What is source ?
Vincent Rivière
My big question :
What is source code ?
The GPL states that if I distribute my projet under GPL, I must distribute
the sources, too.
Can I generate a Makefile using Makefile.am and automake, then only
distribute Makefile, claiming that it is the source ?
Similar question with images. My program displays a PNG image in its about
box. It is a very complex image, I made it with Photoshop and a lot of
layers. Must I distribute the original PSD image in my source package, or
will the PNG image be sufficient ?
Vincent
David Kastrup
> My big question :
> What is source code ?
Read the GPL, section 3.
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete
source code means all the source code for all modules it contains,
plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts
used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need
not include anything that is normally distributed (in either
source or binary form) with the major components (compiler,
kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable
runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
> The GPL states that if I distribute my projet under GPL, I must
> distribute the sources, too.
The GPL states no such thing. If you distribute GPLed code from
somebody else, you have to heed the conditions of the GPL for the
complete product. But if you are the sole copyright holder, the GPL's
obligations are for redistributors, not yourself.
> Can I generate a Makefile using Makefile.am and automake, then only
> distribute Makefile, claiming that it is the source ?
The source code is the preferred form for modification. If you use
some tools just for bootstrapping which you would not continue to use
yourself (because you already started editing them afterwards, for
example), you can consider them as not being part of the source.
> Similar question with images. My program displays a PNG image in its
> about box. It is a very complex image, I made it with Photoshop and
> a lot of layers. Must I distribute the original PSD image in my
> source package, or will the PNG image be sufficient ?
We are talking about the preferred form for modification.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Byron A Jeff
>"Vincent Rivičre" <vincent...@free.fr> writes:
>> The GPL states that if I distribute my projet under GPL, I must
>> distribute the sources, too.
>The GPL states no such thing. If you distribute GPLed code from
>somebody else, you have to heed the conditions of the GPL for the
>complete product. But if you are the sole copyright holder, the GPL's
>obligations are for redistributors, not yourself.
Now that's an interesting point. As the sole copyright owner you certainly
have the right to have multiple distributions of your project under different
licenses. However, if you distribute to someone under the GPL, are you still
not bound to GPL terms such as the 3 year offer for source for example?
BAJ
Dave (from the UK)
> Now that's an interesting point. As the sole copyright owner you certainly
> have the right to have multiple distributions of your project under different
> licenses. However, if you distribute to someone under the GPL, are you still
> not bound to GPL terms such as the 3 year offer for source for example?
>
> BAJ
You certainly must make the source available (at no more than a nominal
fee to cover redistribution costs) if you distribute a program under the
GPL.
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month...@southminster-branch-line.org.uk
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)
John Hasler
> However, if you distribute to someone under the GPL, are you still not
> bound to GPL terms such as the 3 year offer for source for example?
A sole copyright owner releasing your own work under the GPL you are not
bound by anything. Think about it. The GPL state the terms under which
you are granting others permission to distribute copies of your work. How
could you be bound by it? Who would have standing to sue you if you failed
to comply?
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
David Kastrup
> In article <85psfe6...@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>"Vincent Rivière" <vincent...@free.fr> writes:
>
>>> The GPL states that if I distribute my projet under GPL, I must
>>> distribute the sources, too.
>
>>The GPL states no such thing. If you distribute GPLed code from
>>somebody else, you have to heed the conditions of the GPL for the
>>complete product. But if you are the sole copyright holder, the GPL's
>>obligations are for redistributors, not yourself.
>
> Now that's an interesting point. As the sole copyright owner you
> certainly have the right to have multiple distributions of your
> project under different licenses. However, if you distribute to
> someone under the GPL, are you still not bound to GPL terms such as
> the 3 year offer for source for example?
Certainly not, as there is nobody who would have the right to sue you
for compliance. If you don't deliver source, your recipients will be
unable to redistribute legally. That basically means that the GPL, as
used by yourself, would mostly be a sham or marketing gag.
Competitors might try to sue for misleading advertising, but that's
about it. There are no warranties, implied or otherwise, coming with
GPLed software. The only person who has standing to sue for
non-compliance is the copyright holder himself. As a recipient of
misleadingly GPL-labelled, or incomplete software, you can't sue your
source for compliance. You can only report this to the copyright
holder, and he might consider action.
Naturally, if he has been giving you the software himself, his action
might consist in laughing at you.
Vincent Rivière
> have the right to have multiple distributions of your project under
> different
> licenses.
Okay, I didn't understand that things were different for the copyright
holder and other people.
For example, I write a wonderful library from scratch (only my own sources).
It may be useful to other people, but I don't want it to be used in
closed-source commercial projects, so I release it under the terms of the
GPL.
But because I am the copyright holder of the library, I (and only I) can
write a software statically linked to the library and release it as
closed-source.
Am I right ?
Vincent
David Kastrup
You and only you have the right to give people versions of your
library under any conditions. It is not clear what you mean by "I
release it under the terms of the GPL". You presumably mean that you
put it in a publicly available place with a GPL license notice. That
means that copies downloaded from there will be governed by the GPL.
But that does not mean that you can't distribute other copies under
other conditions.
Merijn de Weerd
> For example, I write a wonderful library from scratch (only my own sources).
> It may be useful to other people, but I don't want it to be used in
> closed-source commercial projects, so I release it under the terms of the
> GPL.
> But because I am the copyright holder of the library, I (and only I) can
> write a software statically linked to the library and release it as
> closed-source.
That's exactly what Trolltech is doing with its Qt library.
You can get the library under the terms of the GPL, or
for a fee you can get the library under a closed source license.
It's up to you as customer to decide which one you want,
but in either case you have to abide by the license terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_license#Use_in_free_software
Merijn
--
Remove +nospam to reply
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> means that copies downloaded from there will be governed by the GPL.
The GPL governs work (rights to it) not copies, stupid.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
> That's exactly what Trolltech is doing with its Qt library.
Trolltech pretends to have one of the most severely brain-damaged
interpretation of the GPL to scare folks into buying commercial
licenses.
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/e14a18133f010bdc
It has no legal basis whatsoever. Their model based on GPL virus angst
sucks miserably.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> means that copies downloaded from there will be governed by the GPL.
>
> The GPL governs work (rights to it) not copies, stupid.
Nonsense. That would preclude dual-licensing models, for example.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov ?tere...@web.de? writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> means that copies downloaded from there will be governed by the GPL.
> >
> > The GPL governs work (rights to it) not copies, stupid.
>
> Nonsense. That would preclude dual-licensing models, for example.
Only in your head.
regards,
alexander.
Vincent Rivière
>> distribute the sources, too.
>
> The GPL states no such thing. If you distribute GPLed code from
> somebody else, you have to heed the conditions of the GPL for the
> complete product. But if you are the sole copyright holder, the GPL's
> obligations are for redistributors, not yourself.
Found on http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html :
The GNU GPL demands that as soon as you distribute GPL licensed software in
executable format you make available the "complete corresponding source
code".
David Kastrup
"GPL licensed software" means software licensed _to_ you, not _by_
you.
The GPL also contains the passage:
NO WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO
WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE
LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT
WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE
QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY
SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
That means if the software is not fit for redistribution under the
GPL, you can't sue the copyright holder.
The only person with standing to sue anybody over non-compliance with
the GPL is the copyright holder himself.
There is a remote possibility that competitors might sue for
misleading advertising, but that is not really something to bank on.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> The only person with standing to sue anybody over non-compliance with
> the GPL is the copyright holder himself.
Each party to the GPL contract can sue for non-compliance, retard.
-----
An intellectual property license is a contract. In re: Aimster Copyright
Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th Cir. 2003) (“If a breach of contract
(and a copyright license is just a type of contract) . . . ”); see also
McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(“Whether express or implied, a license is a contract").
-----
Go contact German GPL enforcer Welte and the gang at ifross (his
attorneys), the GPL is a contract (LizenzVERTRAG) in Germany as well.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> The only person with standing to sue anybody over non-compliance with
>> the GPL is the copyright holder himself.
>
> Each party to the GPL contract can sue for non-compliance, retard.
Non-compliance with which obligations, my dearest Alexander?
I quote again (sorry for the shouting, but it is in the original):
NO WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO
WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE
LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT
WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE
QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY
SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO
IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY
MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL,
INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR
INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF
DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU
OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY
OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
> -----
> An intellectual property license is a contract.
But we are talking about a "license" which _reduces_ the default
rights of the recipient, which actually is a perversion of the term
"license", and tries to gain contractual status with "click-through"
provisions.
In contrast, the GPL states clearly:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have
not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to
modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These
actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.
Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work
based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this
License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying,
distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
> In re: Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th
> Cir. 2003) (“If a breach of contract (and a copyright license is
> just a type of contract) . . . ”); see also McCoy v. Mitsuboshi
> Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“Whether express
> or implied, a license is a contract"). -----
Anyway, even if your interpretation of the license as being a covert
contract (although it explicitly states that you are not required to
accept it, unlike the Aimster case) were correct, the contractual
obligations of the copyright holder are squat, as explicitly expressed
in the GPL.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Each party to the GPL contract can sue for non-compliance, retard.
>
> Non-compliance with which obligations, my dearest Alexander?
Licensor's obligations.
>
> I quote again (sorry for the shouting, but it is in the original):
>
> NO WARRANTY
No warranty doesn't equate to impunity to breach the contract, retard.
[...]
> > An intellectual property license is a contract.
>
> But we are talking about a "license" which _reduces_ the default
> rights of the recipient, which actually is a perversion of the term
> "license", and tries to gain contractual status with "click-through"
> provisions.
I'm not talking about EULA contracts. They are not intellectual
property licenses, because (typically) they don't convey any rights
reserved to IP owners at all.
>
> In contrast, the GPL states clearly:
It clearly misstates the copyright law (by ignoring 17 USC 109 and 117).
But what it means apart from misstatement, is that the GPL acceptance
is manifested by exercising exclusive rights granted under it.
[...]
> > In re: Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th
> > Cir. 2003) (“If a breach of contract (and a copyright license is
> > just a type of contract) . . . ”); see also McCoy v. Mitsuboshi
> > Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“Whether express
> > or implied, a license is a contract"). -----
>
> Anyway, even if your interpretation of the license as being a covert
> contract (although it explicitly states that you are not required to
> accept it, unlike the Aimster case) were correct, the contractual
http://digital-law-online.info/cases/67pq2d1233.htm
> obligations of the copyright holder are squat, as explicitly expressed
> in the GPL.
Contractual disclaimer of warranty doesn't equate to impunity to breach
the contract, stupid.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > Each party to the GPL contract can sue for non-compliance, retard.
>>
>> Non-compliance with which obligations, my dearest Alexander?
>
> Licensor's obligations.
>
>>
>> I quote again (sorry for the shouting, but it is in the original):
>>
>> NO WARRANTY
>
> No warranty doesn't equate to impunity to breach the contract, retard.
My dearest Alexander, what would constitute the copyright holder and
licensor "breaching the contract"? There are no obligations to her
spelled out at all in "the contract". So how would she breach them?
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> My dearest Alexander, what would constitute the copyright holder and
> licensor "breaching the contract"? There are no obligations to her
> spelled out at all in "the contract". So how would she breach them?
By failing to provide source code, idiot.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
Could you please cite the passage of the GPL where the licensor, as
opposed to the licensee, is required to provide source code?
The only term where the copyright holder is even mentioned is term 0:
0. This License applies to any program or other work which
contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be
distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The
"Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work
based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative
work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the
Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications
and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter,
translation is included without limitation in the term
"modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
And of course, if the copyright holder does not provide a file "which
contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be
distributed under the terms of this General Public License" then the
GPL does not apply to it.
So, my dear Alexander, just where do you think does the GPL say that
the copyright holder is required to do anything such that she could be
said to be breaching the GPL "contract"?
Just quote the passage you think would apply here.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> It clearly misstates the copyright law (by ignoring 17 USC 109 and 117).
> But what it means apart from misstatement, is that the GPL acceptance
> is manifested by exercising exclusive rights granted under it.
There is only a "misstate" if your intention is to foil the copyright
license by trying to bypass it alledging other dubious things.
Judges won't fall for that kind of intent.
Rui
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Could you please cite the passage of the GPL where the licensor, as
> opposed to the licensee, is required to provide source code?
And from where is the licensee ("as opposed to the licensor") supposed
to get the source code, retard?
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> There is only a "misstate" if your intention is to foil the copyright
> license by trying to bypass it alledging other dubious things.
17 USC 109 and 117 are statutory rights. They are treated as "dubious"
things only in the GNU Republic (because copyleft is severely weakened
by them). No wonder.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
My dearest Alexander, you are thoroughly confused. The GPL is a
copyright license, and as such is concerned with your rights to the
_contents_, not the media. The act of obtaining a _physical_ copy is
a separate business from licensing.
The licensor will usually have customer rights that will, after he
pays a software vendor (who may or may not be the same as the
copyright holder), have the right to obtain an intact physical medium
with the content that has been part of the offer he has paid for.
But that is not a contractual obligation in connection with the GPL.
It is a normal business obligation for tangible goods.
Alexander Terekhov
only GPL distribution of some creative work of yours. You'll get a
letter from my lawyer regarding your bogus distribution within a week
or two. I have Vertrags-Rechtsschutz, it won't cost me anything.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
Vertrags-Rechtsschutz for something which you downloaded by your own
volition without recompensation? You'll be laughed out of your
insurance's office.
Anyway, pick any GPLed software of your liking with icons which are
not "the preferred form of modification" but rather a final image
format. Should not be too difficult if they are reduced versions, for
example.
Then try applying your theory. Good luck
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Vertrags-Rechtsschutz for something which you downloaded by your own
> volition without recompensation?
Many "by your own volition" contracts don't require "recompensation" in
(direct) monetary sense, stupid. Licensee's obligations under the GPL is
your "recompensation".
> You'll be laughed out of your
> insurance's office.
So go ahead if you're so sure (rather than starting a silly talk about
icons) and drop a link to your GPL'd distribution of object-code-only
of your computer program code.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Vertrags-Rechtsschutz for something which you downloaded by your own
>> volition without recompensation?
>
> Many "by your own volition" contracts don't require "recompensation"
> in (direct) monetary sense, stupid. Licensee's obligations under the
> GPL is your "recompensation".
Priceless. You mean if I tell somebody "you can take my car if you
don't puke into it", he can sue me for non-compliance of a contract if
he did indeed not puke into it, but the car broke down? Because he
recompensated me for the car by not puking into it?
You really are a bit confused, dear Alexander.
As long as there is no tangible benefit for the licensor if the
licensee obeys his obligations for getting the benefits of the
license, I don't see where you base this off.
>> You'll be laughed out of your
>> insurance's office.
>
> So go ahead if you're so sure (rather than starting a silly talk
> about icons) and drop a link to your GPL'd distribution of
> object-code-only of your computer program code.
I happen to be the maintainer of AUCTeX
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/auctex>, copyright assigned to the
FSF, and main author of some of its parts.
The GPL demands:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete
source code means all the source code for all modules it contains,
plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts
used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need
not include anything that is normally distributed (in either
source or binary form) with the major components (compiler,
kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable
runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
Now XEmacs distributes a version of AUCTeX in a package which has the
scripts with which we create various files removed. In addition, they
don't distribute their own definition files for compiling the binary
package in their CVS tree, except by anonymous CVS. This anonymous
CVS is not "the same place" as XEmacs package mirrors, and certainly
not the same place as the source packages of Linux distributions,
where just the XEmacs files excluding said package-specific build
scripts are contained.
So according to your legal theories, when you download an AUCTeX
package from the XEmacs repository, the copyright holder (the FSF) is
recompensated by you heeding the license, and thus you can sue the FSF
because XEmacs development does not include the full source, even
though the FSF has been recompensated by you.
Good luck with that suit. Alternatively, you can sue XEmacs
development for not heeding the license from the FSF. It will be
interesting to see how you can claim standing for _that_ one, either,
as you are not the party who has issued the license.
So there you are: some software of mine and a fitting case for you to
try your legal theories on. Go ahead and have fun.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> license, I don't see where you base this off.
I'm tired of you, stupid dak. Here's GPL FAQ from Welte's attorneys:
http://www.oreilly.de/german/freebooks/gplger/pdf/001-024.pdf
[...]
Wie und zu welchem Zeitpunkt kommt es zum Abschluss eines
Lizenzvertrages?
Wichtig ist der genaue Zeitpunkt für den Abschluss des Lizenzvertrages,
da ab diesem Zeitpunkt die Bestimmungen der GPL mit ihren Rechten und
Pflichten wirksam werden. Die GPL wird der Software regelmäßig in einer
eigenen Datei beigefügt, zumeist »License« genannt. Erhält ein Nutzer
die Software samt Lizenzdatei, wird dadurch noch kein Lizenzvertrag
geschlossen. Nach deutschem Vertragsrecht sind dafür zwei
übereinstimmende Willenserklärungen erforderlich, die »Angebot« und
»Annahme« genannt werden (vergleiche Ziffer 5 GPL Rz. 5). Außerdem muss
der Vertragsinhalt für einen wirksamen Vertragsschluss eindeutig
bestimmbar sein.
Das Vertragsangebot des Lizenzgebers liegt in dem beigefügten
Lizenzvertrag und ist damit einfach bestimmbar. Wer Software unter der
GPL anbietet, macht ein Vertragsangebot an jeden, der dieses annehmen
möchte. Der jeweilige Vertragspartner muss dabei nicht bekannt sein.
Die Situation ist vergleichbar mit einem Aufsteller von
Zigarettenautomaten, der ebenfalls jedem den Verkauf von Zigaretten
anbietet, ohne dass er die jeweiligen Kunden kennen müsste (oder dies
wollte).
[...]
Übereinstimmend mit diesen gesetzlichen Erfordernissen wird in der GPL
selbst davon ausgegangen, dass der bloße Erwerb der Software noch nicht
zu einer Anwendbarkeit der GPL führt. In Ziffer 5 GPL heißt es: »You are
not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it.
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the
Program or its derivative works«. Ein Nutzer kann also ein GPL-Programm
erwerben und benutzen, ohne einen Lizenzvertrag abgeschlossen zu haben.
Der entscheidende Grund dafür liegt darin, dass die Verpflichtungen der
GPL erst dann greifen, wenn die Software verändert oder weitergegeben
wird. Für die bloße Benutzung der Software ist die Annahme der GPL nicht
notwendig (vergleiche Ziffer 0 GPL Rz. 2). Die Annahme des Angebots auf
Abschluss des GPL-Lizenzvertrags erfolgt somit in der Regel erst, wenn
der Erwerber von den besonderen Befugnissen aus der GPL Gebrauch machen
möchte. Das ist etwa dann der Fall, wenn die Software Dritten zum
Download angeboten wird oder CD-ROMs mit dem Programm angefertigt werden.
Die Vertragsannahme erfolgt dabei in den allermeisten Fällen »konkludent«,
d.h. durch schlüssiges Handeln. Dies ist nach deutschem Vertragsrecht
zulässig. Es ist nicht erforderlich, den Lizenzvertrag zu unterschreiben
oder gegenüber dem Lizenzgeber eine explizite Erklärung abzugeben. Es
reicht, wenn durch eine Handlung das Einverständnis zum Vertragsschluss
gezeigt wird. So wie der Käufer von Zigaretten an einem Automaten durch
den Einwurf der erforderlichen Geldmünzen deutlich macht, dass er das
Verkaufsangebot des Automatenaufstellers annimmt, so zeigt ein Nutzer,
dass er mit der GPL einverstanden ist, wenn er eine der GPL unterstellte
Software modifiziert oder weitergibt. Der Lizenzgeber muss davon nicht
einmal etwas wissen (vergleiche Ziffer 5 GPL Rz. 7).
Der Zeitpunkt, in welchem der Lizenzvertrag angenommen wird, kann also
von Fall zu Fall unterschiedlich sein – je nachdem, ob und wann der
Lizenznehmer die Freiheiten der GPL in Anspruch nehmen möchte.
[...]
Der Erwerb eines solchen GPL-Lizenzvertrages ist tatsächlich immer
kostenlos. Für die Einräumung der Nutzungsrechte dürfen Gebühren nicht
verlangt werden. Dies ergibt sich aus Ziffer 2 b) GPL.
[...]
http://www.oreilly.de/german/freebooks/gplger/pdf/025-168.pdf
[...]
Wie jeder andere Lizenzvertrag stellt auch die GPL einen Vertrag
zwischen bestimmten Lizenzgebern und bestimmten Lizenznehmern dar. Und:
Ein solcher Vertrag kommt zustande, indem die eine Partei ein bestimmtes
Angebot abgibt und die andere Partei dieses Angebot annimmt. Durch den
Vermerk, dass das Programm oder Werk unter den Bedingungen der GNU
General Public License weitergegeben werden darf, und durch das
»Entlassen« dieser Erklärung aus seinem Einflussbereich macht der
Urheberrechtsinhaber somit (nur) ein Angebot an jedermann, die
erforderlichen Rechte unter den Bedingungen der GPL einzuräumen.
Angenommen werden kann dieses Angebot dann auf sehr verschiedene Weise.
Die einfachste Möglichkeit besteht darin, die in der GPL gestatteten
Nutzungshandlungen auszuführen (ausführlich dazu Ziffer 5 GPL Rz. 5 ff.).
Dass der Lizenzgeber die Bestimmungen der Ziffer 0 GPL einhält, wenn er
sein Angebot auf Abschluss eines GPL-Lizenzvertrages abgibt, ist keine
Voraussetzung für die Wirksamkeit des Angebots. Denn Ziffer 0 GPL
schreibt nicht rechtsverbindlich eine bestimmte Form für die Abgabe
dieses Angebotes vor. Das Angebot zum Abschluss eines GPL-Lizenzvertrages
kann daher durchaus auch auf andere Weise erfolgen (zum Beispiel im
persönlichen Gespräch zwischen Lizenzgeber und Lizenznehmer). Wenn der
Rechtsinhaber aber direkt innerhalb des Programms auf die »Geltung« der
GPL hinweist, ist damit gewährleistet, dass jeder, der das Programm
erhält, auch von dem entsprechenden Angebot Kenntnis erhalten kann.
Hier zeigt sich übrigens eine Besonderheit der GPL, die sich durch den
gesamten Vertragstext zieht: An zahlreichen Stellen werden weniger die
Beziehungen zwischen Lizenzgeber und Lizenznehmer geregelt, als vielmehr
den Parteien zentrale Punkte des Vertrages und Möglichkeiten seiner
Umsetzung erläutert. Die GPL ist also teilweise bereits
»selbstdokumentierend«.
[...]
Ziffer 5 GPL stellt die zentrale Vorschrift zum Vertragsschluss dar.
Ein Vertrag – egal ob entgeltlich oder unentgeltlich – kommt nur
zustande, wenn sich die Parteien über seinen Inhalt »geeinigt« haben.
Hierzu bedarf es, um es im Juristendeutsch auszudrücken,
übereinstimmender Willenserklärungen der Vertragsparteien, die auf
denselben rechtlichen Erfolg gerichtet sind. Die zeitlich erste
Erklärung bezeichnet man als Angebot oder Antrag, die nachfolgende(n)
als Annahme.
Ziffer 5 GPL regelt ausdrücklich nur die Annahme durch den
Lizenznehmer. Das Angebot durch den Lizenzgeber ging voraus: Dadurch,
dass der Rechtsinhaber die Software unter die GPL stellt und sie mit
einem entsprechenden Vermerk aus seinem »Einflussbereich« entlässt
(durch Erstverbreitung), richtet er ein Angebot an jedermann auf
Abschluss eines Lizenzvertrages mit dem Inhalt und zu den Bedingungen
der GPL.
Die GPL ist ein Vertrag
Die GPL stellt nach deutschem Recht zweifellos einen (Lizenz-)Vertrag
zwischen dem 2 Rechtsinhaber beziehungsweise den Rechtsinhabern (im
Folgenden auch: »Lizenzgeber«) auf der einen Seite und dem
Lizenznehmer auf der anderen Seite dar. Dass die GPL nach deutschem
Recht beides ist, nämlich »Lizenz« und »Vertrag«, mag den einen oder
anderen verwundern...
------
Now please kindly piss off for at least a couple of days, dak.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> license, I don't see where you base this off.
>
> I'm tired of you, stupid dak.
In short, you can't counter.
> Here's GPL FAQ from Welte's attorneys:
Oh, that means that you agree with Welte? Interesting news. Anyway,
you cite the theory that a "Vertrag" may be constituted by
"konkludentes Handeln", like buying something in a shop constitutes a
contract.
Now if we, for the sake of amusing ourselves, assume that the GPL
constitutes such a contract, then we can look into the GPL and see
what obligations the licensor is entering according to the GPL. And
lo-and-behold, there are none. So the _contractual_ obligations, if
we hold to the theory of GPL being a contract, are none for the
licensor, apart from ceding the right to stop the licensee from using
the software according to the license.
Now if the licensor did not even give the licensee source code, the
"konkludentes Handeln" which would make the closing of a contract
conclusive did not even happen.
What you are wanting to sue for is for the "konkludentes Handeln"
which would actually make an indication that a contract was being
implied. That's backward. It's like suing a customer in a shop for
not paying for a ware which the customer first wanted to buy but then
did not take to the register.
And you do that by suing him because he should really have taken it to
the register when he wanted to buy it, as everything that is bought
has to be taken to the register according to the AGB of the shop.
Anyway, I spelled out two parties you might want to sue according to
your legal theories, one more silly than the other. Take your pick.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Now if the licensor did not even give the licensee source code, the
> "konkludentes Handeln" which would make the closing of a contract
> conclusive did not even happen.
Idiot. I don't need source code to enter into GPL contract with you
by making available your GPL'd object code on my web site accompanied
by offer to get source code. I'll go after you to fulfill that offer.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Now if the licensor did not even give the licensee source code, the
>> "konkludentes Handeln" which would make the closing of a contract
>> conclusive did not even happen.
>
> Idiot. I don't need source code to enter into GPL contract with you
> by making available your GPL'd object code on my web site accompanied
> by offer to get source code.
Where did that offer to get source code suddenly spring from? Have
you finally realized that you were talking nonsense, and now
desperately try changing the scenario?
Anyway, any such offer would constitute an offer about getting source
code, not an offer about licensing it. It would thus be completely
independent from the licensing under the GPL and not a "contractual
obligation" according to the GPL.
> I'll go after you to fulfill that offer.
In short: you finally agree that licensing source code and offering
access to source code are separate things, and the copyright holder of
GPLed source code is not obliged to provide copies when he has not
made an an explicit offer to do so.
Thanks for coming around after all this weaseling. It is appreciated.
Alexander Terekhov
regards,
alexander.
Alfred M. Szmidt
Is the sky falling? Did Alexander loose? Not even a rebutal to
David's eloquent response? What will our heros do next week? Tune in
on GNU Miscellaneous Discussions; every day, every hour of the week!
Alexander Terekhov
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
> Go to doctor, dak.
>
> Is the sky falling? Did Alexander loose? Not even a rebutal to
The sky is not falling over here, dear GNUtian ams. Loosely speaking,
it's just impossible to lose a "debate" with stupid dak.
> David's eloquent response?
Yeah, "eloquent response". Revealing amusing insanity in his damaged
brain.
regards,
alexander.
Tim Smith
> Competitors might try to sue for misleading advertising, but that's about
> it. There are no warranties, implied or otherwise, coming with GPLed
> software. The only person who has standing to sue for non-compliance is
> the copyright holder himself. As a recipient of misleadingly
> GPL-labelled, or incomplete software, you can't sue your source for
> compliance. You can only report this to the copyright holder, and he
> might consider action.
Well, there will be no cause of action under copyright law, but there might
be under contract. When party X promises something, and party Y
detrimentally relies on that, then the doctrine of promissory estoppel can
make it so there is effectively an enforcable contract.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
> For example, I write a wonderful library from scratch (only my own
> sources). It may be useful to other people, but I don't want it to be
> used in closed-source commercial projects, so I release it under the terms
> of the GPL.
>
> But because I am the copyright holder of the library, I (and only I) can
> write a software statically linked to the library and release it as
> closed-source.
>
> Am I right ?
Yes, *but* you must keep in mind that this only works for your code. If the
users of your GPL release contribute back code, you can't use that code in
your closed-source version, unless the people who wrote that code give you
permission.
Releasing code under GPL to the general public, while keeping a
closed-source version for yourself can actually be a good strategy. Say
there is some field where you can make a really good application. Release a
closed-source version, and release a GPL'ed version that isn't as advanced,
so that there is a good reason for, say, professional users, to buy your
closed-source version instead of using the free version.
Meanwhile, the GPL version is out there, making it so there is no commercial
market for a "light" version, which helps discourage competitors from
breaking into your market, as they would not be able to start with the low
end market and work up. They have to break in with a high-end version to
match your commercial version.
There is some risk here--the GPL version might develop an active community
that might advance it to rival or surpass your commercial version.
--
--Tim Smith
David Kastrup
If the promise is explicitly to party Y. But we are not talking about
the case of an independent _announcement_ or promise, but of
mislabeled software. There is no reason for party Y to rely on
anything since Y can _download_ what is offered and check its
suitability immediately.
Alexander Terekhov
Tim Smith wrote:
>
> In article <85d5bd6...@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup wrote:
> > Competitors might try to sue for misleading advertising, but that's about
> > it. There are no warranties, implied or otherwise, coming with GPLed
> > software. The only person who has standing to sue for non-compliance is
> > the copyright holder himself. As a recipient of misleadingly
> > GPL-labelled, or incomplete software, you can't sue your source for
> > compliance. You can only report this to the copyright holder, and he
> > might consider action.
>
> Well, there will be no cause of action under copyright law, but there might
> be under contract.
In dak's damaged brain there is no contract/promises made by (initial)
GPL licensor that GPL licensees and subsequent GPL (sub)licensors can
rely on to fulfill their GPL obligations. He's a clinical case.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
Uh, you lost that argument already. Sulking about it does not change
that.
Here is a piece of the GPL:
NO WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Alexander Terekhov
(No) Warranty clauses have really noting to do with lisensors obligations
regarding *availablity* of source code. And in Germany the disclaimer is
invalid/irrelevant, anyway.
-------
Unwirksamkeit der Klauseln Ziffer 11 und 12 GPL nach deutschem Recht
Das allgemeine deutsche Vertragsrecht findet sich im Bürgerlichen
Gesetzbuch aus dem Jahr 1900. Die gesetzlichen Regelungen zur Haftung
und Gewährleistung wurden zuletzt im Jahr 2002 reformiert. Das deutsche
Vertragsrecht ist in stärkerem Maße als das US-amerikanische von so
genannten zwingenden Vorschriften geprägt. Hierunter versteht man
gesetzliche Regelungen, von denen durch Vertrag nicht abgewichen werden
darf. Für den Bereich der Haftung und Gewährleistung finden sich eine
Reihe entsprechender Vorschriften. Zentral sind die Regelungen der §§
305 ff. BGB sowie § 276 BGB.
Der vollständige Ausschluss der Gewährleistung in Ziffer 11 GPL (»THERE
IS NO WARRANTY «) ist nach deutschem Recht unwirksam, und zwar unabhängig
davon, ob die Software gegen Entgelt oder kostenlos weitergegeben wird
oder ob es sich um die Herstellung einer Individualentwicklung handelt.
Dies ergibt sich aus § 309 Nr. 8 b) aa) BGB. Danach ist in allgemeinen
Geschäftbedingungen, das heißt Standardverträgen wie der GPL, eine
Bestimmung unwirksam, »durch die bei Verträgen über Lieferungen neu
hergestellter Sachen und über Werkleistungen, die Ansprüche gegen den
Verwender wegen eines Mangelsinsgesamt oder bezüglich einzelner Teile
ausgeschlossen … werden«. Diese Vorschrift ist nach Ansicht der meisten
auf Computerrecht spezialisierten Juristen sowohl auf den Vertrieb von
Software auf Datenträgern als auch auf den Vertrieb in Datennetzen
anwendbar. Einige Stimmen in der juristischen Fachwelt gehen davon aus,
dass § 309 Nr. 8 b) aa) BGB nicht auf die Verbreitung von Software in
Datennetzen Anwendung finden kann, weil es sich hierbei nicht um eine
»Sache« handele. Aber auch diese Autoren kommen letztlich zum gleichen
Ergebnis, dies allerdings auf der Grundlage von § 307 Absatz 1 und 2 BGB
(Ȥ 307 BGB Inhaltskontrolle (1) Bestimmungen in Allgemeinen
Geschäftsbedingungen sind unwirksam, wenn sie den Vertragspartner des
Verwenders entgegen den Geboten von Treu und Glauben unangemessen
benachteiligen. Eine unangemessene Benachteiligungkann sich auch daraus
ergeben, dass die Bestimmung nicht klar und verständlich ist. (2) Eine
unangemessene Benachteiligung ist im Zweifel anzunehmen, wenn eine
Bestimmung 1. mit wesentlichen Grundgedanken der gesetzlichen Regelung,
von der abgewichen wird, nicht zu vereinbaren ist oder 2. wesentliche
Rechte oder Pflichten, die sich aus der Natur des Vertrags ergeben, so
einschränkt, dass die Erreichung des Vertragszwecks gefährdet ist.«).
Nur der Weg zum Ziel ist also umstritten, nicht das Ergebnis.
Dies gilt ebenso für den Fall der kostenlosen Weitergabe. Man könnte hier
nach dem Wortlaut der Vorschrift durchaus auf § 309 Nr. 8 b) aa) BGB
abstellen. Da die Vorschrift nur auf die Lieferung als solche abstellt,
ohne deren Entgeltlichkeit zu verlangen, muss man sie wohl auch auf die
kostenlose Weitergabe anwenden. Ob dies zutreffend ist, kann aber letztlich
dahingestellt bleiben: Der vollständige Gewährleistungsausschluss ist bei
einer kostenlosen Weitergabe jedenfalls eine unangemessene Benachteiligung
des Vertragspartners gemäß § 307 BGB. Hier wird man auch für Freie Software
keine Ausnahme machen dürfen. Ziffer 11 GPL ist deshalb nach deutschem
Recht in allen denkbaren Konstellationen unwirksam.
Der vollständige Haftungsausschluss in Ziffer 12 GPL (»IN NO EVENT ...
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY ... BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
DAMMAGES«) ist nach deutschem Recht ebenfalls unwirksam. Dies folgt aus §
309 Nr. 7 b) BGB. Danach ist ein Ausschluss oder eine Begrenzung der
Haftung für sonstige Schäden unwirksam, »die auf einer grob fahrlässigen
Pflichtverletzung des Verwenders oder auf einer vorsätzlichen oder grob
fahrlässigen Pflichtverletzung eines gesetzlichen Vertreters oder
Erfüllungsgehilfen des Verwenders beruhen.« Da Ziffer 12 GPL keinerlei
Vorbehalt für ein vorsätzliches oder grob fahrlässiges Verschulden zu
Gunsten des Erwerbers des Programms vorsieht, ist die Klausel als
unwirksam einzustufen. Ein Ausschluss der Haftung für Vorsatz ist gemäß
§ 276 Absatz 3 BGB nicht einmal in individuell verhandelten Verträgen
möglich. (§ 276 Absatz 3 BGB: »Die Haftung wegen Vorsatzes kann dem
Schuldner nicht im Voraus erlassen werden.«) Dies gilt unabhängig davon,
ob das Programm kostenlos oder entgeltlich weitergegeben wird.
Der Unwirksamkeit der beiden Klauseln steht auch nicht entgegen, dass
der Ausschluss nur soweit gehen soll, wie es das anwendbare Recht
gestattet (»TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW«; »UNLESS REQUIRED
BY APPLICABLE LAW«). Entsprechende Bestimmungen werden als
»salvatorische Klauseln« bezeichnet. Nach der Rechtsprechung des
Bundesgerichtshofs verstoßen sie gegen das für allgemeine
Geschäftsbedingungen geltende Transparenzgebot des § 307 Absatz 1 Satz
2 BGB (siehe oben Rz. 6) und sind damit unwirksam. Salvatorische
Klauseln gewährleisten nicht das geforderte Mindestmaß an
Verständlichkeit, da für den Erwerber die jeweiligen gesetzlichen
Vorschriften nicht ohne weiteres auffindbar und in ihrer Bedeutung für
die Klausel kaum zu beurteilen sind.
Im Folgenden ist von der Unwirksamkeit der Klauseln auszugehen.
Dementsprechend kommen die gesetzlichen Vorschriften zur Anwendung
(vergleiche § 306 Absatz 2 BGB: »Soweit die Bestimmungen nicht
Vertragsbestandteil geworden oder unwirksam sind, richtet sich der
Inhalt des Vertrags nach den gesetzlichen Vorschriften.«).
-----
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Tim Smith wrote:
[...]
> Meanwhile, the GPL version is out there, making it so there is no commercial
> market for a "light" version, which helps discourage competitors from
> breaking into your market, as they would not be able to start with the low
> end market and work up. They have to break in with a high-end version to
> match your commercial version.
Sounds like exact strategy by likes of IBM and HP regarding Guh-NÜ-
slash-Linux and high-end closed Unixes. If not the competition laws...
Sherman act aside for a moment,
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> Go to doctor, retard dak.
Actually, that would be sound advice for yourself and your sociopathic
tendencies.
> (No) Warranty clauses have really noting to do with lisensors
> obligations regarding *availablity* of source code.
There is no such obligation to the licensor spelled out in the GPL,
and unless you don't enter into an explicit contract, no obligation
will come about, anyway.
> And in Germany the disclaimer is invalid/irrelevant, anyway.
>
> -------
> Unwirksamkeit der Klauseln Ziffer 11 und 12 GPL nach deutschem Recht
>
> Das allgemeine deutsche Vertragsrecht findet sich im Bürgerlichen
> Gesetzbuch aus dem Jahr 1900. Die gesetzlichen Regelungen zur Haftung
> und Gewährleistung wurden zuletzt im Jahr 2002 reformiert. Das deutsche
> Vertragsrecht ist in stärkerem Maße als das US-amerikanische von so
> genannten zwingenden Vorschriften geprägt. Hierunter versteht man
> gesetzliche Regelungen, von denen durch Vertrag nicht abgewichen werden
> darf. Für den Bereich der Haftung und Gewährleistung finden sich eine
> Reihe entsprechender Vorschriften. Zentral sind die Regelungen der §§
> 305 ff. BGB sowie § 276 BGB.
Sure, once you enter into a contract, there are things you can't
exclude yourself from. This will hold, for example, if you take an
explicit contract to develop GPLed software for somebody: in that
case, your software has to meet the standards of the contract
irrespective of the warranty exclusion in the GPL.
But just by putting something up for download, you don't magically
gain any responsibilities except against explicit malicious intent
(downloadable software intentionally carrying viruses, for example).
> Der vollständige Ausschluss der Gewährleistung in Ziffer 11 GPL (»THERE
> IS NO WARRANTY «) ist nach deutschem Recht unwirksam, und zwar unabhängig
> davon, ob die Software gegen Entgelt oder kostenlos weitergegeben wird
> oder ob es sich um die Herstellung einer Individualentwicklung handelt.
> Dies ergibt sich aus § 309 Nr. 8 b) aa) BGB. Danach ist in allgemeinen
> Geschäftbedingungen, das heißt Standardverträgen wie der GPL, eine
> Bestimmung unwirksam, »durch die bei Verträgen über Lieferungen neu
> hergestellter Sachen und über Werkleistungen, die Ansprüche gegen den
> Verwender wegen eines Mangelsinsgesamt oder bezüglich einzelner Teile
> ausgeschlossen … werden«.
What about "Durch die bei Verträgen über Lieferungen neu hergestellter
Sachen und über Werkleistungen" did you not understand? If you have
an _explicit_ contractual obligation (and the GPL is _not_ that) to
deliver a working product, you can't escape that obligation by the GPL
disclaimer.
Alexander Terekhov
http://www.ifross.de. But first, go to doctor, idiot.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> Hey Rechtswissenschaftler dak, go talk to http://www.jbb.de and/or
> http://www.ifross.de. But first, go to doctor, idiot.
Two links which are either irrelevant or contradict you. Impressive.
You really should get your quoting disorder under control.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>
> > Hey Rechtswissenschaftler dak, go talk to http://www.jbb.de and/or
> > http://www.ifross.de. But first, go to doctor, idiot.
>
> Two links which are either irrelevant or contradict you. Impressive.
> You really should get your quoting disorder under control.
I'm tired of you, retard. The "quoting disorder" is of your own making.
------
NO WARRANTY
------
Take it together with the (German commented) GPL
(http://www.oreilly.de/german/freebooks/gplger/pdf/025-168.pdf) plus
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/8379dd445da508ba
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/c76ca14218611ab9
and show it to your doctor. He might find some medicine for your damage
brain to grok it.
See you tomorrow.
regards,
alexander.
David Golden
> Go to doctor, retard dak.
Maybe projecting just a little, there...
Wei Mingzhi
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| | ( (_) )
| | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (____Y____)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Alexander Terekhov
/ \
| |
|. .|
| ''' |
| |
| |
| |
| |
____ | | ____
/ \| |/ \
| | | | __
| | | |/ \
| | | | |
| | | | |
/ \
| |
| |
| |
| |
\ /
\ /
| |
| |
regards,
alexander.