GPL propaganda - Linux

This is a discussion on GPL propaganda - Linux ; The questions concerning enforceability of the provisions in the GPL will occur in the federal courts according to prevailing law. (I do not consider non-US jurisdictions.) Arguments concerning enforceability should be grounded in references to prevailing federal statutes and case ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46

Thread: GPL propaganda

  1. GPL propaganda

    The questions concerning enforceability of the provisions in the GPL
    will occur in the federal courts according to prevailing law. (I do
    not consider non-US jurisdictions.) Arguments concerning
    enforceability should be grounded in references to prevailing
    federal statutes and case law concerning the licensing of
    intellectual property.

    Eben Moglen and his FOSS devotees generate reams of blog
    publications and manifestos concerning the GPL and software code.
    There is a glaring deficiency to these claims: any reference to
    prevailing federal law supporting their assertions.

    The FOSS strategy is one great GPL propaganda effort. All blow and
    no go. We see dotCommunist Manifestos, celebrated conferences
    drafting a new GPL license and a "A Practical Guide to GPL
    Compliance". Nowhere do we see any reference to prevailing license
    law in support of their wild claims. Professor Eben Moglen styles
    himself a leading expert in licensing law.

    Here is a major work published by Eben Moglen:

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

    * * * * * * * * Enforcing the GNU GPL * * * * * * * *
    .. . .

    This right to exclude implies an equally large power to
    license—that is, to grant permission to do what would otherwise be
    forbidden. Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to
    remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily
    promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all
    except as the license permits.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Beautiful legal propaganda. The whole legal theory underpinning the
    GPL and "copyleft" is based on the theory that a copyright license
    is not a contract.

    Google { license "not a contract" }. I got 1,440,000 hits. How's
    that for propaganda?

    Since 1927 when the United States Supreme Court declared a license
    was in fact a contract, no federal court has ever ruled to the
    contrary, see De Forest Radio Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S.
    236 (1927). This fact is no surprise:

    "[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial
    system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower
    federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts
    may think it to be."; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982)

    So why does anyone who has read "Enforcing the GPL" believe in the
    GPL when the theory underlying the GPL is demonstratively false?
    Self deception?

    I believe people should be able to evaluate both sides of a claim.
    I have read posters who complain that I repetitively post my claims
    on different blogs. But 1,440,000 times?

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  2. Re: GPL propaganda

    Rjack writes:

    [ more anti-GPL blather, under yet another subject heading ]

    Rjack, I notice that as soon as you lose the argument under one subject
    heading, you restart it with a new subject heading. Do you really think
    that by repeating the same thing, you will get a different result?
    --
    Rahul
    http://rahul.rahul.net/

  3. Re: GPL propaganda

    Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    > Rjack wrote:
    >> The questions concerning enforceability of the provisions in the GPL
    >> will occur in the federal courts according to prevailing law. (I do
    >> not consider non-US jurisdictions.) Arguments concerning
    >> enforceability should be grounded in references to prevailing
    >> federal statutes and case law concerning the licensing of
    >> intellectual property.

    >
    > Why all the GPL FUD "jack"?
    > If you don't agree with the GPL, don't try to distribute any software under
    > it.
    >
    > simple as that.


    1) Never have (distributed).

    2) Do care about GPL advocates stealing other people's exclusive
    rights with an illegal copyright license.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  4. Re: GPL propaganda

    On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:38:23 -0500, Rjack wrote:

    > 2) Do care about GPL advocates stealing other people's exclusive
    > rights with an illegal copyright license.


    GPL advocates copyright their own code, which is their right under the GPL
    -- or don't you agree with that? If someone steals someone else's
    rights, than it's not an issue of the GPL, but an issue of standard
    copyright law. The benefits of using the GPL license is that you get to
    use a lot of code, for free. To do so, you have to share your code. Is
    that too complicated for you? Is it somehow unfair in your estimation?

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  5. Re: GPL propaganda

    Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    > Rjack writes:
    >
    > [ more anti-GPL blather, under yet another subject heading ]
    >
    > Rjack, I notice that as soon as you lose the argument under one subject
    > heading, you restart it with a new subject heading. Do you really think
    > that by repeating the same thing, you will get a different result?


    What argument is that Rahul? That a copyright license is a contract?

    If I "lost" who were the judges? The sound of one hand clapping
    is not very impressive Rahul.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  6. Re: GPL propaganda

    RonB wrote:
    > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:38:23 -0500, Rjack wrote:
    >
    >> 2) Do care about GPL advocates stealing other people's exclusive
    >> rights with an illegal copyright license.

    >
    > GPL advocates copyright their own code, which is their right under the GPL
    > -- or don't you agree with that? If someone steals someone else's
    > rights, than it's not an issue of the GPL, but an issue of standard
    > copyright law.


    If it were an issue of copyright law it would not be illegal --
    like the GPL.

    > The benefits of using the GPL license is that you get to
    > use a lot of code, for free. To do so, you have to share your code. Is
    > that too complicated for you? Is it somehow unfair in your estimation?
    >


    It never fails to amaze me that you socialists can find an argument
    to justify illegal actions.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  7. Re: GPL propaganda

    Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Rjack wrote on
    behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:



    > 2) Do care about GPL advocates stealing other people's exclusive
    > rights with an illegal copyright license.



    Doh! This spliffing fool is back again!!!


    You can distribute your own exclusive rights work as much as you
    would like on its own!!!


    Just don't steal and mix with other people's
    copyrighted material if you can't satisfy their copyright license!



  8. Re: GPL propaganda

    Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Rjack wrote on
    behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:


    > It never fails to amaze me that you socialists



    Well fsck you too asshole!!!

    You and your ad-homo attacks when you loose your
    arguments is just plain and so illiterate of you.



    > Sincerely,
    > Rjack



  9. Re: GPL propaganda

    7 wrote:
    > Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Rjack wrote
    > on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
    >
    >
    >> It never fails to amaze me that you socialists

    >
    >
    > Well fsck you too asshole!!!
    >
    > You and your ad-homo attacks when you loose your arguments is
    > just plain and so illiterate of you.


    Mmmmmmm. . . Another Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack


  10. Re: GPL propaganda

    Rjack wrote:
    > It never fails to amaze me that you socialists can find an argument
    > to justify illegal actions.


    What illegal actions would they be?
    Give one simple example.
    (it'd have to be simple, coming from you)
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
    | in | suck is probably the day they start making |
    | Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |

  11. Re: GPL propaganda

    Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    > Rjack writes:
    >
    > [ more anti-GPL blather, under yet another subject heading ]
    >
    > Rjack, I notice that as soon as you lose the argument under one subject
    > heading, you restart it with a new subject heading. Do you really think
    > that by repeating the same thing, you will get a different result?


    Or, as Stewart Lee used to say to Richard Herring...
    "Saying it in a squeeky voice won't make it any more true..."
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
    | in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
    | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |

  12. Re: GPL propaganda

    On 2008-09-26, Rjack wrote:
    > Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >> Rjack wrote:
    >>> The questions concerning enforceability of the provisions in the GPL
    >>> will occur in the federal courts according to prevailing law. (I do
    >>> not consider non-US jurisdictions.) Arguments concerning
    >>> enforceability should be grounded in references to prevailing
    >>> federal statutes and case law concerning the licensing of
    >>> intellectual property.

    >>
    >> Why all the GPL FUD "jack"?
    >> If you don't agree with the GPL, don't try to distribute any software under
    >> it.
    >>
    >> simple as that.

    >
    > 1) Never have (distributed).
    >
    > 2) Do care about GPL advocates stealing other people's exclusive
    > rights with an illegal copyright license.


    Yet the likes of Oracle and EA seem to manage well enough despite
    of all of your bitching and moaning. This "problem" of yours only ever
    manifests itself whenever you try to take someone else's property and
    treat it as if it were your own.

    Avoid doing that and all of your ranting becomes completely moot.

    Use someone else's code in a commercial product and you better be
    prepared to read and understand the fine print. Big news there (not)!

    --

    It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.

    They brought us the email virus.

    In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
    been considered a complete absurdity. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  13. Re: GPL propaganda

    On 2008-09-26, Rjack wrote:
    > Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    >> Rjack writes:
    >>
    >> [ more anti-GPL blather, under yet another subject heading ]
    >>
    >> Rjack, I notice that as soon as you lose the argument under one subject
    >> heading, you restart it with a new subject heading. Do you really think
    >> that by repeating the same thing, you will get a different result?

    >
    > What argument is that Rahul? That a copyright license is a contract?


    It doesn't matter what you call it. It's the only thing that gives
    you authorization to re-distribute the work.

    [deletia]

    --

    It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.

    They brought us the email virus.

    In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
    been considered a complete absurdity. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  14. Re: GPL propaganda

    Rjack wrote:
    > Arguments concerning enforceability should be...


    Tell that to the JMRI appeals court.

  15. Re: GPL propaganda

    Rjack wrote:
    > 2) Do care about GPL advocates stealing other people's exclusive rights
    > with an illegal copyright license.


    Someone in Florida who cared ever so deeply about other
    people just got himself disbarred for life. There's a
    lesson somewhere in there.

  16. Re: GPL propaganda

    Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    > Rjack wrote:
    >> It never fails to amaze me that you socialists can find an argument
    >> to justify illegal actions.

    >
    > What illegal actions would they be?
    > Give one simple example.
    > (it'd have to be simple, coming from you)


    Try the doctrine of copyright misuse.
    Try violation of 17 USC 301.
    Try impossible contract terms.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  17. Re: GPL propaganda

    JEDIDIAH wrote:
    > On 2008-09-26, Rjack wrote:
    >> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >>> Rjack wrote:
    >>>> The questions concerning enforceability of the provisions in the GPL
    >>>> will occur in the federal courts according to prevailing law. (I do
    >>>> not consider non-US jurisdictions.) Arguments concerning
    >>>> enforceability should be grounded in references to prevailing
    >>>> federal statutes and case law concerning the licensing of
    >>>> intellectual property.
    >>> Why all the GPL FUD "jack"?
    >>> If you don't agree with the GPL, don't try to distribute any software under
    >>> it.
    >>>
    >>> simple as that.

    >> 1) Never have (distributed).
    >>
    >> 2) Do care about GPL advocates stealing other people's exclusive
    >> rights with an illegal copyright license.

    >
    > Yet the likes of Oracle and EA seem to manage well enough despite
    > of all of your bitching and moaning. This "problem" of yours only ever
    > manifests itself whenever you try to take someone else's property and
    > treat it as if it were your own.


    You mean like using the illegal GPL?

    >
    > Avoid doing that and all of your ranting becomes completely moot.
    >
    > Use someone else's code in a commercial product and you better be
    > prepared to read and understand the fine print. Big news there (not)!
    >


    It's none of a GPL licensor's concern how I use someone else's
    commercial product.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack





  18. Re: GPL propaganda

    JEDIDIAH wrote:
    > On 2008-09-26, Rjack wrote:
    >> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    >>> Rjack writes:
    >>>
    >>> [ more anti-GPL blather, under yet another subject heading ]
    >>>
    >>> Rjack, I notice that as soon as you lose the argument under one subject
    >>> heading, you restart it with a new subject heading. Do you really think
    >>> that by repeating the same thing, you will get a different result?

    >> What argument is that Rahul? That a copyright license is a contract?

    >
    > It doesn't matter what you call it.

    You, like Eben Moglen fantasize that it doesn't.

    > It's the only thing that gives
    > you authorization to re-distribute the work.
    >
    > [deletia]
    >


    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  19. Re: GPL propaganda

    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > Rjack wrote:
    >> 2) Do care about GPL advocates stealing other people's exclusive
    >> rights with an illegal copyright license.

    >
    > Someone in Florida who cared ever so deeply about other
    > people just got himself disbarred for life. There's a
    > lesson somewhere in there.


    So what?

    Someone in Florida who didn't care ever so deeply about other
    people just got himself disbarred for life. There's a
    lesson somewhere in there.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack


  20. Re: GPL propaganda

    Rjack wrote:
    > Try the doctrine of copyright misuse.


    I can hear the soft mocking laughter of the judge when this
    argument is presented and he notes that the GPL gives anyone
    the right to run, read, and modify the program with absolutely
    no restrictions.

    > Try violation of 17 USC 301.


    You cannot violate 301. That's the preemption section, and it
    just takes copyright cases into federal law. Violation of the
    GPL is copyright infringement, and it will be treated as such
    by the federal courts.

    > Try impossible contract terms.


    It's a license, not a contract, and the terms are not only not
    impossible, complying with them is extremely easy.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast