[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!" |
Date: |
Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:34:56 +0100 |
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >> > What does that ("honoring the terms of the GPL for standalone
> >> > Ghostscript") have to do with the copyright law, Hyman?
> >> > The GPL is not the copyright law, don't you agree with that, Hyman?
> >>
> >> Copyright law forbids Diebold from making copies of Ghostscript
> >> and distributing them. In order to do so legally, they must have
> >> permission from the copyright holder. That permission comes either
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >> from the GPL or from a separate license agreement with Artifex.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > "or from a separate license agreement with Artifex."
> >
> > Hyman, Hyman.
> >
> > http://ghostscript.com/doc/current/COPYING itself states:
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > "nothing else grants you permission"
> >
> > "nothing else grants you permission"
> >
> > "nothing else grants you permission"
> >
> > Ha, ha.
>
> I suppose you really must be as dense as you appear if you harp like
> that on this sentence. It does not mean "nothing and nobody else can
It means what it says. And it says
"nothing else grants you permission"
[... 5c ...]
Where did you find 5c in http://ghostscript.com/doc/current/COPYING
GNUtian dak?
GPLv3 Section 5 (formerly known as 2 in GPLv2) is about FSF's utterly
idiotic theory about "combined" works being derivative works in the GNU
republic and 5c is about linking (aka "runtime") "exceptions" a la
http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~etsman/Docs/gcc-3.4-base/libstdc++/html/17_intro/license.html
meant to make the GPL + "exception" less infectious than the plain GPL.
BTW, speaking of GPLv3, it also says:
"nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or
modify any covered work"
Ha, ha.
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.)
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", David Kastrup, 2008/12/01
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!",
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2008/12/03
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rjack, 2008/12/03
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2008/12/03
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", David Kastrup, 2008/12/03
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2008/12/03
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", amicus_curious, 2008/12/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", David Kastrup, 2008/12/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", amicus_curious, 2008/12/04