Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: The GPL (and Linux?) in court

  • Subject: Re: The GPL (and Linux?) in court
  • From: Hadron Quark <qadronhuark@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 10:43:13 +0200
  • Cancel-lock: sha1:CCcTlr/6X/NlQA/NUXz7tCBWNME=
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: CERN LHC - http://public.web.cern.ch/public/
  • References: <4nkgdnFasdlkU1@individual.net> <20060923114806.28d93c3c@localhost.localdomain> <87irje77i6.fsf@geemail.com> <20060923200215.78794327@localhost.localdomain> <a5mgu3-vmo.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk> <reply_in_group-2E9D28.18433923092006@news.supernews.com> <20060924133438.10e1ac90@localhost.localdomain> <87lko977xs.fsf@geemail.com> <u40vu3-3s7.ln1@dragon.myth> <874puqorb0.fsf@geemail.com> <7q11v3-nl5.ln1@dragon.myth>
  • User-agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1163594
Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:17:23 +0200,
>  Hadron Quark <qadronhuark@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:41:51 +0200,
>>>  Hadron Quark <qadronhuark@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> ed <ed@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:43:39 -0700
>>>>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <a5mgu3-vmo.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>>>>  Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> > least, until they've been caught each time.  Free software needs no
>>>>>> > theft, stealing software is wrong.  Use Linux, observe the GPL.
>>>>>> How come stealing software is wrong, but stealing artwork is OK with
>>>>>> you?
>>>>> What artwork?
>>>> Roy plagiarised someones images and passed them off as his own. It is
>>>> well documented and Roy ended up apologising.
>>> No he didn't. The worst you can say, is that Roy pirated the image, in
>>> violation of copyright. 
>>> Roy did *not* claim the image (singular) was his own, and in fact, if
>>> memory serves, he linked the image back to the author. 
>>> I await your retraction of your claim, or proof, that Roy did as you
>>> claim. 
>> If that is the case I am slightly  mistaken.
>> However, by copying other peoples work and presenting it on your own
>> documents the natural progression for most people is to assume it is his
>> own work
>> Fairly simple conclusion.
>> Roy is being accused of nothing.
>> The facts are already well publicised. Roy took someones images and used
>> them in his own work.
>> Notice I say "in" as opposed to "as" here to avoid the indignant "take
>> that back" response.
> Roy made no attempt to claim the image as his own, he linked back to the
> author of said image. 

Just to put this to rest : how did he link back? Did he link the images in?

By the way, I can hardly feel sorry for you... All last night I had to listen
to her tears, so great they were redirected to a stream.  What?  Of _course_
you didn't know.  You and your little group no longer have any permissions
around here.  She changed her .lock files, too.
		-- Kevin M. Bealer, commenting on the private life of a Linux nerd

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index