looks)
Here is another homework problem for you: Under what circumstances
do you have to remove the trademark/logo files? (I'll give you
hint... you don't have to remove them when you stop paying
Red Hat)
> That is what I said they said and what they say they say. All the Roys,
> and peters, and georgies of the world with unfounded opinions
> nothwithstanding.
But I say that you are not saying what they say they say, only what
you said they say... or something. Huh?
Later,
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> CentOS reportedly replaced the offending modules with ones that were not
> infringing. They didn't just remove them. Red Hat says that removal
> breaks the OS, not I. Red Hat says you must remove the modules when the
> subscription is up. You could replace things, I am sure, but why buy
> the support in the first place if you don't need it?
No they don't, they say you remove those files when you create your
own distribution based on Red Hat (like CentOS did). That only
makes sense, since otherwise you would be using Red Hat's trademark
without permission, and why would you want people to confuse your
product with Red Hat anyway?
Note that creating a derivative distribution is not something you
can even hope to do with Microsoft Windows... so this just shows
how empty your 'Red Hat is more restrictive than Microsoft'
argument is.
Thad
Linønut
> Au contraire, roy boy! It is you and thad and other COLA choirboys that
> have their head sup their collective ass! LOL!!!
Maybe. But we can still read.
> http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_rha_eula.html
I'm skipping this because, while true, it is a trivial thing.
> https://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/renew/faqs/#1
>
> "6. If I don't renew, can I continue to use the software?
>
> Please note that when your subscription expires you will still be bound
> by the terms and conditions of the End User License Agreement and WILL
> HAVE TO REMOVE ALL COPIES OF RED HAT NETWORK CODE."
>
> But that "corrupts the software"!!!!!!!!
>
> So you tell me, fellas, what's the bottom line here?
You didn't do your research:
https://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/details/faq/
9. What maintenance and support options are available for Red Hat
Enterprise Linux?
All Red Hat Enterprise Linux/Red Hat Desktop subscriptions provide a
one year entitlement to Red Hat Network (RHN). This is Red Hat's
Internet-based system management & monitoring service. All patches,
erratas and security updates are provided using RHN, so your Red Hat
Enterprise Linux/Red Hat Desktop systems will be maintained to the
latest levels.
Red Hat Network is simply management software. It is removeable by Red
Hat's package management system, RPM, which knows how to deal with
dependencies.
Therefore, it does not "corrupt the code", as might happen if the user
just willy-nilly deletes Red-Hat specific files.
You're reachin' here, bilge.
William Poaster
weary, came a tapping at my door when Mark Kent posted this, & nothing
more...
Now *that* I can agree with! ;-)
--
The difference between Civil Engineers
& Mechanical Engineers is,
Civil Engineers build targets,
Mechanical Engineers build weapons.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/78d9812a-2386-11d9-aee5-00000e2511c8.html
> discusses a lot of the issues, but they don't approach the situation as
> a market issue.
Interesting article actually. Thanks for the link. I particularly
like James Boyle's response to Richard Epstein's original piece,
even though I think he let Epstein slide on a few points where he
misstate the nature of the GPL (i.e. applicability of contract law,
revocation of rights, etc). It is interesting to see actual law
professors debate something like this rather than the usual pundits
without a clue.
I would have liked to see Lawrence Lessig weigh in on this article,
and I'm actually a little surprised he did not. Boyle is actually
a board member of the Creative Commons (founded by Lessig), so it
is likely Lessig at least read the article. Lessig has written at
length about the GPL, its enforceability, and the contract law
under which it falls. While Boyle did a commendable job, Lessig
(IMHO) does a better job of demystifying the GPL and explaining
the copyright law that it falls under.
Later,
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
> I would have liked to see Lawrence Lessig weigh in on this article,
> and I'm actually a little surprised he did not. Boyle is actually
> a board member of the Creative Commons (founded by Lessig), so it
> is likely Lessig at least read the article. Lessig has written at
> length about the GPL, its enforceability, and the contract law
> under which it falls. While Boyle did a commendable job, Lessig
> (IMHO) does a better job of demystifying the GPL and explaining
> the copyright law that it falls under.
Oops, I meant to say copyright law there... ironic, considering
how annoyingly pedantic I can be about that very mistake.
Thad
Mark Kent
Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> espoused:
> On 2005-12-14, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> CentOS reportedly replaced the offending modules with ones that were not
>> infringing. They didn't just remove them. Red Hat says that removal
>> breaks the OS, not I. Red Hat says you must remove the modules when the
>> subscription is up. You could replace things, I am sure, but why buy
>> the support in the first place if you don't need it?
>
> Wow, Bill finally got it! Customers have a *choice*! They can pay for
> support from Red Hat, in which case they comply with Red Hat's terms, or
> else they can get the same software from other sources and do their own
> support, or even contract with a third party for support.
>
> With Microsoft, you pay the license fees to get the software. And then
> you have the extra cost of support contracts and such. Comparing "Red
> Hat with support contract" to "Plain Windows" is disingenuous.
>
Choice. It's something which more or less disappeared out of the
computing world about 5-6 years ago, but is arriving back in spades.
Free software is the great choice enabler.
Ray Ingles
> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/78d9812a-2386-11d9-aee5-00000e2511c8.html
>> discusses a lot of the issues, but they don't approach the situation as
>> a market issue.
>
> Interesting article actually. Thanks for the link. I particularly
> like James Boyle's response to Richard Epstein's original piece,
> even though I think he let Epstein slide on a few points where he
> misstate the nature of the GPL
Right at the beginning, there's an error - he states that someone
distributing code under the GPL "cannot charge others for its use". This
is false, they can charge as much as they like for the binaries, they
just have to provide source code too. Once you've distributed it to
someone else (for whatever fee) you can't charge money to people who
receive it from *them*, which is the clause quoted in the article. It
doesn't mean what he says it means.
Another point regarding his ostensible worries about the enforcibility
of the GPL:
"In principle, the entire Microsoft operating system could count as
'the work' that becomes open source because a few lines of open source
code have been incorporated into it by inadvertence. I doubt very much
whether courts will tolerate that extreme remedy...
I would think that courts would take into account how willfull the
infringement was. The FSF has only ever asked for compliance anyway -
either releasing the code or removing the offending portion.
"...if they enforce the clause at all."
Note that there is no legal reasoning given - none whatsoever - as to
why a court would *not* "enforce the clause".
"Just imagine if Microsoft insisted that it had exclusive rights to any
derivative work that incorporated its code!"
Funny... they do.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/901/ShSourceCLIbetaLicense.htm
"You may not use or distribute this Software or any derivative works in
any form for commercial purposes."
The GPL doesn't forbid such things at all. Really, the Shared Source
license is not different in principle from the GPL - they both derive
their strength from copyright.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"When we set out, our goal wasn't to convert the 400 million PC
users... There are 6 billion people on the planet. Our goal is
to build technology for the other 5.6 billion."
- Robert Young, founder of Red Hat Linux
billwg
<tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
news:dnq5ml$p5b$1...@tux.glaci.com...
starting to sense that you cannot easily follow anything with the
slightest shade of contextual meaning. Way back, the SCO stuff was
discounted from the discussion. The original contention was that the
FSF, with a hobbled and virtually non-existent legal staff was the only
force trying to uphold the GPL and you responded with some childish
reference to Big Blue's legal staff as being the watchdog. The SCO
filing is just part of a shotgun attempt to counter SCO's contract
violation suit with some hoopla that they hope will amount to some
weight to bring to a settlement. Let SCO offer to drop their claim and
watch the IBM filing disappear immediately.
Pay more attention to the issue at hand.
Ray Ingles
> The original contention was that the
> FSF, with a hobbled and virtually non-existent legal staff was the only
> force trying to uphold the GPL
> The SCO filing is just part of a shotgun attempt to counter SCO's
> contract violation suit with some hoopla that they hope will amount to
> some weight to bring to a settlement. Let SCO offer to drop their
> claim and watch the IBM filing disappear immediately.
IBM has not made any offer, not one, to settle the case. Ever. Go
ahead, try to find any references that state otherwise. In fact, please
find *any* reference that states that IBM has *ever* stated that they
were even *considering* settlement. They made no offer to settle when
SCO was asking for $1 billion, and they haven't when SCO upped it to
over $3 billion. What exactly do you think they are waiting for?
At this point, it looks pretty terrible for SCO anyway. They have no
leverage to try to extract a settlement. The judge is on record as
stating - well, let's quote him directly:
"Despite the vast disparity between SCO's public accusations and its
actual evidence--or complete lack thereof--and the resulting temptation
to grant IBM's motion, the court has determined that it would be
premature to grant summary judgment," Kimball wrote Wednesday. "Viewed
against the backdrop of SCO's plethora of public statements concerning
IBM's and others' infringement of SCO's purported copyrights to the Unix
software, it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent
evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed
SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities."
http://news.com.com/Judge+slams+SCOs+lack+of+evidence+against+IBM/2100-
7344_3-5570265.html
You can pontificate all you like, but every bit of evidence is squarely
against your opinion. Not only has IBM not made any moves to settle,
every indication is good for them to win the case on its merits. Why
would they bother settling? They want to create good precedents
protecting their Linux business. IBM makes more money from the Linux
sector than they do from patents, and they are the largest patent holder
in the world.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Gillette plans on spending $300 million to promote a razor that
cost $750 million to develop. And people complain about 'waste'
when private donations totalling $134,500 are spent on SETI...
John Bailo
> At this point, it looks pretty terrible for SCO anyway. They have no
> leverage to try to extract a settlement.
Yet somehow they attract *capital*:
> SCO Group says raises $10 mln in private placement
> Wed Nov 30, 2005 04:46 PM ET
> SAN FRANCISCO, Nov 30 (Reuters) - Unix software maker SCO Group Inc. (SCOX.O: Quote, Profile,
Research) said on Wednesday it raised $10 million in a private
placement, selling shares to existing
institutional investors and to a board member.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2005-12-14, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Read more carefully. They are going after SCO for GPL violations and
>>> patent infringement as well, among several other counterclaims.
>>>
>> Don't be silly, Ray. IBM is counter suing SCO where they can muster
>> a
>> case, but only because of the SCO suit. If SCO were to offer to drop
>> their suit, all the others would be gone in 60 seconds.
>
> You can say that, but IBM has rejected all opportunities to settle
> before now. It certainly appears that they are planning to set some
> precedents with this case. So far your crystal ball has not proven to
> be
> of any value; why should we believe you now? What evidence can you
> present?
>
all air. It certainly seems tenuous, but who knows? Look at the UCal
patent case on adding callable modules to a program! In any case, the
judge hasn't dismissed it. My contention is that IF SCO WERE TO DROP
THEIR CASE, presumably at no cost to IBM, then the countersuits would
disappear in a hurry. Nothing you said bears on that.
>> BFD, Ray. All this says is that the cases almost always involve
>> someone
>> distributing something with GPL software embedded and not supplying
>> source the way they are supposed to. Who cares? The source is
>> available in other ways, just not from the guy being zinged.
>
> Actually, the point is that the modifications necessary to get it to
> work on a particular device are what's sought. This allows people to
> customize the device for their own needs, and in some cases has opened
> up new business models:
>
> http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/01/2326222
>
Another BFD, Ray. Certainly if Linksys has a driver that allows the
linux hobbyists to use Linksys hardware to fool around with the workings
of the wireless router, their is no skin off their nose to hand out the
code. It can't have any negative affect on Linksys hardware sales and
they don't sell their hardware bare bones, AFAIK.
>> I want to see something about a case where someone took the GPL
>> stuff,
>> extended it in some wonderful way, and then started selling it as a
>> new proprietary thing and then having to give away the extensions as
>> source.
>
> You didn't see the cases about porting GCC to new platforms and
> selling
> the compiler without source?
>
Does that meet my criterion? What was the result?
> But even if you don't accept that... feel free to put your liability
> where your mouth is.
>
> It's funny, on the one hand you dismiss all GPL code as trivial. On
> the
> other you think it's terribly unfair that people are trying to trick
> others into using it by offering valuable code, then locking people
> into
> abhorrent license terms. If the code were truly of no merit, then you
> wouldn't be worried about people using it for anything of value...
>
You imply some kind of motivation to my claim, Ray, and assume facts not
in evidence! LOL!!!
I don't think that it is terribly unfair at all. Anyone dumb enough to
do that and get caught at it is on their own. My interest is mostly in
the notion of expression vs idea content. I think that a music
recording or video presentation have the artistic content that the law
requires. Novels and poetry, too. But I don't think that computer
programs represent anything other than the mechanical processing time
that was needed to type in the lines of code that express the idea.
Nothing particularly artistic, just descriptional. I think that it is
silly to try to show software as some kind of charitable act towards
one's fellowman, too. I am not at all worried about it either.
>>> To be explicit: you've taken some code distributed under the GPL and
>>> modified it. You believe that the GPL is invalid. Under what
>>> doctrine
>>> do you think it would be legal to distribute the modified version to
>>> others?
>>>
>> The first thing that comes to mind is that I would make the claim
>> that
>> the changes that I made substantially modified the expression of the
>> original work to the point that it was not the same thing.
>
> You would have to rewrite it to the point where no original lines of
> the work remained, barring perhaps a few things like errno.h and such.
> If you incorporate bits of a copyrighted work into your work, then
> your
> work is, ipso facto, a derived work and subject to copyright
> restrictions.
>
>> Further, the idea expressed by the original was self-evident
>
> That'd be highly fact-specific, y'know. Or are you claiming that all
> GPL code is self-evident?
>
Can you find any that is not?
>> and that the expression
>> of the original was not unique in the first place, since the language
>> of
>> the expression was so restrictive that the idea could only be
>> expressed
>> in a few, limited ways, none of which met the requirements that they
>> be
>> a unique expression fixed in a media.
>
> Ah, yes, your contention that all source code is subject to merger
> since there's only one way to express an algorithm. Aside from the
> fact
> that this is self-evidently not true:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c9eb43dd3c5eb3e5
>
Wow, you use a reference your own faulty logic as proof? LOL!!!
> ...it's also been ruled as untrue in courts of law, as people have
> been
> found guilty of violating copyright on software. So, again, while this
> could theoretically work in a few extremely limited and specific
> cases,
> you can't claim it as any kind of general rule.
>
My own view is that there is next to nothing in the common law that has
ever really tested the notion, Ray. There are huge amounts of "sample"
code out in the world, much of it from Microsoft, and most of which
carry no copyright limitations. If an idea has not been protected by
patent, it can be copied if it is learned. How it is copied is still
subject to some dispute, but if the idea is "search a table of values to
find the closest match", a wholesale copy of the table definition and a
loop doing the compare hardly rises to violating a unique expression.
Ray Ingles
> Well IBM doesn't want to pay anything, Ray, and maybe the SCO case is
> all air. It certainly seems tenuous, but who knows?
I do, and the judge in question does - he's said SCO has produced no
evidence to support their claims. (Not "a little" - no evidence at all.)
Discovery hasn't completed yet. I'm pretty sure once it has, a summary
judgement will be in the offing. (Yes, I'm willing to make a concrete
prediction. We'll see if mine does better than yours have.)
> My contention is that IF SCO WERE TO DROP
> THEIR CASE, presumably at no cost to IBM, then the countersuits would
> disappear in a hurry. Nothing you said bears on that.
Yours is the decided minority opinion. Most observers seem to think
IBM's out for blood.
>> Actually, the point is that the modifications necessary to get it to
>> work on a particular device are what's sought. This allows people to
>> customize the device for their own needs, and in some cases has opened
>> up new business models:
>>
>> http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/01/2326222
>>
> Another BFD, Ray. Certainly if Linksys has a driver that allows the
> linux hobbyists to use Linksys hardware to fool around with the workings
> of the wireless router, their is no skin off their nose to hand out the
> code. It can't have any negative affect on Linksys hardware sales and
> they don't sell their hardware bare bones, AFAIK.
Um... my point was that it had a *positive* effect on sales, and they
specifically came out with a model to support just that operation. But
they had to be prodded to release the source code first.
Happy outcomes like this are why the FSF doesn't pursue the cases as
agressively as they might. So far they aren't even insisting on monetary
damages, though they might in the future, for particularly recalcitrant
offenders.
>>> I want to see something about a case where someone took the GPL
>>> stuff, extended it in some wonderful way, and then started selling
>>> it as a new proprietary thing and then having to give away the
>>> extensions as source.
>>
>> You didn't see the cases about porting GCC to new platforms and
>> selling the compiler without source?
>>
> Does that meet my criterion? What was the result?
It does meet the criterion if you think supporting a new architecture
is "wonderful". And yes, support for a few platforms has been added due
to things like this.
Not all vendors do it that way. At my old robot-programming job my
company paid good money for a supported version of GCC. It was *way*
better than the compiler we had been using.
> I think that a music
> recording or video presentation have the artistic content that the law
> requires. Novels and poetry, too. But I don't think that computer
> programs represent anything other than the mechanical processing time
> that was needed to type in the lines of code that express the idea.
Lots of people disagree with you. A supermajority of Congress, for
example.
> I think that it is
> silly to try to show software as some kind of charitable act towards
> one's fellowman, too. I am not at all worried about it either.
So, software is of no value? Does that include the stuff you claim to
write?
>> That'd be highly fact-specific, y'know. Or are you claiming that all
>> GPL code is self-evident?
>>
> Can you find any that is not?
Describe the redisplay code in Emacs for me. A good, high-level
description is fine - but make sure it's in your own words, and is
sufficiently detailed to allow reimplementing it from your description.
>> Ah, yes, your contention that all source code is subject to merger
>> since there's only one way to express an algorithm. Aside from the
>> fact that this is self-evidently not true:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c9eb43dd3c5eb3e5
>>
> Wow, you use a reference your own faulty logic as proof? LOL!!!
Just pointing out that you've been made aware of this before. And also
pointing out, if you follow that thread, that you never made any attempt
to refute the point, you just, well, dropped it for a while. Now you
return to it again, pretending it's fresh as the driven snow...
> My own view is that there is next to nothing in the common law that has
> ever really tested the notion, Ray.
Not that you've ever made any attempt to refute the examples I've
posted in the past...
> There are huge amounts of "sample" code out in the world, much of it
> from Microsoft, and most of which carry no copyright limitations. If
> an idea has not been protected by patent, it can be copied if it is
> learned.
Yes, but that's the whole point of copyright - it covers expressions,
not ideas. Ideas can be copied, that's hardly a point of contention.
Literal copying is forbidden; non-literal copying often is forbidden as
well.
> ...if the idea is "search a table of values to
> find the closest match", a wholesale copy of the table definition and a
> loop doing the compare hardly rises to violating a unique expression.
So far you've never found a court to agree with you, nor any lawyer
except (allegedly) 'this one guy I golf with sometimes'.
Note what Bill's doing here, people. He's not actually saying the GPL
is invalid - he's saying that *all software copyrights* are invalid. We
are just as free to violate Microsoft's "Shared Source" license as we
are to violate the GPL. That leaked code for Windows 2000? Go ahead and
use it, even sell it. Microsoft wouldn't have a leg to stand on in
court...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
'[W]e want a slate of projects that will out-dumb the dumb shows
like Whoopi, The Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, and The Next
Joe Millionaire.' ABC's pilot orders for Fall 2004 include The
Naked Ladies, Extreme Explosions, and America's Shiniest Objects.
- The Onion
billwg
>
> They don't say that removing it will corrupt the system. They pretty
> much say
> that going into the appropriate directory and typing 'rm -r *' is
> going to
> break shit. It needs to be modified, not removed, because the
> trademarked
> stuff (mostly images) is linked to by anaconda and other progs, and
> they're
> going to shit themselves if they find a blank directory.
>
They say: "Customer must modify any files identified as "REDHAT-LOGOS"
and "anaconda-images" to remove all images containing the "Red Hat"
trademark or the "Shadowman" logo. MERELY DELETING THESE FILES MAY
CORRUPT THE SOFTWARE.""
Telling an IT manager that he has to do something the "may corrupt the
software" unless he keeps paying is a pretty strong threat in the real
world, georgie! Don't you agree?
>
> Which is why they point out the exact directories where their
> trademarked
> images are stored and need to be removed when the license ends?
>
I suspect that their trademarked stuff is embedded in some way with
stuff that is needed. What does CentOS change to avoid them? Are they
simply removed? Is it all a bluff?
>> That is what I said they said and what they say they say. All the
>> Roys,
>> and peters, and georgies of the world with unfounded opinions
>> nothwithstanding.
>
> Pack sand, fuckbrain.
Is that the COLA choirboy version of Q.E.D? LOL!!! You probably think
it is!
billwg
"Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
news:uOmdnbahwbGQED3e...@comcast.com...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, billwg belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> Read more carefully. They are going after SCO for GPL violations and
>>> patent infringement as well, among several other counterclaims.
>>>
>> Don't be silly, Ray. IBM is counter suing SCO where they can muster
>> a
>> case, but only because of the SCO suit. If SCO were to offer to drop
>> their suit, all the others would be gone in 60 seconds.
>
> Don't bet on it.
>
>> BFD, Ray. All this says is that the cases almost always involve
>> someone
>> distributing something with GPL software embedded and not supplying
>> source the way they are supposed to. Who cares? The source is
>> available in other ways, just not from the guy being zinged.
>
> Pray tell how, if I modify the source code, but do not distribute it,
> anyone else can get ahold of my modifications?
>
A good idea. I think that is the wise thing to do. But the cases
regarding the IP tables were in regard to the original IP tables not
being made available by the router company. They apparently made them
available even though they are the same.
>> I want to
>> see something about a case where someone took the GPL stuff, extended
>> it
>> in some wonderful way, and then started selling it as a new
>> proprietary
>> thing and then having to give away the extensions as source.
>
> LinkSys.
>
Not a good example, nut. Here the hardware is unique and serves to
control use by others just like keeping the software would. It is like
having a secret driver for your unique hardware. The user cannot get
either without both and one is not useful without the other. Disclosure
has no affect on propriety.
> http://lwn.net/Articles/51570/
>
> http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS7719522768.html
>
>>> To be explicit: you've taken some code distributed under the GPL and
>>> modified it. You believe that the GPL is invalid. Under what
>>> doctrine
>>> do you think it would be legal to distribute the modified version to
>>> others?
>>>
>> The first thing that comes to mind is that I would make the claim
>> that
>> the changes that I made substantially modified the expression of the
>> original work to the point that it was not the same thing.
>
> It doesn't matter if it is not the same thing -- it is derived from
> GPL'd code, and hence falls under the GPL.
>
Not if I never agree to the GPL, nut. The GPL isn't a law of the land.
>> Further, the
>> idea expressed by the original was self-evident and that the
>> expression
>> of the original was not unique in the first place, since the language
>> of
>> the expression was so restrictive that the idea could only be
>> expressed
>> in a few, limited ways, none of which met the requirements that they
>> be
>> a unique expression fixed in a media.
>
> Every so often you seem to emit sentences that are unparseable.
>
Here is a fix. Sorry it overloaded your mind!
"Further, the idea expressed by the original was self-evident and the
Ray Ingles
>>> that the changes that I made substantially modified the expression
>>> of the original work to the point that it was not the same thing.
>>
>> It doesn't matter if it is not the same thing -- it is derived from
>> GPL'd code, and hence falls under the GPL.
>>
> Not if I never agree to the GPL, nut. The GPL isn't a law of the land.
If you don't agree to the GPL, you have no other right to distribute
the software - it falls under normal copyright. You therefore would
need to mount a defense like the above. Can you point out actual cases
where this has succeeded?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The computing industry is given 12 months to deploy a technology
that does not exist and whose sole purpose is to protect profits.
The car industry was allowed decades to deploy safety features such
as seat belts and air bags that were designed to save lives."
- Zeinfeld, on the SSSCA, a proposed law that would mandate all
computers to prevent any file copying whatsoever unless explicitly
approved by the entertainment conglomerates
Kier
>
> "George Ellison" <notam...@nerdshack.com> wrote in message
> news:87fyovf...@mail.nerdshack.com...
>>
>> They don't say that removing it will corrupt the system. They pretty
>> much say
>> that going into the appropriate directory and typing 'rm -r *' is
>> going to
>> break shit. It needs to be modified, not removed, because the
>> trademarked
>> stuff (mostly images) is linked to by anaconda and other progs, and
>> they're
>> going to shit themselves if they find a blank directory.
>>
>
> They say: "Customer must modify any files identified as "REDHAT-LOGOS"
> and "anaconda-images" to remove all images containing the "Red Hat"
> trademark or the "Shadowman" logo. MERELY DELETING THESE FILES MAY
> CORRUPT THE SOFTWARE.""
Only if redistributing. Otherwise, not.
>
> Telling an IT manager that he has to do something the "may corrupt the
> software" unless he keeps paying is a pretty strong threat in the real
> world, georgie! Don't you agree?
No, and I bet Ray doesn't, either. It may certainly corrupt the software
if not removed in the correct manner, but you've already been told how
that is done.
>
>>
>> Which is why they point out the exact directories where their
>> trademarked
>> images are stored and need to be removed when the license ends?
>>
> I suspect that their trademarked stuff is embedded in some way with
> stuff that is needed. What does CentOS change to avoid them? Are they
> simply removed? Is it all a bluff?
What silly slander are you dreaming up now?
>
>>> That is what I said they said and what they say they say. All the
>>> Roys,
>>> and peters, and georgies of the world with unfounded opinions
>>> nothwithstanding.
>>
>> Pack sand, fuckbrain.
>
> Is that the COLA choirboy version of Q.E.D? LOL!!! You probably think
> it is!
You don't seem to think at all. Or listen. Or learn.
--
Kier
Linønut
> Oh, you can take that to the bank, nut! Don't be so silly.
How am I being silly?
>> Pray tell how, if I modify the source code, but do not distribute it,
>> anyone else can get ahold of my modifications?
>>
> A good idea. I think that is the wise thing to do.
This response is so incongruous that it seems like an automated
response.
>> LinkSys.
>>
> Not a good example, nut. Here the hardware is unique and serves to
> control use by others just like keeping the software would.
No it doesn't. People can take the software and add functionality to
their LinkSys routers.
> It is like
> having a secret driver for your unique hardware. The user cannot get
> either without both and one is not useful without the other.
Wrong.
> Disclosure has no affect on propriety.
Obviously. Your point being?
>> It doesn't matter if it is not the same thing -- it is derived from
>> GPL'd code, and hence falls under the GPL.
>>
> Not if I never agree to the GPL, nut.
You are, of course, free to never agree to the GPL. But, if you
distribute the code, you've agreed to it, and are hence subject to it.
> The GPL isn't a law of the land.
As a copyright, it is indeed the law of the land.
>> Every so often you seem to emit sentences that are unparseable.
>>
> Here is a fix. Sorry it overloaded your mind!
No overload, just gibberish.
> "Further, the idea expressed by the original was self-evident and the
> expression of the original was not unique in the first place, since the
> language of the expression was so restrictive that the idea could only
> be expressed in a few, limited ways, none of which met the requirements
> that they be a unique expression fixed in a media."
Makes no sense, at all. You'd best keep working on refining the skills
of clarity and conciseness.
Even isomorphisms can be distinct expressions of a statement.
Linønut
> On 2005-12-15, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>> Not if I never agree to the GPL, nut. The GPL isn't a law of the land.
>
> If you don't agree to the GPL, you have no other right to distribute
> the software - it falls under normal copyright. You therefore would
> need to mount a defense like the above. Can you point out actual cases
> where this has succeeded?
He can't point to squat. About all he is good at is weaving a cloud of
words. Clarity is the last thing he wants, as it makes his "ideas"
susceptible to rational analysis.
billwg
<tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
news:dnq9q6$pqg$1...@tux.glaci.com...
>
> Here is another homework problem for you: Under what circumstances
> do you have to remove the trademark/logo files? (I'll give you
> hint... you don't have to remove them when you stop paying
> Red Hat)
>
by the terms and conditions of the End User License Agreement and WILL
HAVE TO REMOVE ALL COPIES OF RED HAT NETWORK CODE."
I worked with a company that actually used the RHEL and when the year
was up they were told by RHAT that they had to repay or else replace the
system on this basis. RHAT does not allow redistribution or use of
their media except under the subscription.
>> That is what I said they said and what they say they say. All the
>> Roys,
>> and peters, and georgies of the world with unfounded opinions
>> nothwithstanding.
>
> But I say that you are not saying what they say they say, only what
> you said they say... or something. Huh?
>
Split all the hairs that you want, thad, but RHAT (and NOVL doing the
same thing) are not allowing for much freedom here! LOL!!! Certainly
there are poor souls falling victim to this, RHAT is now making a profit
on their operations.