Part 7 - Feb 22 2002
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:29 am
#181 From: Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 1:51 pm
Subject: Re: Re: My take on this.. krissteenhaut
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
ltning99 schreef:
> or another. So consider my use of the word 'selling' as a broad term,
> but that does not limit the consequences of 'selling stolen goods',
> which is what we are talking about here.
>
No WE aren't. YOU are, it's only you. I don't have stolen goods in my
posession, jma hasn't, nobody here has.
So, if you really want to stay hammering on that issue, you better go to
court, togheter with your pieces of evidence.
>
> > Did you know that anyone can use/build a patented thing as long
> > as you dont make any money out of it.
>
> Tell that to all the free software developers that have been jailed or
> prosecuted for their development efforts, all over the world.
Again, it's not all over the World, it's only in the USA and Japan if we are
speaking of patent rights. Maybe YOU are speaking about something else, but WE
are speaking about source codes. Source codes can't be patented in Russia and
Europe, that's how it is, period. Programs generated from source codes can be
copyrighted, but that's quite another matter.
So, whether you like it or not, we are free to examine the source codes. I am
entitled to disassemble the os2 kernel of my Warp 4 copy, and generate
something else out of is, just as a composer is entitled to generate music out
of his source codes: music notes, musical notation, chords, staffs, clefs,
orchestration samples etc.. etc... . A song may be copyrighted by the editor
and may be protected by authors right. That doesn't prevent me to use A, a,
B, c , C, c etc etc in songs and/or compositions of my own.
>
> Besides this discussion is not about patents, it's about copyrighted
> material - an entirely different discussion. Unfortunately you seem to
> lack the understanding of those terms.
>
No, the discussion is about patents. Programs generated from source code(s)
can be copyrighted. Quite a different issue.
>
> That's not what I'm saying. You were saying that as long as noone is
> brought to court and convicted, anything is legal and OK. It is not.
If your esteem is something is illegal, you're free to go to court. Bottom
line: nobody here has stolen anything. If you claim to know otherwise, you're
free to go court.
>
> You are talking as if the quesiton 'is this stolen stuff or not' is
> still open, which it isn't. Every hard-core OS/2 developer I know that
> has looked at this thing comes to the same conclusion within 1 minute.
>
That's a good example of jumping to conclusions and hear saying. Won't stand
in court.
>
> I am guilty of one crime, you are guilty of another (supporting the
> distribution of stolen goods),
Go to court please put your evidence onto table.
>
> I have come to realize. I apologise for assuming everyone knows.
> However now that this knowledge is out, everyone should turn their
> back on the osFree project. Continuing to support it while knowing
> what it really is (stolen property) is a crime in itself, and to be
> honest I am embarrassed by the fact that people are still talking
> positively about this effort.
>
I am embarrassed by your false accusations.
>
> > Seems your part of a secret brotherhood that thinks you should be
> > allowed to have the code but noone else.
> > I'd assume you are in some way better then the rest of us ?
>
> I'm not. And I would never speak against anyone for simply 'having'
> the sourcecode. As I said before, there is a pretty big difference
> between just 'having' it and actually USING it
Bullshit. Or you are entitled to have it, or you don't. If you are entitled to
have it, source code(s) that is, you are entitled to use it. That is in Europe
and Russia.
>
> > But its useless to discuss these things !!
>
> No it is not. It is absolutely 100% necessary to discuss these things
> - if the OS/2 community decides that this (osFree) is OK, I can no
> longer be a member of that community.
>
Then you should quit by now, as IBM definitely has pulled out the plug.
> I am interested in an OS OS/2, but THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT!! I am
It's the only way to do. A big thank you to IBM.
>
> on this list because I believe it needs to be pointed out, but it
> seems as if I'm speaking for deaf ears.
>
That's just because your arguments aren't valid.
--
Groeten uit Gent,
Kris
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 1:51 pm
Subject: Re: Re: My take on this.. krissteenhaut
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
ltning99 schreef:
> or another. So consider my use of the word 'selling' as a broad term,
> but that does not limit the consequences of 'selling stolen goods',
> which is what we are talking about here.
>
No WE aren't. YOU are, it's only you. I don't have stolen goods in my
posession, jma hasn't, nobody here has.
So, if you really want to stay hammering on that issue, you better go to
court, togheter with your pieces of evidence.
>
> > Did you know that anyone can use/build a patented thing as long
> > as you dont make any money out of it.
>
> Tell that to all the free software developers that have been jailed or
> prosecuted for their development efforts, all over the world.
Again, it's not all over the World, it's only in the USA and Japan if we are
speaking of patent rights. Maybe YOU are speaking about something else, but WE
are speaking about source codes. Source codes can't be patented in Russia and
Europe, that's how it is, period. Programs generated from source codes can be
copyrighted, but that's quite another matter.
So, whether you like it or not, we are free to examine the source codes. I am
entitled to disassemble the os2 kernel of my Warp 4 copy, and generate
something else out of is, just as a composer is entitled to generate music out
of his source codes: music notes, musical notation, chords, staffs, clefs,
orchestration samples etc.. etc... . A song may be copyrighted by the editor
and may be protected by authors right. That doesn't prevent me to use A, a,
B, c , C, c etc etc in songs and/or compositions of my own.
>
> Besides this discussion is not about patents, it's about copyrighted
> material - an entirely different discussion. Unfortunately you seem to
> lack the understanding of those terms.
>
No, the discussion is about patents. Programs generated from source code(s)
can be copyrighted. Quite a different issue.
>
> That's not what I'm saying. You were saying that as long as noone is
> brought to court and convicted, anything is legal and OK. It is not.
If your esteem is something is illegal, you're free to go to court. Bottom
line: nobody here has stolen anything. If you claim to know otherwise, you're
free to go court.
>
> You are talking as if the quesiton 'is this stolen stuff or not' is
> still open, which it isn't. Every hard-core OS/2 developer I know that
> has looked at this thing comes to the same conclusion within 1 minute.
>
That's a good example of jumping to conclusions and hear saying. Won't stand
in court.
>
> I am guilty of one crime, you are guilty of another (supporting the
> distribution of stolen goods),
Go to court please put your evidence onto table.
>
> I have come to realize. I apologise for assuming everyone knows.
> However now that this knowledge is out, everyone should turn their
> back on the osFree project. Continuing to support it while knowing
> what it really is (stolen property) is a crime in itself, and to be
> honest I am embarrassed by the fact that people are still talking
> positively about this effort.
>
I am embarrassed by your false accusations.
>
> > Seems your part of a secret brotherhood that thinks you should be
> > allowed to have the code but noone else.
> > I'd assume you are in some way better then the rest of us ?
>
> I'm not. And I would never speak against anyone for simply 'having'
> the sourcecode. As I said before, there is a pretty big difference
> between just 'having' it and actually USING it
Bullshit. Or you are entitled to have it, or you don't. If you are entitled to
have it, source code(s) that is, you are entitled to use it. That is in Europe
and Russia.
>
> > But its useless to discuss these things !!
>
> No it is not. It is absolutely 100% necessary to discuss these things
> - if the OS/2 community decides that this (osFree) is OK, I can no
> longer be a member of that community.
>
Then you should quit by now, as IBM definitely has pulled out the plug.
> I am interested in an OS OS/2, but THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT!! I am
It's the only way to do. A big thank you to IBM.
>
> on this list because I believe it needs to be pointed out, but it
> seems as if I'm speaking for deaf ears.
>
That's just because your arguments aren't valid.
--
Groeten uit Gent,
Kris