Re: PathSearchAndQualify patch not applied?

I give up.  When you get hit legally for stealing other people's code,
I'll let you deal with it.  In the mean-time, since you won't stop
wasting the lists time on these matters, I give up.


On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 03:14, Nadav Frum wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Keef Aragon wrote:
>        
> > This does need to be taken off the list which I tried at one point to
> > do.I was wrong about the distribution of Winex code per license.  But
> > Gavriel's long reply, confirmed what Bryan and I have been saying all
> > along about copyright in general.Read it closely.
>        
> Gavriel discussed the licenses which Cedega falls under.  He does not 
> say much about copyright in general.  Neither have you.
> 
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Keef Aragon wrote:
> 
> > Nadav,
> > 
> > Most of your reply just isn't how the law works... I even double-checked
> > with my company lawyer who specializes in Software laws and licenses.
> > You may think it should work this way, which I respect 100%.While I
> > don't agree with that, I amin no place whatsoever to complain because
> > it's a large population of similar thinkers that keeps me employed.You
> > did make a valid point though:
> 
> Its always good to check with a pro.
> 
> > If you cannot stop Cedega from changing something then you do not own
> > 
> > copyrights over that change
> > 
> > This is something actively being debated in court, or rather, whether or
> > not Open Source software licenses are valid.While I think they are,
> > there are many fighting against them.There is one non-law I do assume
> > in all of my statements.That is the validity of open source licenses.
> > These have never been put up in court and there are many who call them
> > invalid and a "game."While I, again, find them to be more valid than a
> > closed-source MSEULA like license, that hasn't been officially decided
> > in a US court of law.If they are ever found not to be valid, all
> > authors will gain full unrestricted rights over their work, patches
> > included... and the Open Source movement as we know it will suffer a
> > detrimental blow.In such a decision, some of the Cedega code would
> > have to be re-written from scratch, as a small amount, though not much
> > as was the case in earlier versions of WineX, borrows code from WineHQ -
> > post LGPL switch - assuming all the authors of all the code borrowed
> > don't agree to hand it over.
> 
> I never said anything about Open Source software licenses.  Anybody who 
> owns copyright to software code can publish it with an Open Source 
> license.  This is a great concept and the ramifications regarding a 
> license like GPL are understood.  However, when your patch is not 
> copyrightable a copyright license (Open Source or otherwise) is not 
> something you should associate with it.  Doing so is whimsical.
> 
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 Rob Crittenden wrote:
>                                                                                 
> > This, folks, is what is called beating a dead horse.
> 
> This is called getting the wrong end of the stick. 
> 
> > The bottom line, as Gav has pointed out, is that Transgaming will not accept
> > patches that haven't explicitly been ok'd. Further argument is pointless, or
> > at best not applicable to this list, so take it offline.
> 
> If TG wishes not to accept patches until they have been doused with holy water
> it would be their choice.  Thank you for clarifying that.  Just keep in 
> mind that the Pope had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Nadav Frum
> ----------
> 

-- 
Keef Aragon <[email protected]>