Re: GNU licenses

[David Kastrup]

alexander.terekhov@gmail.com writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Of course it does.  I make a living from it.
>
> Care to elaborate? Who pays you and for what exactly?

Publishing houses and institutes with typesetting needs.  I do
consulting and creation of individual software for TeX-based
typesetting tasks.  The results typically consist of document classes
coding the specific layouts of the customer, and packages implementing
the necessary algorithms and techniques.

The layout-specific stuff stays with the customer (after all, it
incorporates his own book design), the general stuff gets released
later.

>> > the licensing of rights to your work (and its derivatives) is
>> > fixed at no charge (recall that Wallace says that price-fixing
>> > derivatives below cost is unlawful, and that the 7th Circuit
>> > Court have yet to review his claim "de novo").
>>
>> Wallace claims a lot of nonsense when the day is long.  Which is
>> why his cases get thrown out of court for lack of stating a case
>> after several attempts.
>
> How many times do you want me to quote Judge Tinder, retard?

Did he or didn't he throw out the case for lack of stating a claim?

>> Anyway, you may not charge extra for the act of licensing, but
>> nobody forces you to make the source available to anybody but your
>> paying customers.
>
> Dak, dak, dak. ROFL. True retard you are. Take the FSF's GPL quiz.

I think I know better what I am talking about than you:

> Or just visit
>
> http://www.itmanagersjournal.com/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/1659203
> (10 common misunderstandings about the GPL)
>
> ------
> 8. Distributors only need to offer source code to their customers
>
> If distributors opt to provide an offer for source code, then under
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note that this is just one special option, and not the usual option
taken.  I actually know not a single actual case where the written
offer option was chosen instead of directly providing the source code.

Can you name even a single case?  Just one?

And how would one be obliged to any third party when one simply used
either option 3a) _OR_ option 3c)?  "Any third party" only comes into
play for option 3b).  Here is the excerpt you seem to have forgotten
again:

  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
     under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the
     terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of
     the following:

Do you understand "one of the following", dear Alexander?

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

> See also the GPLv3d2 rationale/clarification, stupid.

GPLv3d2 does not bear on GPLv2.  You are not improving your case.
Before resorting to name calling, you should reread GPLv2.  You seem
to have forgotten its contents.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum