GPL tested in court .. - Linux

This is a discussion on GPL tested in court .. - Linux ; "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message news:feh2b0$5oc$00$1@news.t-online.com... > > > -- Whomever that is, what does that have to do with your inability to answer the post that I made? Who has ever, under the duress of a lawsuit from some ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: GPL tested in court ..

  1. Re: GPL tested in court ..


    "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    news:feh2b0$5oc$00$1@news.t-online.com...
    >
    > < snip more Bill Weisgerber garbage >
    > --

    Whomever that is, what does that have to do with your inability to answer
    the post that I made? Who has ever, under the duress of a lawsuit from some
    GPL enforcer, ever disclosed anything of value? No one, of course. The GPL
    is a paper tiger of sorts, with no rea effect on anything. It is a pap for
    you silly boys to cherish, thinking that you matter.


  2. Re: GPL tested in court ..

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    > "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:feh2b0$5oc$00$1@news.t-online.com...


    Naturally you snipped *all* content now, as you had no point.
    Snot taught you well

    >> < snip more Bill Weisgerber garbage >
    >> --

    > Whomever that is,


    That is *you* billwg aka amicus_curious aka Bill Weisgerber
    Your dimwitted attemps at nymshifting have fooled nobody
    And no matter under what nym you post, your posting style is nearly as
    dishonest as the one from Snot, the twit from the apple groups, who is
    easily the most dishonest poster on all of usenet

    > what does that have to do with your inability to answer
    > the post that I made?


    I did answer it. The thread was about the GPL and lawsuits. Then you throw
    in, obviously to support your lunatic point, a court decision which has
    *nothing* at all to do with the GPL. Not a tiny little shred

    And it seems that you are the one with the inability to answer, as it is you
    who throws in irrelevant things to cloud the fact that you have no point

    > Who has ever, under the duress of a lawsuit from some
    > GPL enforcer, ever disclosed anything of value?


    Does not matter what you see as value. Your attempt to *again* move the
    goalposts has been noted.

    > No one, of course. The GPL
    > is a paper tiger of sorts, with no rea effect on anything. It is a pap
    > for you silly boys to cherish, thinking that you matter.


    Fine. Continue to think so. That does not change the fact though that the
    GPL has stood up in court, and it has *never* been successfully questioned.
    --
    Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
    And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...


  3. Re: GPL tested in court ..

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Khlmann belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/158.pdf

    >
    > Fine. And when you start to show what *that* law suit has to do with GPL,
    > come back to us
    >
    > How come you windows advocates have to be such dishonest imbeciles?


    It must be a Microsoft thang.


  4. Re: GPL tested in court ..

    On 2007-10-09, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "Jim Richardson" wrote in message
    > news:adqst4-uj3.ln1@dragon.myth...
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:03:41 -0400,
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    >>> news:feg5tb$vth$2@news.datemas.de...
    >>>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> That is an overreaction. There is no signed contract in effect between
    >>>>> the parties
    >>>> ..
    >>>>
    >>>> If you use GPL code then you are bound by the terms license ..
    >>>
    >>> Pretend that this is actually the case. Then I decide to ignore the
    >>> terms.
    >>> What happens?
    >>>

    >>
    >> then you have violated copyright laws.
    >>

    > How so? The GPL grants me a right to copy and distribute the copied
    > material. Once granted, you cannot take that away from me.


    I worked for an internet startup that got it's Oracle
    licenses yanked for non-payment. Your statement is absurd of
    course. Grants of permission to a particular bit of property
    (real or intellectual) can easily be terminated if terms of
    the permission aren't met.

    >
    >>> The Moglen school of thought says that you can be enjoined by a court to
    >>> comply and so risk being sent to jail in contempt if you do not comply.
    >>> A
    >>> much wider school of thought says that you can be sued for monetary
    >>> damages,
    >>> which are nil since there is no charge to use the software. That is not
    >>> much of a downside and can be conveniently ignored. Someday, maybe, it
    >>> will
    >>> actually go to a court, but there is a good chance that it will not.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> Copyright law doesn't require financial harm to be shown, in order to
    >> generate fines.
    >>

    > Only if you have no right to copy. If you have a right to copy, the
    > copyright has no effect. If you fail to pay, you can be sued for
    > non-payment, but not for copyright violation.


    You are of course attempting to conflate the right to copy
    with the right to create derivative works. Mere copying isn't the
    issue. Creation of derivative works is.

    Similarly, merely copying "The Deathly Hallows" is a
    different issue legally than trying to clone the idea of Harry Potter
    or distributing an unauthorized translation.

    There's plenty of nuance here that you're choosing to
    conveniently ignore.

    [deletia]


    --
    vi isn't easy to use. |||
    / | \
    vi is easy to REPLACE.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  5. Re: GPL tested in court ..

    After takin' a swig o' grog, JEDIDIAH belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > On 2007-10-09, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> [typical devious drivel]
    >>

    > There's plenty of nuance here that you're choosing to
    > conveniently ignore.


    His game ain't nuance, it's innuendo.

    Logic goes out the door when Bill Greaseburger comes innuendo!

    --
    Tux rox!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2