gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [LOL] Hey Alan, Pee Jay's mind is going to explode soon


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: [LOL] Hey Alan, Pee Jay's mind is going to explode soon
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:12:50 -0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 4/8/2010 12:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> >> > Uh idiot Hyman...
>> >> > For indentation, go to
>> >> > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100403103524185#comments
>> >> > and search for "Terekhov", silly Hyman.
>> >>
>> >> The point of communication is to communicate.
>> >
>> > Here's the communication: STOP BEING UTTER IDIOT HYMAN!
>> 
>> I don't see him attempting to compete with you in that area.
>
> Said IDIOT dak who wrote in 2004:
>
> http://forum.golem.de/read.php?44,216061,page=1
>
> "Man kann niemanden wegen Verstoßes gegen die GPL verklagen, da die GPL
> kein Vertrag und kein Gesetz ist."
>
> UTTER IDIOT dak in 2010:
>
> ----
>> http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
>>
>> "The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor
>> the right to copy, ..."
>
> Germany might call things different ...

And actually, Germany _does_ call things different.  The original text
is:

    Diese drei Softwareprogramme werden ausschließlich unter der GNU
    General Public License (GPL) lizensiert.

    Die GPL gestattet jedermann, der einen solchen Vertrag als
    Lizenznehmer schließen will, die Vervielfältigung, Verbreitung und
    Veränderung der Software, wenn die Weitergabe ebenfalls wieder unter
    den Bedingungen dieser Lizenz erfolgt, insbesondere auf die GPL
    hingewiesen, der Lizenztext der GPL beigefügt, der Quellcode
    zugänglich gemacht und auf einen Gewährleistungsausschluss
    hingewiesen wird.

Translated properly: The GPL permits anyone who desires to enter into
such a contract as a licensee, the reproduction [...] as long as the
redistribution happens under the very same conditions of this license
[...].

So the wording of the verdict makes clear that the GPL is the
_permission_ to enter into a contractual relation, but not a contract in
itself.

Seems like the translation you cite does not fully reflect the original
wording.

When you have time for it, you may want to wipe the foam off your mouth.

-- 
David Kastrup


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]