The GPL means what you want it to mean
Rjack
terms when convenient!
"I wanted to note that the FSF has just released an exception (the
first?) to GPL3 under Section 7 (that allows "additional permissions"
to negate other terms of the GPL3) that is quite interesting in this
context."
http://lwn.net/Articles/326854/rss
If you write a new law and subsequently don't like it then just
announce it doesn't *really* mean what says it means. ROFL.
"Developing nonfree software is not good for society, and we have no
obligation to make it easier. We decided to permit this because
forbidding it seemed likely to backfire, and because using small
libraries to limit the use of GCC seemed like the tail wagging the dog."
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
The GPLv3 has 5645 words when you include the "How to apply..."
addendum. If that weren't confusing enough, you may now go out into
the cyberworld and find what new exceptions the Masters of the
Universe have added -- before they sue you in federal court in New
York for violation of their 5645 word copyright contract that doesn't
mean what they said it means. ROFL.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
SomeBloke
Why should I care what the Federal court in New York decides when I live
3300 miles away across the Atlantic?
There is also the point that the GPLv3 is not the be all and end all of
the license. You can mix and match licenses depending on the source of
the libraries and/or purpose.
It looks to me that the exception to the GPLv3 license as it applies to
the GNU GCC compiler allows for altered licensing in respect of
proprietary modules used overall within an application.
But then I am not a lawyer so take the above with a large pinch of salt!
If I'm wrong I'm sure that someone will correct me!
--
I'm always kind, polite and reasonable.... except when I'm not.
Rjack
You shouldn't.
Alexander Terekhov
Rjack wrote:
[...]
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
"Since all of the object code that GCC generates is derived from these
GPLed libraries, that means you would be required to follow the terms of
the GPL when propagating any of that object code. You could not use GCC
to develop your own GPL-incompatible software."
LMAO!
Just love it.
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
amicus_curious
"Alexander Terekhov" <tere...@web.de> wrote in message
news:49D517F2...@web.de...
>
> Rjack wrote:
> [...]
>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
>
> "Since all of the object code that GCC generates is derived from these
> GPLed libraries, that means you would be required to follow the terms of
> the GPL when propagating any of that object code. You could not use GCC
> to develop your own GPL-incompatible software."
>
is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the compiler output,
constructed of some collection of these constructs based on the programmer's
arrangement of source code syntax and order, would ever be a unique
expression fixed in a media as defined by the copyright laws. This whole
discussion is akin to the arguments in theology regarding how many angles
can dance on the head of a pin.
The idea behind the work is not copyrighted material and if it is not
protected by a patent, anyone can use the idea by putting it into their own
words. You can use the plot and storyline of a novel, making up your own
characters and filling in your own details and publish it without much fear
of copyright violation. It is the artistic elements that are protected.
The same holds true of a computer program. If you take the central idea,
concept, method, etc., and re-code it in your own work, it is not a
copyright issue. Even if it works exactly the same, i.e. the "look and
feel" are identical to some other work, it is not subject to copyright
claims. That seems to be overlooked by the GPL advocates today. Very
little of what they think they are protecting is protected.
Rjack
> The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in
> nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the
> compiler output, constructed of some collection of these constructs
> based on the programmer's arrangement of source code syntax and
> order, would ever be a unique expression fixed in a media as
> defined by the copyright laws. This whole discussion is akin to the
> arguments in theology regarding how many angles can dance on the
> head of a pin.
The Free Software Foundation loves to start controversies about
matters such as "GCC generated object code" for good reason. It is the
same strategy used by religious fundamentalists when arguing against
evolution being taught in the schools. By setting the stage whereby
people are debating such minor nuances, an underlying impression is
generated that the GPL is actually a legally enforceable document.
This is how fundamentalists manage to elevate "creation theory" to
the level of scientific theory in serious discussions.
In certain respects, you have to credit the Free Software Foundation
for being politically astute. They began years ago claiming that their
marvelous license wasn't a contract. Despite the best efforts of
people like Professor Micheal Davis of Cleveland State University to
explain to Richard Stallman that the GPL would be considered a legal
contract:
"So. Why is this an issue? To allow the GPL legal effect but to avoid
some real or imagined consequences of it being treated as a contract
by the law? I'm afraid you can't have one without the other; to
repeat, if it's enforceable, it is, in essence, and in the end, a
contract."
http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html
The "real or imagined consequences of it being treated as a contract
by the law" are two-fold. First, as a matter of contract law the GPL
is unenforceable. Second, as a matter of copyright law it is preempted
by 17 USC sec. 301.
The FSF persisted in claiming that the "GPL was a license not a
contract", http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ , and an urban legend was
cleverly established.
Hundreds of RMS's acolytes and other blogs repeated this mantra with
unstoppable fervor. The Free Software Foundation has *never* advanced
a legal argument to refute the fact that the GPL is contractually
unenforceable and preempted by the Copyright Act. The FSF to this day
has never admitted that a copyright license is a contract. They file
groundless lawsuits and then immediately voluntarily dismiss them
without court review in an effort to convince folks that the GPL
has legal teeth.
People should never allow the GPL to be *assumed* to be legally
enforceable until the FSF abandons the utterly crackpot legal theory
that "a license is not a contract". Any discussions about the claims
of GPL effects on details such as "GCC generated object code" simply
generate further support for the false assumption that the GPL is an
enforceable license.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
David Kastrup
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in
>> nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the
>> compiler output, constructed of some collection of these constructs
>> based on the programmer's arrangement of source code syntax and
>> order, would ever be a unique expression fixed in a media as defined
>> by the copyright laws. This whole discussion is akin to the
>> arguments in theology regarding how many angles can dance on the
>> head of a pin.
>
> The Free Software Foundation loves to start controversies about
> matters such as "GCC generated object code" for good reason.
You are confused. The whole point of the explicitly relinquished
(rather than ascertained) rights is to _quell_ any such controversy from
the start. By making explicitly clear that the compiled code is not
covered by demands derived from compiler copyright (by volition of the
compiler writers in addition to whatever copyright law might or might
not dictate), users have one thing less to worry about.
--
David Kastrup
Rjack
Sorry, but "confusion" does not reign on my part. You missed point of
my assertion. This discussion is not occurring in a neutral context.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
By using terminology such as "explicitly relinquished (rather than
ascertained) rights", you are implying that the GPL, if it were not
for the "exception" stated by the Free Software Foundation, *would*
have legal consequence. By claiming, "By making explicitly clear that
the compiled code is not covered by demands derived from compiler
copyright. . .", you leave the impression that the compiler license
(the GPL) requirements *are* enforceable in other contexts. But they
aren't.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Rjack <us...@example.net> writes:
>>
>>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>>> The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in
>>>> nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the
>>>> compiler output, constructed of some collection of these
>>>> constructs based on the programmer's arrangement of source code
>>>> syntax and order, would ever be a unique expression fixed in a
>>>> media as defined by the copyright laws. This whole discussion is
>>>> akin to the arguments in theology regarding how many angles can
>>>> dance on the head of a pin.
>>> The Free Software Foundation loves to start controversies about
>>> matters such as "GCC generated object code" for good reason.
>>
>> You are confused. The whole point of the explicitly relinquished
>> (rather than ascertained) rights is to _quell_ any such controversy
>> from the start. By making explicitly clear that the compiled code
>> is not covered by demands derived from compiler copyright (by
>> volition of the compiler writers in addition to whatever copyright
>> law might or might not dictate), users have one thing less to worry
>> about.
>
> Sorry, but "confusion" does not reign on my part.
I was just operating under the directive "don't attribute to malice what
can be explained by stupidity".
> You missed point of my assertion. This discussion is not occurring in
> a neutral context.
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
>
> By using terminology such as "explicitly relinquished (rather than
> ascertained) rights", you are implying that the GPL, if it were not
> for the "exception" stated by the Free Software Foundation, *would*
> have legal consequence.
No. "could". As decided by a court of law with judges in whatever good
or bad mood.
> By claiming, "By making explicitly clear that the compiled code is not
> covered by demands derived from compiler copyright. . .", you leave
> the impression that the compiler license (the GPL) requirements *are*
> enforceable in other contexts.
I don't do anything of the sort. The impression is that people might
_fear_ that their might be a reasonable amount of expectation they could
go to court for it. Most people prefer not to go there in the first
place, regardless of their chances. This possible fear is dispelled
with regard to stuff compiled by GCC.
> But they aren't.
It is easy for you to say that since you are not an involved party and
don't have to fear any damages. When an involved party, however, states
its full intent to relinquish all possibly purported rights and not sue
for them, it is one thing less to worry about.
Only an idiot can construe intimidation from a written guarantee not to
sue for a possibly contentious issue.
--
David Kastrup
Rjack
>>> Rjack <us...@example.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic
>>>>> in nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case
>>>>> that the compiler output, constructed of some collection
>>>>> of these constructs based on the programmer's arrangement
>>>>> of source code syntax and order, would ever be a unique
>>>>> expression fixed in a media as defined by the copyright
>>>>> laws. This whole discussion is akin to the arguments in
>>>>> theology regarding how many angles can dance on the head of
>>>>> a pin.
>>>> The Free Software Foundation loves to start controversies
>>>> about matters such as "GCC generated object code" for good
>>>> reason
>>> You are confused. The whole point of the explicitly
>>> relinquished (rather than ascertained) rights is to _quell_ any
>>> such controversy from the start. By making explicitly clear
>>> that the compiled code is not covered by demands derived from
>>> compiler copyright (by volition of the compiler writers in
>>> addition to whatever copyright law might or might not dictate),
>>> users have one thing less to worry about.
>> Sorry, but "confusion" does not reign on my part.
>
> I was just operating under the directive "don't attribute to malice
> what can be explained by stupidity".
>
>> You missed point of my assertion. This discussion is not
>> occurring in a neutral context.
>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
>>
>> By using terminology such as "explicitly relinquished (rather
>> than ascertained) rights", you are implying that the GPL, if it
>> were not for the "exception" stated by the Free Software
>> Foundation, *would* have legal consequence.
> No. "could". As decided by a court of law with judges in whatever
> good or bad mood.
Which implies the GPL is enforceable. Which it is not.
>
>> By claiming, "By making explicitly clear that the compiled code
>> is not covered by demands derived from compiler copyright. . .",
>> you leave the impression that the compiler license (the GPL)
>> requirements *are* enforceable in other contexts.
>
> I don't do anything of the sort. The impression is that people
> might _fear_ that their might be a reasonable amount of expectation
> they could go to court for it. Most people prefer not to go there
> in the first place, regardless of their chances. This possible
> fear is dispelled with regard to stuff compiled by GCC.
>
>> But they aren't.
>
> It is easy for you to say that since you are not an involved party
> and don't have to fear any damages. When an involved party,
> however, states its full intent to relinquish all possibly
> purported rights and not sue for them, it is one thing less to
> worry about.
Thank you!
You just summarized the most important reason that people should avoid
the GPL at all costs. "Free Software" is highly restrictive software
and isn't "free" at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as
BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled
into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice
socialism in software licensing as a religion.
> Only an idiot can construe intimidation from a written guarantee
> not to sue for a possibly contentious issue.
And only a fucking Freetard moron such as yourself could twice fail to
grasp the propaganda method to which I was referring in my original
comment which compared the tactics of creationists to those of the
Free Software Foundation.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
amicus_curious
"Rjack" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:oYmdndMTKdtop0vU...@giganews.com...
>
>> Only an idiot can construe intimidation from a written guarantee not to
>> sue for a possibly contentious issue.
>
> And only a fucking Freetard moron such as yourself could twice fail to
> grasp the propaganda method to which I was referring in my original
> comment which compared the tactics of creationists to those of the
> Free Software Foundation.
>
Fire and counter-fire, it just causes a deterioration in any conversation,
productive or not. We should all refrain from firing the first and/or next
shot.
Rjack
Quite true. Turning the other cheek *is* a virtue... Occasionally
though, after your cheek turns red, it is difficult to aspire to
mankind's higher calling.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Thufir Hawat
> The Free Software Foundation has *never* advanced a legal argument to
> refute the fact that the GPL is contractually unenforceable and
> preempted by the Copyright Act.
What's your argument that isn't enforceable?
-Thufir
Thufir Hawat
> "Free Software" is highly restrictive software and isn't
> "free" at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed
> programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal
> court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software
> licensing as a religion.
Why not extend that argument to the conclusion: don't use any license at
all. Sqlite is public domain. You're free to develop public domain
software on your own. However, you're not likely to ever see a penny for
your efforts.
-Thufir
Rjack
You're free to change the argument any new conclusion you wish. Short
of waiting seventy five years after its creation, it is difficult to
place a work in the "public domain". You must somehow unequivocally
and publicly relinquish all claims of ownership. Some Circuits would
probably disagree with that broad assertion.
I was comparing "Free Software licensed code" and "permissively
licensed code". So what is the point you wish to make?
Rjack
The GPL is unequivocally a contract under U.S. law. (More specifically
it is a contract for a "grant of permission" or license.)
Section 2(b) states:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License."
To summarize, this means the GPL is a contract to requiring that:
1) "you must cause"
2) "any work to be licensed as a whole"
3) "to all third parties"
4) "under the terms of this License"
Therefore the *distributor* of GPL licensed code must cause a new
contract to be formed between himself and the members of the general
public that covers the created derivative work "as a whole".
The GPL is a 'contract to make a contract' with the general public to
distribute a derivative work. The GPL is therefore a "contract to make
a contract". So. . . how is a contract between two parties to make a
*new* contract with a *yet to be identified* third party for a *yet to
be created* "derivative of a derivative" work going to be enforced?
The short answer is it can't be enforced. See:
"[A] contract to make a contract is enforceable only where all
material terms have been agreed upon. 1 Corbin, Contracts, sec. 2.8,
at 131, 133-34 (Perillo ed. 1993). Prisma Zona's own statements, and
the service contract drafts which it attaches, show that material
issues were still open."; Prisma Zona Exploratoria de Puerto Rico,
Inc. v. Calderón 310 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002).
"Under Michigan law, "[t]o be enforceable, a contract to enter into
a future contract must specify all its material and essential terms
and leave none to be agreed upon as the result of future
negotiations." Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. v. Waldo, 286 N.W. 630, 632
(Mich. 1939)”
“To constitute a valid contract, the parties must assent to the same
thing in the same sense, and their minds must meet as to all the
terms. If any portion of the proposed terms is not settled, or no mode
agreed on by which they may be settled, there is no agreement. Gregory
v. Perdue, Inc., 47 N.C. App. 655, 657, 267 S.E.2d 584, 586 (1980). .
. A "'contract to make a contract'" is not an enforceable agreement.
Northington v. Michelotti, 121 N.C. App. 180, 184, 464 S.E.2d 711, 714
(1995)(quoting 1 Joseph M. Perillo, Corbin on Contracts,
§2.8(a)(revised edition 1993))." Wilkerson v. Carriage Park
Development Corp., 130 NC App 475 (08/04/1998 97-1387)
"‘If the document or contract that the parties agree to make is to
contain any material term that is not already agreed on, no contract
has yet been made; and the so called "contract to make a contract" is
not a contract at all.’" Hansen v. Catsman, 123 N.W.2d 265, 266 (Mich.
1963).
The GPL is also preempted by 17 USC sec. 301(a).
"Sec. 301. Preemption with respect to other laws
(a) On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that
are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope
of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that
are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the
subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103,
whether created before or after that date and whether published or
unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no
person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such
work under the common law or statutes of any State."
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
amicus_curious
position. After all, it is no money out of your pocket and your family will
still love you.
amicus_curious
"Thufir Hawat" <hawat....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:FuDBl.727$9t6...@newsfe10.iad...
Anyone who needs a basic function in their own application should be free to
adopt one freely handed out by someone else. Since it is freely
distributed, there is absolutely no obligation. Anyone so proud of their
incremental innovation that improves the original that they want to brag to
the world is also free to publish their dependent work. Anyone who doesn't
see the value in such a publication or who hasn't made any such change would
naturally refrain from any disclosure.
The internet is full of sites and included articles describing this very
kind of software and many developers have taken advantage of such articles
to solve their own problems and to learn how to do a variety of things.
There seems to be enough disclosure by those who learn a little so as to
keep the ball rolling.
All this makes Stallman and the FSF appear to be a sort of dog in the
manger, denying access to those who might avail themselves of some learning
or avoid some rote efforts. I do not think that anyone who included any
such GPL solftware into their product could make any money from the effort
either, just as they could not from public domain software. There is
nothing that anyone trying to sell a product rather than give it away could
sell other than their own innovation since the original functionality is
still available to anyone at no charge. If I stole the code for FireFox and
used it unchanged in a new product that I called HoundDog, I would never
recover my costs of promoting it via license fees. I doubt that I would
ever sell a single copy. If I added some functions that made it more
valuable and likely to appeal to consumers, however, I could possibly
benefit, but, again, it is doubtful that anyone could really innovate
anything in this realm.
Rjack
I *know* it will be no money out of my pocket -- wife has already
spent it all. I can't talk back to her, so I have to vent my
frustration elsewhere. That's why I'm so irritable at times.
Rjack
I disclaim any actual knowledge of the law in non-US based
jurisdictions I will speculate that the GPL would be ruled
unenforceable in England as a matter of English contract law.
American common law is historically based upon English
common law:
"1. This Act shall be known as THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, and is in Four Divisions, as follows:
. . .
22.2. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to
or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the
Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all
the courts of this State."
Rahul Dhesi
>American common law is historically based upon English
>common law:
>"1. This Act shall be known as THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF
>CALIFORNIA, and is in Four Divisions, as follows:
>. . .
>22.2. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to
>or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the
>Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all
>the courts of this State."
Interesting. When I quoted an Australian law professor in the context of
defining common law contract terms, Rjack took exception, because he
thought such things are determined by the US Circuit courts. Now he has
reversed himself and suddenly English common law is viable again.
What new profound insights will we he provide us with next? Stay tuned!
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
amicus_curious
"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c....@XReXXTheXG.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:gr82or$kjb$1...@blue.rahul.net...
specific element that would seem to apply to a subsequent case, it would be
cited as a governing decision. In the absence of any such previous
decision, an argument would revert to some construct of the common law. Or
if you were on the wrong side of the circuit court decision, you might also
argue some other spin on things. It is what makes the whole thing so
interesting. You just never know.
Rjack
Which part of:
"The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to
or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States,..."
are you failing to grasp? Doesn't the grammatical construction, "so
far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with. . ." carve an
exception for US Circuit interpretation?
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Thufir Hawat
> Thufir Hawat wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>>
>>> "Free Software" is highly restrictive software and isn't "free" at
>>> all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed
>>> programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into
>>> federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in
>>> software licensing as a religion.
>>
>> Why not extend that argument to the conclusion: don't use any license
>> at all. Sqlite is public domain. You're free to develop public domain
>> software on your own. However, you're not likely to
>> ever see a penny for your efforts.
>
> You're free to change the argument any new conclusion you wish.
I never changed the argument, but extended your argument to its logical
conclusion.
> Short of
> waiting seventy five years after its creation, it is difficult to place
> a work in the "public domain".
Well, sqlite is in the public domain according to wikipedia, which, for a
layman like me, is sufficient evidence of its licensing.
> You must somehow unequivocally and
> publicly relinquish all claims of ownership. Some Circuits would
> probably disagree with that broad assertion.
>
> I was comparing "Free Software licensed code" and "permissively licensed
> code". So what is the point you wish to make?
The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless.
And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license
it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion
which can be drawn from your argument.
-Thufir
Thufir Hawat
> Thufir Hawat wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44:43 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>>
>>> The Free Software Foundation has *never* advanced a legal argument to
>>> refute the fact that the GPL is contractually unenforceable and
>>> preempted by the Copyright Act.
>>
>>
>> What's your argument that isn't enforceable?
>
> The GPL is unequivocally a contract under U.S. law. (More specifically
> it is a contract for a "grant of permission" or license.)
It's just as much a contract as any other EULA.
-Thufir
Thufir Hawat
> To summarize, this means the GPL is a contract to requiring that:
>
> 1) "you must cause"
Only if you choose to accept the GPL, only if you accept it. If you
decline to accept it, that's fine, you can then contact the copyright
holder to make arrangements for distribution.
-Thufir
Alan Mackenzie
> It[the GPL]'s just as much a contract as any other EULA.
The GPL isn't a EULA, except perhaps the tiny part of it that says "you
may run this program unconditionally". The concept of "end user" is
absent in free software licensing, and the GPL goes to considerable
lengths to ensure that nobody is relegated to the status of an "end
user", except by choice.
The GPL is a license for distributing and changing software, not for
using it.
> -Thufir
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Rjack
> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>
>> Thufir Hawat wrote:
>>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Free Software" is highly restrictive software and isn't
>>>> "free" at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as
>>>> BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to
>>>> being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed
>>>> zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a
>>>> religion.
> The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is
> pointless.
The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code
and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed
zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion.
> And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just
> license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's
> the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument.
The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using
permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs
will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of
wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a
religion.
If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should
be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since
is certainly not *my* argument.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Rjack
So?
Rjack
So?
Rjack
Your remark concerning "use" is interesting. There is a subtle
distinction between "use" in the context of patents and that of
copyrights. The patent grant states:
"35 U.S.C. 154(a)(1) Every patent shall contain a short title of the
invention and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, of the
right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or
selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the
invention into the United States, and, if the invention is a process,
of the right to exclude others from using, offering for sale or
selling throughout the United States, or importing into the United
States, products made by that process, referring to the specification
for the particulars thereof."
Here "using" is a *broad* grant concerning *any* use of the invention
that falls within the limits of the patent specification. This defines
"scope of use" in patent cases that gives rise to infringement.
The Supreme Court has stated:
"The owner of a patent may assign it to another and convey (1) the
exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention throughout the
United States; or (2) an undivided part or share of that exclusive
right; or (3) the exclusive right under the patent within and through
a specific part of the United States. . . Conveying less than title
to the patent or part of it, the patentee may grant a license to make,
use, and vend articles under the specifications of his patent for any
royalty, or upon any condition the performance of which is reasonably
within the reward which the patentee by the grant of the patent I
entitled to secure."; United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U.S.
476 (1926).
The crucial idea is that the restriction must remain within the scope
of the enumerated right: "[Is] reasonably within the reward which the
patentee by the grant of the patent is entitled to secure." (supra).
Therefore in patent cases "use" is a broad "in rem" right giving rise
to infringement that violates 35 U.S.C. 154.
In copyright matters there is no broad right to "use" a work.
In copyright "scope of use" must *directly* limit one of the
the *specific* enumerated rights in listed in 17 U.S.C. 106:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to
the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic
works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to
perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic
works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works,
including the individual images of a motion picture or other
audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work
publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
So unlike patent cases, in most (not all) copyright suits alleging
"use" violation it is a matter of breach of contract and not
copyright infringement.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Alan Mackenzie
> Thufir Hawat wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>>> Thufir Hawat wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>> The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless.
>> And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just
>> license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's
>> the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument.
> The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using
> permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs
> will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of
> wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a
> religion.
:-) The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky document with
hidden traps waiting to snap. A normally intelligent child could
understand it. If you conform to its requirements, which are few and
clear, you won't have any problem with "wild-eyed socialist zealots". If
you don't like those requirements, use other code instead.
> If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should
> be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since
> is certainly not *my* argument.
It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own interpretation of
some judges' decisions, that licensing code under the GPL is tantamount
to making it public domain.
> Sincerely,
> Rjack :)
Alan Mackenzie
>> In gnu.misc.discuss Thufir Hawat <hawat....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It[the GPL]'s just as much a contract as any other EULA.
>> The GPL isn't a EULA, except perhaps the tiny part of it that says
>> "you may run this program unconditionally". The concept of "end
>> user" is absent in free software licensing, and the GPL goes to
>> considerable lengths to ensure that nobody is relegated to the
>> status of an "end user", except by choice.
>> The GPL is a license for distributing and changing software, not
>> for using it.
> Your remark concerning "use" is interesting. There is a subtle
> distinction between "use" in the context of patents and that of
> copyrights. The patent grant states:
[ .... ]
> In copyright matters there is no broad right to "use" a work.
> In copyright "scope of use" must *directly* limit one of the
> the *specific* enumerated rights in listed in 17 U.S.C. 106:
> (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
> (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
> (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to
> the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
> lease, or lending;
> (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic
> works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to
> perform the copyrighted work publicly;
> (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic
> works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works,
> including the individual images of a motion picture or other
> audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
> (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work
> publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
> So unlike patent cases, in most (not all) copyright suits alleging
> "use" violation it is a matter of breach of contract and not
> copyright infringement.
That's a non-sequitur. There's no logical implication of your last
paragraph by your second last. Anyhow, my point was more about the
"end" in "end user". As soon as somebody is an "end user", the GPL
imposes no restrictions or conditions of any kind on her. It is only
when her use is other than an "end use" that the GPL becomes important.
> Sincerely,
> Rjack :)
Rjack
You are not entitled to make up your own facts. Where have I ever
claimed that GPL licensed code is "tantamount"to public domain code?
Please use Google and all the resources at your disposal to
demonstrate that I have claimed such a thing.
I have long argued that users who rely on GPL licensed code have
grounds for a contract claim of promissory estoppel.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Rjack
The GPL is legally important only in the sense that it generates
grounds for claims of promissory estoppel for users of GPL'd code.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Hadron
Are you two guys still arguing? Peter Koehlmann said it was all
ridiculously simple and even a retard could understand it or words to
that affect.
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
Alan Mackenzie
Sorry, my mistake. You haven't claimed "tantamount to". Your claims
are "tantamount to". That is my claim. ;-)
> I have long argued that users who rely on GPL licensed code have
> grounds for a contract claim of promissory estoppel.
Whatever that means, exactly. ;-) You have repeatedly asserted that
the GPL isn't a license, that it's a contract, and that one of upshots
is that companies can violate the GPL without the copyright holders being
able to stop the violation by injunction, or receive monetary damages.
(I'm not quite sure you've said that last bit, but I think you have).
This seems to me to being the same in practice as being in the public
domain.
Where do you see the difference, in practice, between software being in
the public domain, and software being licensed under the GPL, understood
as you understand it?
Rjack
I believe Alan Mackenzie changed the "retard" description to "normally
intelligent child".
We need to tread carefully here since there'll soon be charges and
counter charges of ad hominen attacks and generally unacceptable
social behaviors.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Rjack
Code in the public domain doesn't have ownership or other rights
attached to it. That's a BIG, BIG, difference between code in the
public domain and code subject to claims of promissory estoppel.
Claims of promissory estoppel would give a particular litigant rights
to use the code IF the claim meets the criteria:
"Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A
promisor — one who makes a promise — makes a gratuitous promise that
he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of
a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee—one
to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on
the promise. A substantial detriment — that is, an economic loss —
ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be
avoided only by enforcing the promise."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel
For example, if someone uses your licensed code and invests a million
dollars in developing and improving the code then they shouldn't be
out a million dollars because the copyright license that *you* offered
turns out to be legally unenforceable. This principle is implicit in
the rule of contract interpretation which holds that contracts are
construed against the offering (drafting) party.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Alan Mackenzie
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Where do you see the difference, in practice, between software
>> being in the public domain, and software being licensed under the
>> GPL, understood as you understand it?
> Code in the public domain doesn't have ownership or other rights
> attached to it. That's a BIG, BIG, difference between code in the
> public domain and code subject to claims of promissory estoppel.
> Claims of promissory estoppel would give a particular litigant rights
> to use the code IF the claim meets the criteria:
> "Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A
> promisor ? one who makes a promise ? makes a gratuitous promise that
> he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of
> a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee?one
> to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on
> the promise. A substantial detriment ? that is, an economic loss ?
> ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be
> avoided only by enforcing the promise."
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel
Well thanks, and all that, but the above is in legalese. Presumably it
means something to lawyers. Where's the BIG, BIG, difference, when the
legalese is translated into English?
> For example, if someone uses your licensed code and invests a million
> dollars in developing and improving the code then they shouldn't be
> out a million dollars because the copyright license that *you* offered
> turns out to be legally unenforceable. This principle is implicit in
> the rule of contract interpretation which holds that contracts are
> construed against the offering (drafting) party.
You've asserted, occasionally, that the GPL is unenforceable. Assuming
for the current purposes that you're right, then your last paragraph
seems pretty much the same as saying that if the code is GPL'd,
he can freely invest a million dollars in a way which violates the GPL,
yet not be subject to any sanctions by the copyright holder.
This is, in effect, the same as GPL code being in the public domain.
Isn't it?
dr_nikolaus_klepp
... so poor rjack has a problem, he wants to steal some code GPL code but
does not dare. so he tries to talk the code writers into using BSD licence,
so that he can legally steal their code. oh, and is he upset that they dont
want to licen? you can bet on that ...
oh my, you should have spent your energy on learning ... but so .. just
words in the wind ... LOL
nik
Rjack
> In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <us...@example.net> wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>>> Where do you see the difference, in practice, between software
>>> being in the public domain, and software being licensed under
>>> the GPL, understood as you understand it?
>
>> Code in the public domain doesn't have ownership or other rights
>> attached to it. That's a BIG, BIG, difference between code in the
>> public domain and code subject to claims of promissory estoppel.
>> Claims of promissory estoppel would give a particular litigant
>> rights to use the code IF the claim meets the criteria:
>
>> "Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory
>> estoppel. A promisor ? one who makes a promise ? makes a
>> gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to
>> induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial
>> character on the part of the promisee?one to whom a promise has
>> been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A
>> substantial detriment ? that is, an economic loss ? ensues to the
>> promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided
>> only by enforcing the promise."
>> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel
>>
>>
>>
>
> Well thanks, and all that, but the above is in legalese. Presumably
> it means something to lawyers. Where's the BIG, BIG, difference,
> when the legalese is translated into English?
We'd all love for the lawyers to be ceremoniously fed to the the
sharks. Unfortunately, many activities in life can't be summarized
into simple sound bites.
>
>> For example, if someone uses your licensed code and invests a
>> million dollars in developing and improving the code then they
>> shouldn't be out a million dollars because the copyright license
>> that *you* offered turns out to be legally unenforceable. This
>> principle is implicit in the rule of contract interpretation
>> which holds that contracts are construed against the offering
>> (drafting) party.
>
> You've asserted, occasionally, that the GPL is unenforceable.
> Assuming for the current purposes that you're right, then your last
> paragraph seems pretty much the same as saying that if the code is
> GPL'd, he can freely invest a million dollars in a way which
> violates the GPL, yet not be subject to any sanctions by the
> copyright holder.
>
> This is, in effect, the same as GPL code being in the public
> domain. Isn't it?
Public domain code is freely available without legal reservation.
*Anyone* who desires to use it may do so without legal consequence.
As I previously stated, promissory estoppel is available only to a
specific *individual* party who first goes to court and proves to the
court that he is entitled to some equitable right.
1) Public domain rights are are freely available to the *whole world*.
2) Equitable rights granted through promissory estoppel by court
decree are *personal* rights and have nothing to do with public domain
rights.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
JEDIDIAH
> Thufir Hawat wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>>
>>> Thufir Hawat wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Free Software" is highly restrictive software and isn't
>>>>> "free" at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as
>>>>> BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to
>>>>> being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed
>>>>> zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a
>>>>> religion.
>
>> The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is
>> pointless.
>
> The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code
> and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed
> zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion.
>
>> And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just
>> license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's
>> the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument.
>
> The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using
> permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs
> will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of
> wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a
> religion.
Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see
what happens.
[deletia]
The "burdens" of GPL software are no different than any other
code that isn't public domain or effectively so.
You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has
offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their
living room floor and carting it off.
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
Rjack
GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying
to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal
contract.
JEDIDIAH
Nice self-nuke on your part there...
You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing.
--
This is a consumer product. |||
World domination simply isn't necessary. / | \
amicus_curious
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrngtkmg...@nomad.mishnet...
>>
>> GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying
>> to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal
>> contract.
>
> Nice self-nuke on your part there...
>
> You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing.
>
I don't think that you understood the analogy. Let me put it in what might
be a more understandable form. Say you go to Chicago for the Open Source
Expo and you and your buddies, being new to the big city, are wandering up
State Street and get enticed into a titty bar. Then some sweet honeys cozy
up to you and ask you to buy them a drink. "Sure!", you say, flattered by
such attention. Then later you find that the tab for the girls' drinks are
not what you expected and are some $50 apiece. "Pay up or we will call the
cops!" is what you are told.
Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using
the "free" GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC.
"Ignorance is no excuse!", they say, "What's yours is now ours, you have
been touched!"
Rjack
Only in the mythical land of GNU where many marvelous fantasies
become aq reality to its residents...
Rjack
AHAH !!!!!!
By using the analogy of a "titty bar" you are displaying your ugly
misogynist side. Your sexist remarks have set women's rights
back at least a half century.
FOR SHAME !!!!
JEDIDIAH
No. You are the one in some sort of fantasy land.
Don't wander into Texas with an attitude like this.
You might end up dead.
--
Microsoft: Because the world doesn't have enough peasants. |||
/ | \
JEDIDIAH
...except the GPL is very plain and out in the open.
The intent of RMS is very clear and rather blunt.
The only way you can "misunderstand" anything is if it were
your original intent to try and "take advantage" to begin with.
The terms are by no stretch of the imagination hidden.
Neither is the intent of the proprietor.
Rahul Dhesi
>Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using
>the "free" GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC.
>"Ignorance is no excuse!", they say, "What's yours is now ours, you have
>been touched!"
You have pointed out a potentially serious problem. Many anti-GPL
people are trying to deceive software users into misappropriating
GPL-licensed software, by telling them that the GPL is illegal,
unenforceble, against public policy, etc. Later on, when the victims of
this deception find that the GPL is actually being enforced, they may
get into trouble.
I'm not sure how actually serious this problem is. That would depend on
how gullible software users are. Do they believe everything they read
on Usenet? I suspect most of them are too smart to be fooled.
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
Rjack
Boldness and clarity of purpose does not make that purpose legal.
Rjack
Death threats eh?
That's pretty tough talk for a little feller. I'll bet your shorter
than Kim Jong-il. The only thing I've ever seen come outta Texas
is castrated steers tryin' to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Have a nice day JEDIDIAH!
_ _
|R| |R|
|J| /^^^\ |J|
_|a|_ (| "o" |) _|a|_
_| |c| | _ (_---_) _ | |c| |_
| | |k| |' | _| |_ | `| |k| | |
| | / \ | |
\ / / /(. .)\ \ \ /
\ / / / | . | \ \ \ /
\ \/ / ||Y|| \ \/ /
\__/ || || \__/
() ()
|| ||
ooO Ooo
Rjack
> I'm not sure how actually serious this problem is. That would
> depend on how gullible software users are. Do they believe
> everything they read on Usenet? I suspect most of them are too
> smart to be fooled.
Uh... does that include messages from a certain Rahul Dhesi who
posts on Usenet in gnu.misc.discuss?
amicus_curious
"Rjack" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:0Yydnb8mCqHT8kfU...@giganews.com...
>
> By using the analogy of a "titty bar" you are displaying your ugly
> misogynist side. Your sexist remarks have set women's rights
> back at least a half century.
>
amicus_curious
"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c....@XReXXTheXG.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:grduio$r3l$1...@blue.rahul.net...
been a case of a company taking a GPL program and proprietizing it for a
profit. I cannot even find a case of a company taking a GPL program and
improving it and releasing it back other than Linux itself wherein Red Hat
and Novell need to make various changes to keep it viable in their server
regions.
chrisv
>>
>>Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using
>>the "free" GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC.
>>"Ignorance is no excuse!", they say, "What's yours is now ours, you have
>>been touched!"
So, you think software developers just grab source-code and use it in
their projects, just assuming that it's free of copyright? That would
be pretty stupid, don't you think, considering all GPL'ed software
will declare and reference the GPL? Do you think willfully ignoring
the copyright and GPL notification should be an "excuse"?
Idiot.
JEDIDIAH
...then the whole situation reverts to "straight property law".
You're attempt to have it both ways just wont fly.
dr_nikolaus_klepp
nice how you added that "idiot" :-)
Rahul Dhesi
>Your remark concerning "use" is interesting. There is a subtle
>distinction between "use" in the context of patents and that of
>copyrights. The patent grant states:
[ a long, tedious, legal argument ]
More and more, when I read Rjack's flawed and tedious arguments that
despite quoting many alleged legal authorities repeatedly come to
erroneous conclusions, I'm reminded of the lawsuit filed by a plaintiff
identifying himself as Daniel Wallace. Just like Rjack goes on and on,
so did Wallace. Each time his complaint in court proved to be worthless,
he amended it and refiled it, and kept going until the judge finally
told him he had had enough chances. Wallace still didn't give up -- he
kept going until the Seventh Circuit, too, told him enough.
<http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/157903>.
Rjack, like Wallace, won't give up. As soon as he loses the argument, he
reposts it under a new subject heading.
Rjack, like Wallace <http://www.danwal.com/rescission.html>, makes a big
deal of the word "rescission" and apparently does not distinguish
between that and cancellation of a contract.
Rjack, like Wallace <http://www.danwal.com/preemption.html>. focusses a
bit too much on preemption.
Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace?
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
amicus_curious
>
> Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace?
> --
has not yet happened to Rjack.
Rahul Dhesi
>> Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace?
>> --
>A very major difference is that judges were ruling against Wallace and that
>has not yet happened to Rjack.
Ah yes! I had forgotten that Rjack has overruled the CAFC (repeatedly).
I appreciate the correction.
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
Rjack
Is that like being a "bit too much" pregnant"? He. He.
It *wasn't* Rjack, Wallace or any other laymen who held:
"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them".
It *was* the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in
Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749,
(2006). Your arguments should aim to refute that principle.
Likewise, it *wasn't* Rjack, Wallace or any other laymen who held:
"Copyright preemption is both explicit and broad: 17 U.S.C. § 301(a)
prohibits state-law protection for any right equivalent to those in
the Copyright Act. . . We have held that "[s]ection 301(a) [of the
Copyright Act] preempts a state-created right if that right may be
abridged by an act which, in and of itself, would infringe one of the
exclusive rights listed in § 106".
It *was* the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
G.S. Rasmussen & Assoc. v. Kalitta Flying Service., 958 F.2d 896
(1992). Your arguments should aim to refute that principle.
> Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace?
I wish to thank you Rahul, for finally abandoning any claim of success
using logical argument supported by legal authority. Your surrender
to ad hominem tactics demonstrates that you have finally abandoned
rational argument for claims of legal enforceability for the GPL.
You deserve credit for showing your true colors -- a white flag
of surrender.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
amicus_curious
The CAFC decision was not so clear regarding the "is a license a contract"
discussion. Rather it turned on whether there were opportunities for
irreparable harm arising from the conditions in the Artistic license and the
motion was remanded to the district to litigate that issue. I think that
would be the case whether or not the license was considered a contract or
whatever else it could be. The only importance to this is whether or not
there should be a presumption of harm and so an injunction awarded
regardless of the financial damage caused by the violation. Contracts have
a balance of harms and many other issues. The copyright, though, is coming
under the same sort of consideration, i.e. the presumption of irreparable
harm is no longer the case.
Interestingly enough, the district decided that there wasn't anything that
rose to that level that had been submitted by the plaintiff.
Somehow or another, the jursisdiction of the CAFC is now under dispute since
it arises somehow out of there having to be a patent issue in the case and
that has apparently, according to the defendant, been removed from the case.
So now the case may go to another appeals court that is more focused on the
copyright issue.
Rjack
Courts disagree with other courts all the time. Constant disagreement
among the Appellate Circuits is a major reason for a grant of
certiorari by the Supreme Court.
Present a rational, logical argument supported by legal authority and
have at it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with disagreeing with
a court when relying on alternate but conflicting legal authority.
Present your legal arguments and have at it. Using ad homonem
arguments because your angry with someone will convince no one.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Rahul Dhesi
>Present a rational, logical argument supported by legal authority and
>have at it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with disagreeing with
>a court when relying on alternate but conflicting legal authority.
The CAFC panel, comprising three smart people, already unanimously
provided you with a rational, logical argument supported by legal
authority. If that doesn't satisfy you, nothing will.
The JMRI case may soon be heard again by the Ninth Circuit. If so, the
Ninth Circuit will surely uphold the possibility of an injunction
against those who misappropriate copyrighted software. And I predict
that that won't satisfy you either.
Rjack and Wallace quote a lot of case law fragments, but seem to not
consider the point that the law is, in the end, all about dispensing
justice. Denying a copyright owner any recourse against those who
misappropriate his software would be an injustice. And generally the
courts tend to lean against that. This simple fact explains why the CAFC
ruled the way it did. At the end of the day, it's mostly about keeping
things fair.
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
Keith Thompson
[...]
> Present your legal arguments and have at it. Using ad homonem
> arguments because your angry with someone will convince no one.
It's taken you this long to realize that?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Rjack
> Rjack <us...@example.net> writes:
>
>> Present a rational, logical argument supported by legal authority
>> and have at it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with
>> disagreeing with a court when relying on alternate but
>> conflicting legal authority.
>
> The CAFC panel, comprising three smart people, already unanimously
> provided you with a rational, logical argument supported by legal
> authority. If that doesn't satisfy you, nothing will.
>
> The JMRI case may soon be heard again by the Ninth Circuit. If so,
> the Ninth Circuit will surely uphold the possibility of an
> injunction against those who misappropriate copyrighted software.
I suspect *any* Circuit would uphold the "possibility" of an
injunction if the "misappropriation" of copyrighted software
actually violated *copyright* law. Judge White of the Northern
District of California cited to Ninth Circuit precendential law when
he found that Jacobsen's remedies were contractual in nature:
"The license explicitly gives the users of the material, any member of
the public, “the right to use and distribute the [material] in a
more-orless customary fashion, plus the right to make reasonable
accommodations.” (See Suppl. Jacobsen Decl., Ex. A.) The scope of the
nonexclusive license is, therefore, intentionally broad. The condition
that the user insert a prominent notice of attribution does not limit
the scope of the license. Rather, Defendants’ alleged violation of the
conditions of the license may have constituted a breach of the
nonexclusive license, but does not create liability for copyright
infringement where it would not otherwise exist. Therefore, based on
the current record before the Court, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
claim properly sounds in contract and therefore Plaintiff has not met
his burden of demonstrating likelihood of success on the merit of his
copyright claim and is therefore not entitled to a presumption of
irreparable harm. See Sun Microsystems, 188 F.3d at 1119. Plaintiff
has not met his burden of demonstrating either a combination of
probable success on the merits of his copyright claim nor the
existence of serious questions going to the merits. See GoTo.com, 202
F.3d at 1204-05."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/259007/jacobsen-v-katzer
If you acually think the Ninth Circuit will overrule it's own
precendent because of the CAFC ruling, then I have a nice bridge in
Brooklyn that I would like to sell you -- cheap.
"Because of an unusual quirk in US law, the court had to apply
the legal standards of a sister appellate court, the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals; and the Federal Circuit's interpretation of 9th Circuit
law has no precedential value. "Even a future Federal Circuit case on
this area of the law must look again to the regional [9th] circuit and
not the Federal Circuit interpretation," according to Harold Wegner, a
partner in the Washington, DC office of Foley & Lardner."
http://www.mail-archive.com/gnu-misc...@gnu.org/msg07755.html
> And I predict that that won't satisfy you either.
>
> Rjack and Wallace quote a lot of case law fragments, but seem to
> not consider the point that the law is, in the end, all about
> dispensing justice. Denying a copyright owner any recourse against
> those who misappropriate his software would be an injustice.
Get the facts straight Rahul. Judge White didn't deny "any recourse"
in the law. He simply correctly applied Ninth Circuit prevailing law
and said any remedy was contractual in nature.
> And generally the courts tend to lean against that. This simple
> fact explains why the CAFC ruled the way it did. At the end of the
> day, it's mostly about keeping things fair.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Rahul Dhesi
>If you acually think the Ninth Circuit will overrule it's own
>precendent because of the CAFC ruling, then I have a nice bridge in
>Brooklyn that I would like to sell you -- cheap.
I don't believe any of the Ninth Circuit's precedents are directly
relevant to the misappropriation of free software.
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
Rjack
Please identify what system(s) of law(s) provide a legal remedy for
this so called "misappropriation" of software. So that we may further
discuss "misappropriation" in more detail. Seems to be an ill-defined
term.
Rahul Dhesi
>Please identify what system(s) of law(s) provide a legal remedy for
>this so called "misappropriation" of software. So that we may further
>discuss "misappropriation" in more detail. Seems to be an ill-defined
>term.
Does anybody else understand what Rjack is asking for? If so, please
help clarify.
(I'm assuming that Rjack's recent sources of authority, namely,
answers.com and merriam-webster.com, will not suffice here.)
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
Rjack
The Copyright Act doesn't mention "misappropriation". I'm sure that
your haughty sneers concerning the ordinary, common meanings of words
is impressing all who read your posts.
Unfortunately you have had so little exposure to legal terms that you
don't understand what contexts demand specialized definitions and
which demand the ordinary meanings of words and phrases when
discussing matters.
You need only Google [ "plain meaning rule" ] to see how foolish your
attempts to ridicule appear. You remind me of the principle stated in
the Serenity Prayer:
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
You are utterly lacking in the wisdom to know the difference in
context that demands a different semantic.
Sincerely,
Rjack
Rjack
I had hoped after trying to teach you that the meaning of the term
"illegal" changed with a change contexts, that a little something
would have soaked in. It obviously didn't.
After I go through the trouble to buy you books and send you to school
you just chew on the pencil eraser.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Rahul Dhesi
>> (I'm assuming that Rjack's recent sources of authority, namely,
>> answers.com and merriam-webster.com, will not suffice here.)
>I had hoped after trying to teach you that the meaning of the term
>"illegal" changed with a change contexts, that a little something
>would have soaked in. It obviously didn't.
Well, consider this. We have a couple of hundred years (maybe more?) of
case law discussing when a contract should be unenforceable due to
illegality.
But ignoring all that case law, you went instead to answers.com and
merriam-webster.com to prove your point.
I was sardonically pointing out that you quote the authorities you want
to quote, not the authorities most relevant to the issue. Now for
obvious reasons I don't expect our friend amicus_curious to cite any
case law. But from you, Rjack, I had expected better.
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
Rjack
> Rjack <us...@example.net> writes:
>
>>> (I'm assuming that Rjack's recent sources of authority, namely,
>>> answers.com and merriam-webster.com, will not suffice here.)
>
>> I had hoped after trying to teach you that the meaning of the
>> term "illegal" changed with a change contexts, that a little
>> something would have soaked in. It obviously didn't.
>
> Well, consider this. We have a couple of hundred years (maybe
> more?) of case law discussing when a contract should be
> unenforceable due to illegality.
>
> But ignoring all that case law, you went instead to answers.com and
> merriam-webster.com to prove your point.
***Rahul compared a breach of contract issue to a criminal offense:
"So now, according to Rjack, suddenly, the GPL contains illegal terms!
In other words, if you try to enforce a provision in the GPL, it's
like you are trying to kill somebody, and the courts won't let you"
***Amicus_curious replied:
"I think you are placing too much emphasis on the term "illegal". In
the GPL sense, since it is a civil issue, the term is equivalent to
"unenforcable" or "invalid" or any other word that boils down to
being unable to recover damages."
***Rahul replied:
"Rjack, he's posting this nonsense to defend you. This would be a
good oportunity for you to find some citations proving him wrong
-- but will you do so?"
***Rjack replied:
"The terms "illegal", "unenforceable" and "invalid" are
synonyms used in civil law. Amicus curious is simply emphasising the
fact that you made reference to a criminal offense ("kill somebody")
when the context is contractual or tortuous in kind."
> I was sardonically pointing out that you quote the authorities you
> want to quote, not the authorities most relevant to the issue.
What were those "authorities" that were most relevant to the issue?
> Now for obvious reasons I don't expect our friend amicus_curious to
> cite any case law. But from you, Rjack, I had expected better.
Rahul there is a tried and true maxim that applies here:
***WHEN YOU'RE IN HOLE STOP DIGGING***
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Rahul Dhesi
I objected to his quoting answers.com and merriam-webster.com to show
that the GPL contains illegal terms. I suggested that, since we have a
couple of hundred years or more of case law discussing when a contract
should be unenforceable due to illegality, Rjack ought to be able to
provide some case law citations. Intesad, Rjack went to answers.com and
merriam-webster.com to try to prove his point.
So now he responds:
>***Rahul compared a breach of contract issue to a criminal offense:
Talk about a non-sequitor.
Rjack, I thought you said the GPL was unenforceable? But now you are
talking about a breach of contract.
I didn't compare breach of contract to a criminal offense. In fact I
didn't even mention breach of contract, since you were arguing that the
GPL was unenforceable. If I agreed that the GPL is unenforceable, it
would be silly of me to talk about the GPL being breached, even if I
agreed, and I don't, that the GPL normally causes a contract to form.
I did say that killing somebody would be an example of something being
illegal.
Im still looking for some case law citations (and that doesn't mean
quotes from answers.com and merriam-webster.com :-) showing that the GPL
contains any illegal term. If you can't find any state law citations,
how about something from your previosly-favored (in the pre-answers.com
days) authority on the common law of contracts, i.e., the Second
Circuit?
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
Rjack
> Rjack has outdone himself.
>
> I objected to his quoting answers.com and merriam-webster.com to
> show that the GPL contains illegal terms. I suggested that, since
> we have a couple of hundred years or more of case law discussing
> when a contract should be unenforceable due to illegality, Rjack
> ought to be able to provide some case law citations. Intesad, Rjack
> went to answers.com and merriam-webster.com to try to prove his
> point.
In General:
"Whether Medeiros read the provisions concerning additional and
underage drivers or not, he must be presumed to have known the law and
intended to be bound by an objectively reasonable understanding of the
terms of the contract, and Shasta Ford was entitled to so assume.
Indeed, a sine qua non of contract doctrine is a shared expectation
that the parties will execute the contract in accord with the law. See
John D. Calamari & Joseph M. Perillo, Contracts 889 (3rd ed.1987)
(noting that parties may not generally bargain for or agree to an
illegal term and that "[a]s a general rule an illegal bargain is
unenforceable and often void.")1"; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 143 F.3d
1260 (9th Cir. 1998).
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/143/143.F3d.1260.97-15781.html
Why not try CHAPTER 9 p.186 "Essentials of Contract Law"; Frey&Frey,
West Legal Studies
http://books.google.com/books?id=WrH-4YHvsF4C&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=%22illegal+term%22+unenforceable+contract&source=bl&ots=P5eIw4nsuL&sig=LtOqGNN9omxK9w5zOw6Ttbek788&hl=en&ei=T67fSddi0eKdB7mL2K0J&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4
How about Section 1702 "NEGOTIATING AND DRAFTING CONTRACT
BOILERPLATE";Tina Stark
http://books.google.com/books?id=hhbeYinQIS0C&pg=PA541&lpg=PA541&dq=%22illegal+term%22+unenforceable+contract+%22second+circuit%22&source=bl&ots=Y2uFNyLDOv&sig=0F9OFGLx1nH4o5-PFDF2LFN_fuQ&hl=en&ei=qLTfScG9C-TfnQfuhPG3CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
Why not Google [ "illegal agreements" unenforceable contracts ]?
>
> So now he responds:
>
>> ***Rahul compared a breach of contract issue to a criminal
>> offense:
>
> Talk about a non-sequitor.
>
> Rjack, I thought you said the GPL was unenforceable? But now you
> are talking about a breach of contract.
>
> I didn't compare breach of contract to a criminal offense. In fact
> I didn't even mention breach of contract, since you were arguing
> that the GPL was unenforceable. If I agreed that the GPL is
> unenforceable, it would be silly of me to talk about the GPL being
> breached, even if I agreed, and I don't, that the GPL normally
> causes a contract to form.
>
> I did say that killing somebody would be an example of something
> being illegal.
>
> Im still looking for some case law citations (and that doesn't mean
> quotes from answers.com and merriam-webster.com :-) showing that
> the GPL contains any illegal term.
Sigh. Since the GPL has never been reviewed by a court with proper
jurisdiction, you're going to look for a loooooong time. Since you
obviously don't understand what an "illegal" term means in general
contract interpretation your quest is ultimately futile anyway.
> If you can't find any state law citations, how about something from
> your previosly-favored (in the pre-answers.com days) authority on
> the common law of contracts, i.e., the Second Circuit?
You can continue to parse the meaning of what "is" is but
what you are demonstrating is that you don't understand when to hold
'em and when to fold 'em.
Ah Rahul. Did you think you could fool a Corlene?
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Alan Mackenzie
> Sigh. Since the GPL has never been reviewed by a court with proper
> jurisdiction, you're going to look for a loooooong time. Since you
> obviously don't understand what an "illegal" term means in general
> contract interpretation your quest is ultimately futile anyway.
Oh dear! The GPL was recently upheld in its entirety in a German court.
Civil courts throughout the civilised world tend to uphold what is just.
There is every reason to believe that courts outside of Germany will
uphold the GPL too, since not to do so would constitue injustice.
> Sincerely,
> Rjack :)
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Rahul Dhesi
>Indeed, a sine qua non of contract doctrine is a shared expectation
>that the parties will execute the contract in accord with the law....
>http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/143/143.F3d.1260.97-15781.html
This is a case about an unlicensed 15-year-old driver who killed
somebody and then wanted to get the benefit of somebody else's insurance
policy. Hard to find any similar facts here. Are you claiming, Rjack,
that somebody copying GPL software beyond the scope of the license is
like an unlicensed driver? If so, the case goes against you, because the
unlicensed driver lost the case.
On the other hand, if you intended this case to simply provide a general
statement of the law, then I fail to see how it proves that the GPL
contains any illegal terms.
Same problem with all the other references.
If the GPL contains any illegal terms, it should be easy to prove this.
Just find some statute or case law according to which GPL-like
permissions are illegal. If you can find none, then perhaps the GPL does
not contain illegal terms.
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
dr_nikolaus_klepp
"civilised world" ... but Rjack is from U.S. ...
Rjack
> Rjack is trying to show that the GPL contains illegal terms.
>
>> Indeed, a sine qua non of contract doctrine is a shared
>> expectation that the parties will execute the contract in accord
>> with the law....
>> http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/143/143.F3d.1260.97-15781.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> This is a case about an unlicensed 15-year-old driver who killed
> somebody and then wanted to get the benefit of somebody else's
> insurance policy. Hard to find any similar facts here. Are you
> claiming, Rjack, that somebody copying GPL software beyond the
> scope of the license is like an unlicensed driver? If so, the case
> goes against you, because the unlicensed driver lost the case.
>
> On the other hand, if you intended this case to simply provide a
> general statement of the law, then I fail to see how it proves that
> the GPL contains any illegal terms.
I am witness to your failings.
>
> Same problem with all the other references.
>
> If the GPL contains any illegal terms, it should be easy to prove
> this. Just find some statute or case law according to which
> GPL-like permissions are illegal. If you can find none, then
> perhaps the GPL does not contain illegal terms.
During the last few hundred or so postings to this group, you have
consistently ignored the reasons I have cited for the lack of
enforceability of the GPL license terms under the common law of
contracts and through preemption by U.S. copyright law. Since I have
cited a plethora of U.S. statute and case law supporting my arguments,
you are well informed as to their nature and substance. You need only
review the messages to this group to refresh your memory.
You may continuously intone phrases such as "*If* the GPL contains any
illegal terms..." and "...*perhaps* the GPL does not contain illegal
terms" until hell freezes over and nothing will ever be resolved. The
"ifs" and "perhaps" lead only to repetition. Likewise, debating
semantics concerning the meaning of "illegal" or similar words leads
only to repetition.
If you wish to claim the GPL is enforceable then you may wish to
present your own arguments as to why it is, just as Eben "a license is
not a contract" Moglen did and we'll let the readers of the World
decide.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Alan Mackenzie
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <us...@example.net> wrote:
> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
>> If the GPL contains any illegal terms, it should be easy to prove
>> this. Just find some statute or case law according to which
>> GPL-like permissions are illegal. If you can find none, then
>> perhaps the GPL does not contain illegal terms.
> During the last few hundred or so postings to this group, ....
The last few hundred. Or so. Does it not occur to you that we're all
bored to tears with this minor sub-subject? It's really not that
important.
> ...., you have consistently ignored the reasons I have cited for the
> lack of enforceability of the GPL license terms under the common law of
> contracts and through preemption by U.S. copyright law. Since I have
> cited a plethora of U.S. statute and case law supporting my arguments,
> you are well informed as to their nature and substance. You need only
> review the messages to this group to refresh your memory.
These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ. They go on and on and on
obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and coherent. A typical
one of your posts assumes, often tacitly, something you "showed" in some
previous post, sometime. Even you haven't got a mental overview over
your many hundred, possibly several thousand, posts on this worn out
topic.
Please put your arguments in a coherent form on a web site, somewhere.
> You may continuously intone phrases such as "*If* the GPL contains any
> illegal terms..." and "...*perhaps* the GPL does not contain illegal
> terms" until hell freezes over and nothing will ever be resolved. The
> "ifs" and "perhaps" lead only to repetition. Likewise, debating
> semantics concerning the meaning of "illegal" or similar words leads
> only to repetition.
We're completely agreed on this point. Furthermore, this repetition is
boring and highly undesirable on this mailing list.
> If you wish to claim the GPL is enforceable then you may wish to
> present your own arguments as to why it is, just as Eben "a license is
> not a contract" Moglen did and we'll let the readers of the World
> decide.
Its enforceability is a sensible default assumption. The GPL was put
together by a competent lawyer, is perfectly clear in what it says, is
perfectly reasonable in what it says, has so far stood the test of time,
and has been ruled valid by judges whenever it has been challenged in
court.
Your arguments, on the other hand, as much as I can make them out, seem
based on arcane interpretations of USA law, sometimes citing cases going
back the best part of a century judged in social conditions which simply
don't exist any more. They also seem based on the notion that absolute
logical consistency holds in law.
So put your argument up on a web site, and leave some room here for
people to talk about something interesting.
Rjack
> Happy pagan fertility rite, RJack!
. . . whining . . .
. . . more whining . . .
> Its enforceability is a sensible default assumption. The GPL was
> put together by a competent lawyer,
I didn't know Richard Stallman was a lawyer. Was that pseudo-fact also
a default assumption?
> is perfectly clear in what it says, is perfectly reasonable in what
> it says, has so far stood the test of time, and has been ruled
> valid by judges whenever it has been challenged in court.
The GPL has never been interpreted by a U.S. court.
> Your arguments, on the other hand, as much as I can make them out,
> seem based on arcane interpretations of USA law, sometimes citing
> cases going back the best part of a century judged in social
> conditions which simply don't exist any more. They also seem based
> on the notion that absolute logical consistency holds in law.
>
> So put your argument up on a web site, and leave some room here for
> people to talk about something interesting.
As long as the Free Software Foundation claims enforceability under
U.S. law and harasses folks through bogus lawsuits, I shall counter
their attempts at socialist propaganda. Countless blogs mindlessly
repeat their fiction and this demands correction. Rulings in non-U.S.
jurisdictions are irrelevant to me as I have explicitly disclaimed
knowledge of non-U.S. law.
You Marxist folks may wallow in Stallman's socialism all you wish. I
don't expect you to grasp or follow U.S. law. Dogs don't do nuclear
physics and socialists don't do capitalism. If you don't like or
understand the arguments I present, then by all means use your
kill-filter to raise your comfort level.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
dr_nikolaus_klepp
bark bark ... rrrrrroooo ... bark bark ...
.. but the world continues, despite rjack
Rahul Dhesi
First, that the GPL causes promissory estoppel, and as a result, anybody
can copy GPL software as he pleases, with no limitations. I will discuss
this later.
Second, that the GPL, if treated as causing a contract to form, is
unenforceable due to illegality. Let's discuss this below.
Having claimed that the GPL contains illegal terms, Rjack is having a
very, very hard time specifying just what in the GPL is illegal.
He sort of implied that the ilelgality came from antitrust, when he
wrote: "The licensing fees in the GPL are price fixed a no charge to all
third parties." Price-fixing sounds like antitrust, doesn't it? But
when I probed about this, Rjack denied that he was thinking of
antitrust. OK, let's grant him that.
And just as well, bcause we know there is no antitrust issue. We know
there isn't because Daniel Wallace, in Rjack style, argued that
repeatedly and lost in court about five times (!) before giving up.
What else is there that could be illegal in the GPL? I can't find
anything.
And neither, you might have notice, can Rjack.
So in his latest posting, his reasoning now essentially is:
If you can't prove that the GPL is enforceable, then it must be
illegal.
Two problems here.
First, as a practical matter, the GPL is enforceable, because it's
routinely enforced.
Second, even if it were not, that would not necessarily make it illegal.
Illegality is just one of many possible reasons why a contract (if the
GPL causes a contract to form) might be unenforceable.
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
Rjack
> Rjack made two ludicrious claims.
>
> First, that the GPL causes promissory estoppel, and as a result,
> anybody can copy GPL software as he pleases, with no limitations.
You're flat out lying Rahul. I never claimed that. You're a desperate,
despicable, deleterious desperado indeed. Your mother should wash your
mouth out with soap for claiming such things.
> I will discuss this later.
>
> Second, that the GPL, if treated as causing a contract to form, is
> unenforceable due to illegality.
I have certainly claimed that.
> Let's discuss this below.
>
> Having claimed that the GPL contains illegal terms, Rjack is having
> a very, very hard time specifying just what in the GPL is illegal.
>
>
Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.
>
> He sort of implied that the ilelgality came from antitrust, when he
> wrote: "The licensing fees in the GPL are price fixed a no charge
> to all third parties." Price-fixing sounds like antitrust, doesn't
> it? But when I probed about this, Rjack denied that he was
> thinking of antitrust. OK, let's grant him that.
>
> And just as well, bcause we know there is no antitrust issue. We
> know there isn't because Daniel Wallace, in Rjack style, argued
> that repeatedly and lost in court about five times (!) before
> giving up.
>
If true, such claims are irrelevant. Ad hominen attacks never address
issues raised in argument. Ad hominen attacks are a mark of
desperation denoting that you have no rational reply.
> What else is there that could be illegal in the GPL? I can't find
> anything.
You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of
just denying and lying.
>
> And neither, you might have notice, can Rjack.
Sure I have. You just keep denying and then lying.
>
> So in his latest posting, his reasoning now essentially is:
>
> If you can't prove that the GPL is enforceable, then it must be
> illegal.
>
> Two problems here.
>
> First, as a practical matter, the GPL is enforceable, because it's
> routinely enforced.
Just show me the U.S. court decisions -- not your fantasies.
>
> Second, even if it were not, that would not necessarily make it
> illegal.
Nice leap of logic in hedging your bet there Rahul.
> Illegality is just one of many possible reasons why a contract (if
> the GPL causes a contract to form) might be unenforceable.
Name one reason other than violation of the canons of contract
construction.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Rahul Dhesi
And he protests:
>Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.
...
>You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of
>just denying and lying.
OK, readers, I need your assistance here.
I admit that I have not read everything that Rjack has ever posted.
Nor, I suspect, has anybody else, with the possible exception of
amicus_curious. But in the sample that I did read, I have not seen Rjack
ever specify exactly what in the GPL is illegal. For a short while I
thought he was referring to antitrust, but not, he said he was not.
Has anybody seen any specific description from Rjack in his posts that
tells us what in the GPL is illegal?
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
RonB
I killfiled Rjack shortly after his first message showed up. I have no
idea what he's yammering on about -- but I'm guessing he's pretty much a
crank in the "Snit mode." It doesn't matter how convincing your argument
might be -- he'll just rewind and re-spew -- starting the whole thing
all over again.
That's the crank way. Best to just killfile him.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Snit
LOL! You imply that you made reasoned arguments in response to my comments.
Hey, I bet you that you cannot find a single example.
And you *know* I am right.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
>> Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal.
>> And he protests:
>>
>>> Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.
>> ...
>>> You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of
>>> just denying and lying.
>>
>> OK, readers, I need your assistance here.
>>
>> I admit that I have not read everything that Rjack has ever posted.
>> Nor, I suspect, has anybody else, with the possible exception of
>> amicus_curious. But in the sample that I did read, I have not seen Rjack
>> ever specify exactly what in the GPL is illegal. For a short while I
>> thought he was referring to antitrust, but not, he said he was not.
>>
>> Has anybody seen any specific description from Rjack in his posts that
>> tells us what in the GPL is illegal?
>
> I killfiled Rjack shortly after his first message showed up. I have no
> idea what he's yammering on about
Sound's about right. You certainly didn't have a clue about UI
consistency and made yourself look pretty ignorant there. So same there
then?
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
Rjack
Until you understand what the term "illegal" means when used in the
context of contract construction any "specific description" will be
meaningless since you will reflexively deny that any "specific
description" whatsoever is "illegal". Here's a definition:
"A contract may be unenforceable due to illegality. The illegality may
take different forms. The contract in its entirety may be illegal or
the contract may have an illegal term." -- Essentials of Contract Law,
Phyllis Hurley Frey, Published by Cengage Learning, 2000, ISBN
0766821455, 9780766821453.
The courts apply "rules" of contract construction when construing a
contract. Break one of those rules and an illegal term may result. An
illegal term could comprise different forms: violation of a criminal
statute, civil statute or a violation of a common law rule of
contract construction. An illegal term may cause all or just a
severable part of a contract to be unenforceable.
The only section of the GPL that is of great controversay is Section
2(b) which attempts to establish the principle of "copyleft":
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License."
The illegal part of the term is "... licensed as a whole at no charge
to all third parties under the terms of this License". The part "...
under the terms of this License" means that all future derivative
works must be under the same GPL license terms.
1) This violates 17 USC sec 301(a) which is a civil statute of The
United States Code (Copyright Act).
2) Section 2(b) also violates the common law rule of statutory
construction which holds that a contract to make a contract is
unenforceable when all the essential terms that bind the future
parties are not present:
"[A] contract to make a contract is enforceable only where all
material terms have been agreed upon. 1 Corbin, Contracts, sec. 2.8,
at 131, 133-34 (Perillo ed. 1993). Prisma Zona's own statements, and
the service contract drafts which it attaches, show that material
issues were still open."; Prisma Zona Exploratoria de Puerto Rico,
Inc. v. Calderón 310 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002).
"Under Michigan law, "[t]o be enforceable, a contract to enter into
a future contract must specify all its material and essential terms
and leave none to be agreed upon as the result of future
negotiations." Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. v. Waldo, 286 N.W. 630, 632
(Mich. 1939)”
Now Rahul, had you *actually* been reading any of my posts, you would
know that the above "specific descriptions" of illegality are a
repetition of my post of Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44 to gnu.misc.discuss,
misc.int-property, comp.os.linux.advocacy.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ed4b928bd2684836
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Rjack
I totally agree.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Keith Thompson
[snip]
> You're flat out lying Rahul. I never claimed that. You're a desperate,
> despicable, deleterious desperado indeed. Your mother should wash your
> mouth out with soap for claiming such things.
[snip]
> If true, such claims are irrelevant. Ad hominen attacks never address
> issues raised in argument. Ad hominen attacks are a mark of
> desperation denoting that you have no rational reply.
[...]
Did Rjack just admit that he himself has no rational arguments?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Rahul Dhesi
unenforceable because they are illegal.
But now, in his latest posting, he seems to be saying the opposite: that
terms in the GPL are illegal because they are unenforceable.
Which is cyclic enough that nobody will ever win this argument.
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
Alan Mackenzie
> Rjack <us...@example.net> writes:
> [snip]
>> You're flat out lying Rahul. I never claimed that. You're a desperate,
>> despicable, deleterious desperado indeed. Your mother should wash your
>> mouth out with soap for claiming such things.
> [snip]
>> If true, such claims are irrelevant. Ad hominen attacks never address
>> issues raised in argument. Ad hominen attacks are a mark of
>> desperation denoting that you have no rational reply.
> [...]
> Did Rjack just admit that he himself has no rational arguments?
Indeed he did, probably without realising it. Sometimes, you've just
got to laugh. :-)
His usual trick is never to give a complete systematic account of his
thesis. You never get more than, say, 25% of it in a single post, and
often that is so prolix as to be unreadable. I doubt he's ever given
a systematic readable account of his idea in a post.
And if you ask him a reasonable pertinent question which he can't answer,
he responds with abuse instead.
His notion is pure sophistry.
Rjack
Ummm... "...abuse instead"?
On <Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:40:34 -0700> Alan Mackenzie started with a
calculated ad hominem remark to Rjack:
"Please think about the dictum "don't be a dick". Please also get out
a bit, socialise with people other than RMS and go for a reality check
on what GNU is."
On <Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:25:12 -0500> Rjack replied in kind to Alan
Mackenzie:
"Now that you have repeatedly inferred that I'm a "dick" while
lecturing me on insulting people, why not go have a nice cup of coffee
and contemplate the meaning of 'don't be a hypocritical,
self-righteous prick'"?
My goodness Alan! You are self-righteous and hypocritical. Don't
want "abuse"? Then don't start abuse and then whine about retaliation.
1) Rjack doesn't start ad hominem abuse.
2) Rjack does (probably shouldn't) reply in kind.
I would remind you as I have Rahul, my NNTP server (Giganews) caches
over two years of searchable headers and messages to this group. Why
not try to keep your assertions accurate and free of hypocrisy?
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
Thufir Hawat
> These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ. They go on and on and on
> obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and coherent. A typical
> one of your posts assumes, often tacitly, something you "showed" in some
> previous post, sometime. Even you haven't got a mental overview over
> your many hundred, possibly several thousand, posts on this worn out
> topic.
>
> Please put your arguments in a coherent form on a web site, somewhere.
Hear, hear.
-Thufir
Rjack
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:57:33 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>
>> These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ. They go on and on and
>> on obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and coherent.
Your whining continues obsessively Alan. Since you obviously don't
understand kill-files: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file
please read up on the merits of kill-files and then implement one. A
kill-file will save you untold anguish, as the characters from my
posts that appear on your LCD screen will certainly force you to read
them.
Alan Mackenzie
>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:57:33 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ. They go on and on and
>>> on obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and coherent.
> Your whining continues obsessively Alan. Since you obviously don't
> understand kill-files: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file
> please read up on the merits of kill-files and then implement one.
Hi, Rjack, please understand - I'm not whining, I'm trying to help you
get your point across; I'm giving you feedback intended to be helpful.
> A kill-file will save you untold anguish, as the characters from my
> posts that appear on your LCD screen will certainly force you to read
> them.
That's like saying an air raid shelter will save the anguish of bombs.
Again, as a matter of interest, there are two different verbs in German
meaning to persuade: "ueberzeugen" means to persuade by means of reason;
"ueberreden" means to "persuade" by browbeating, shouting, intimidation.
What you are trying to do here is the latter. It's a shame there aren't
two corresponding words in English.
You may not have noticed, but nobody's engaging you any more in serious
debate about your idea. It's been exhausted, talked out. You even admit
you've posted several hundred times on the topic. Why can't you talk
about something else, something others are interested in too? That's
what newsgroups and mailing lists are for.
Rjack
> In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <us...@example.net> wrote:
>> Thufir Hawat wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:57:33 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>
>>>> These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ. They go on and on
>>>> and on obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and
>>>> coherent.
>
>> Your whining continues obsessively Alan. Since you obviously
>> don't understand kill-files:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file please read up on the
>> merits of kill-files and then implement one.
>
> Hi, Rjack, please understand - I'm not whining, I'm trying to help
> you get your point across; I'm giving you feedback intended to be
> helpful.
Perhaps you should drop your attempts to "help" me get my point across
as futile. Try and read a good book instead. Coffee goes well with a
good book.
You are simply insulting anyone who hasn't decided to kill-file my
posts. Are other readers of Usenet to dumb to make up their own minds?
Your condescension is no more effective than are your insults.
>
>> A kill-file will save you untold anguish, as the characters from
>> my posts that appear on your LCD screen will certainly force you
>> to read them.
>
> That's like saying an air raid shelter will save the anguish of
> bombs.
Buzz bombs over London huh?
>
> Again, as a matter of interest, there are two different verbs in
> German meaning to persuade: "ueberzeugen" means to persuade by
> means of reason; "ueberreden" means to "persuade" by browbeating,
> shouting, intimidation. What you are trying to do here is the
> latter. It's a shame there aren't two corresponding words in
> English.
Wow! Your teutonic superiority is self-evident. You're a veritable
Houston Stewart Chamberlain.
>
> You may not have noticed, but nobody's engaging you any more in
> serious debate about your idea. It's been exhausted, talked out.
> You even admit you've posted several hundred times on the topic.
> Why can't you talk about something else, something others are
> interested in too? That's what newsgroups and mailing lists are
> for.
Screen out the noise. That's what kill-files are for.
>
Sincerely,
Rjack :)