Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
On 2/5/2010 3:51 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Did you check with the FSF/SFLC whether manual is available on paper in the box covers online distribution of GPL'd binaries ala http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is accompanied by source found at http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/FiOSInternet/Networking/Troubleshooting/QuestionsOne/124346.htm. Verizon also makes source available through the offer of a physical copy for no more than distribution costs ($10) listed on the same page. The manufacturers of the hardware also make source available at http://opensource.actiontec.com/, and offer physical copies for $10 as well. This satisfies the BusyBox rights holders, who therefore settled their case against Verizon. It satisfies anyone who wishes to obtain the GPLed code for the firmware. It dissatisfies only you, who is looking to believe that there is someone who is deliberately distributing GPLed code while not complying with its license. But there is no one who is doing that. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: As the GPL fades
On 2/5/2010 3:57 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: How did you find that link It's certainly not mentioned by http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp I found it using a simple search on Verizon.com. You can look for MI424WR, or Actiontec FiOS, or GPL and probbaly others as well. One of the links found is http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/fiosinternet/networking/setup/questionstwo/98768.htm, entitled FiOS Internet - Wireless home networking with an Actiontec MI424WR router and that page contains a link to the source code download and offer. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
On 2/8/2010 10:55 AM, RJack wrote: authorizing others to authorize simply doesn't appear in 17 USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of copyrights. Only in your Marxist land of GNU are copyright laws written that way. It's amazing that you GPL skeptics don't realize how absurd your arguments are. Were you correct, which you are not, any printing house working for a publisher would be violating the copyright of an author who had contracted with the publisher to publish his book. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/7/2010 7:19 AM, RJack wrote: If authorizing is reserved as exclusive for the author of a work how does a non-owner do any authorizing? Because the original author has authorized him to do so. Sorry Hyman, only the U.S. Congress has the power to write the copyright laws and authorizing others to authorize simply doesn't appear in 17 USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of copyrights. You mean, the author does not have the right to let a publisher create copies authorized for reading? Or that authorization to read is so utterly different from authorization to copy that the latter can't be delegated to a different party? Only in your Marxist land of GNU are copyright laws written that way. Authorization for legal acts is not particular to copyright law. Your socialist interpretation of copyright law Yaddy, yadda, yadda. Don't you have better things to do with your time than to spout ridiculous nonsense? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
On 2/8/2010 11:12 AM, RJack wrote: The plaintiffs didn't settle their case with Verizion -- they VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED WITH PREDJUDICE to stop Verizon's attorney from kicking the SFLC's pathetic ass all over the courtroom floor. That is not true. While, as external observers, we are not privy to the settlement negotiations, the clear evidence is that Verizon settled the case with the SFLC, given that GPL information and GPLed sources appeared after the case was dismissed. Verizon now includes information on the GPL in the manuals for its routers and makes the source for their firmware available on their web site or by mail. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 10:55 AM, RJack wrote: authorizing others to authorize simply doesn't appear in 17 USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of copyrights. Only in your Marxist land of GNU are copyright laws written that way. It's amazing that you GPL skeptics don't realize how absurd your arguments are. Were you correct, which you are not, any printing house working for a publisher would be violating the copyright of an author who had contracted with the publisher to publish his book. Bullshit Hyman. An author licenses a publisher and its agents to copy and distribute his work. The means by which this is accomplished is covered under the legal concept of agency. Agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a contractual or quasi-contractual tripartite, or non-contractual set of relationships when an agent is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the Principal) to create a legal relationship with a Third Party.[1] Succinctly, it may be referred to as the relationship between a principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or impliedly, authorizes the agent to work under his control and on his behalf. The agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the principal or bring him and third parties into contractual relationship. This branch of law separates and regulates the relationships between: * Agents and Principals; * Agents and the Third Parties with whom they deal on their Principals' behalf; and * Principals and the Third Parties when the Agents purport to deal on their behalf. For a technical legal deconstruction see the American Law Institutes' Restatement of the Law (Third), Agency. Keep spinnin' Hyman -- it won't help -- but keep spinnin' anyway. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 11:12 AM, RJack wrote: The plaintiffs didn't settle their case with Verizion -- they VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED WITH PREDJUDICE to stop Verizon's attorney from kicking the SFLC's pathetic ass all over the courtroom floor. That is not true. While, as external observers, we are not privy to the settlement negotiations, the clear evidence is that Verizon settled the case with the SFLC, given that GPL information and GPLed sources appeared after the case was dismissed. Verizon now includes information on the GPL in the manuals for its routers and makes the source for their firmware available on their web site or by mail. Read the Complaint Hyman. Just read the Complaint. It's a matter of public record. I'll kiss your ass on the public square if it mentions any registered copyrights. ROFL. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) as well as its predecessor, § 13, it has been held repeatedly that ownership of a copyright registration is a jurisidictional prerequisite to an action for infringement. . . . A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective and subject to dismissal.; Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195, 1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). ROFL. Who's the World gonna' believe Hyman? You or their own lying eyes? Keep spinnin' Hyman -- it won't help -- but keep spinnin' anyway. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 11:28 AM, RJack wrote: On 2/8/2010 10:55 AM, RJack wrote: authorizing others to authorize simply doesn't appear in 17 USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of copyrights. An author licenses a publisher and its agents to copy and distribute his work. The means by which this is accomplished is covered under the legal concept of agency. But the legal concept of agency does not appear in 17 USC 106 either. Neither does it explicitly mention the concept of contracts but all copyright licenses are contracts. What's your point Hyman? Denial? Obsfucation? So on the one hand you say that authorize to authorize is not permitted by the law, and on the other hand you say that authorize to authorize is permitted by the law. In any case, the GPL says http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. so all recipients of GPLed code are receiving authorization from the rights holder. Sigh... I guess I'll just leave that argument to you and your agents to try on a federal judge in a copyright infringement case Hyman. Keep spinnin' Hyman -- it won't help -- but keep spinnin' anyway. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 11:28 AM, RJack wrote: On 2/8/2010 10:55 AM, RJack wrote: authorizing others to authorize simply doesn't appear in 17 USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of copyrights. An author licenses a publisher and its agents to copy and distribute his work. The means by which this is accomplished is covered under the legal concept of agency. But the legal concept of agency does not appear in 17 USC 106 either. Neither does it explicitly mention the concept of contracts but all copyright licenses are contracts. Nonsense. The GPL is not a contract since the recipient of software is not required to sign, accept, or even take notice of it. If he wants to make use of this license, adherence to its conditions is held to the same standards as with contracts. But he is under no obligation to make use of the license. He can chuck it in the bin and perfectly legally act like he never saw it. You can't do that with a contract. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
Hyman Rosen writes: Lawsuits are not graded on style points, they are judged by outcomes. But there have been no lawsuits, just out of court settlements in favor of the plaintiffs. As to registration, look at this: http://www.gonzagaip.org/blog/?p=149 among others. While you clearly need either a registration application or a refusal before going to trial, it is not at all clear that one is required before filing. If the court does insist on one (which it will only do if the defendant brings it up) and you don't have it when you file your case will merely be dismissed without prejudice and with instructions to refile after you get it. It is also not clear to me that the complaint must mention the registration status of the work. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 11:37 AM, RJack wrote: Read the Complaint Hyman. Just read the Complaint. It's a matter of public record. I'll kiss your ass on the public square if it mentions any registered copyrights. And yet, despite all your claims as to the inadequacy of the complaints, in every single case filed by the SFLC the defendants have settled and come into compliance with the GPL. If supposedly inadequate complaints are sufficient to accomplish the goals of GPL compliance, what is the point of complaining about them? Lawsuits are not graded on style points, they are judged by outcomes. The Captain's scared them out of the water! http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 11:49 AM, RJack wrote: Sigh... I guess I'll just leave that argument to you and your agents to try on a federal judge in a copyright infringement case Hyman. Yes, exactly. Even if you were correct about downstream distributors not having authorization to distribute, which you are not, before this could be a court issue the rights holders would have to sue the downstream distributors for copyright infringement. Since the rights holders want this distribution to occur, as evidenced by using the GPL as the license, this will never happen. Hm... Keep spinnin' Hyman -- it won't help -- but keep spinnin' anyway. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 11:28 AM, RJack wrote: On 2/8/2010 10:55 AM, RJack wrote: authorizing others to authorize simply doesn't appear in 17 USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of copyrights. An author licenses a publisher and its agents to copy and distribute his work. The means by which this is accomplished is covered under the legal concept of agency. But the legal concept of agency does not appear in 17 USC 106 either. Neither does it explicitly mention the concept of contracts but all copyright licenses are contracts. Nonsense. The GPL is not a contract since the recipient of software is not required to sign, accept, or even take notice of it. If he wants to make use of this license, adherence to its conditions is held to the same standards as with contracts. But he is under no obligation to make use of the license. He can chuck it in the bin and perfectly legally act like he never saw it. You can't do that with a contract. Your tautology is brilliant dak. Keep it up. You're a veritable Logician. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 11:37 AM, RJack wrote: Read the Complaint Hyman. Just read the Complaint. It's a matter of public record. I'll kiss your ass on the public square if it mentions any registered copyrights. And yet, despite all your claims as to the inadequacy of the complaints, in every single case filed by the SFLC the defendants have settled and come into compliance with the GPL. If supposedly inadequate complaints are sufficient to accomplish the goals of GPL compliance, what is the point of complaining about them? Lawsuits are not graded on style points, they are judged by outcomes. The Captain's scared them out of the water! http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. Well, since it is actually rather big fish that have been scared out of the water, there is not much point to your bickering. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
John Hasler wrote: Hyman Rosen writes: Lawsuits are not graded on style points, they are judged by outcomes. But there have been no lawsuits, just out of court settlements in favor of the plaintiffs. As to registration, look at this: http://www.gonzagaip.org/blog/?p=149 among others. While you clearly need either a registration application or a refusal before going to trial, it is not at all clear that one is required before filing. If the court does insist on one (which it will only do if the defendant brings it up) and you don't have it when you file your case will merely be dismissed without prejudice and with instructions to refile after you get it. It is also not clear to me that the complaint must mention the registration status of the work. Per your link: A circuit split has developed as to whether the prospective litigant must have a registration in hand before filing a lawsuit or merely applied for the registration. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where the SFLC files its lawsuits has ruled in 2007 in In re Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation, 509 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2007 cert. granted Mar 2009), Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is not up for debate in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we have squarely held that it is. The Verizon suit was settled in Mar. 2008 before Section 411 was amended by Congress in Oct. 2008. The old sec. 411 requirements will apply to all actions settled prior to Oct. 2008. I personally hope the pending suit in Erik Andersen v. Best Buy et.al. is heard by the court. Erik Andersen filed a fraudulent registration application with the Copyright Office claiming ownership of busybox-0.60.3 Just ask Bruce Perens and about twenty other BusyBox developers: *** The contents of the AUTHORS file in tarball busybox-0.60.3.tar.bz2: List of the authors of code contained in BusyBox. If you have code in BusyBox, you should be listed here. If you should be listed, or the description of what you have done needs more detail, or is incorect, _please_ let me know. -Erik --- Erik Andersen ander...@codepoet.org, ander...@debian.org Tons of new stuff, major rewrite of most of the core apps, tons of new apps as noted in header files. Edward Betts edw...@debian.org expr, hostid, logname, tty, wc, whoami, yes John Beppu be...@codepoet.org du, head, nslookup, sort, tee, uniq Brian Candler b.cand...@pobox.com tiny-ls(ls) Randolph Chung ta...@debian.org fbset, ping, hostname, and mkfifo Dave Cinege dcin...@psychosis.com more(v2), makedevs, dutmp, modularization, auto links file, various fixes, Linux Router Project maintenance Magnus Damm d...@opensource.se tftp client insmod powerpc support Larry Doolittle ldool...@recycle.lbl.gov pristine source directory compilation, lots of patches and fixes. Gennady Feldman gfeld...@cachier.com Sysklogd (single threaded syslogd, IPC Circular buffer support, logread), various fixes. Karl M. Hegbloom karl...@debian.org cp_mv.c, the test suite, various fixes to utility.c, c. Daniel Jacobowitz d...@debian.org mktemp.c Matt Kraai kr...@alumni.carnegiemellon.edu documentation, bugfixes, test suite John Lombardo j...@deltanet.com dirname, tr Glenn McGrath b...@optushome.com.au ar, dpkg, dpkg-deb Vladimir Oleynik d...@simtreas.ru cmdedit; ports: ash, stty, traceroute; locale, various fixes and irreconcilable critic of everything not perfect. Bruce Perens br...@pixar.com Original author of BusyBox. His code is still in many apps. Tim Riker t...@rikers.org bug fixes, member of fan club Kent Robotti robo...@metconnect.com reset, tons and tons of bug reports and patchs. Chip Rosenthal c...@unicom.com, crose...@covad.com wget - Contributed by permission of Covad Communications Pavel Roskin pro...@gnu.org Lots of bugs fixes and patches. Gyepi Sam gy...@praxis-sw.com Remote logging feature for syslogd Linus Torvalds torva...@transmeta.com mkswap, fsck.minix, mkfs.minix Mark Whitley ma...@codepoet.org grep, sed, cut, xargs, style-guide, new-applet-HOWTO, bug fixes, etc. Charles P. Wright cpwri...@villagenet.com gzip, mini-netcat(nc) Enrique Zanardi ezana...@ull.es tarcat (since removed), loadkmap, various fixes, Debian maintenance Emanuele Aina emanuele.a...@tiscali.it run-parts Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
On 2/8/2010 1:40 PM, RJack wrote: Just ask Bruce Perens and about twenty other BusyBox developers Registration of copyright is for the author's contribution to a work, or for the result of compiling the contributions of others into a single work. It does not necessarily claim ownership of the entire work. Please see Gaiman v. McFarlane, 360 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2004). Therefore, it is not relevant that there are other authors of BusyBox, or that they do not wish to enforce the GPL against infringers. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane The creator of a compilation is entitled to copyright it as long as it’s a work “formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101; see also § 103. The compiler’s copyright entitles him to reprint the contents of the compilation in future editions of the compilation. 17 U.S.C. § 201(c); New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483, 493-97 (2001). But all the other rights of copyright remain in the authors of the contributions, provided the contributions satisfy the criteria of copyrightability. Therefore the compiler’s copyright notice is not adverse to the contributors’ copyrights and so does not put them on notice that their rights are being challenged. On the contrary, “a single copyright notice applicable to the collective work as a whole serves to indicate protection for all the contributions in the collective work, except for advertisements, regardless of the ownership of copyright in the individual contributions and whether they have been published previously.” United States Copyright Office, Circular No. 3: Copyright Notice 3 (2004); see Sanga Music, Inc. v. EMI Blackwood Music, Inc., 55 F.3d 756, 759-60 (2d Cir. 1995); Abend v. MCA, Inc., 863 F.2d 1465, 1469 (9th Cir. 1988), aff’d under the name Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (1990). ... In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered copyright on the issues and the books. But to suppose that by doing so he provided notice to Gaiman of his exclusive claim to the characters is again untenable. Authors don’t consult the records of the Copyright Office to see whether someone has asserted copyright in their works; and anyway McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s own contributions as compiler and illustrator, than the copyright notices did. The significance of registration is that it is a prerequisite to a suit to enforce a copyright. More precisely, an application to register must be filed, and either granted or refused, before suit can be brought. 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 1:40 PM, RJack wrote: Just ask Bruce Perens and about twenty other BusyBox developers Registration of copyright is for the author's contribution to a work, or for the result of compiling the contributions of others into a single work. It does not necessarily claim ownership of the entire work. Please see Gaiman v. McFarlane, 360 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2004). Therefore, it is not relevant that there are other authors of BusyBox, or that they do not wish to enforce the GPL against infringers. The code for busybox-0.60.3 was released in Nov. 2001. So now you are claiming that eight years later in (Dec. 2009) that 14 companies are distributing a *specific* arrangement (compilation) of source code that Erik Andersen himself personally arranged as an original work in 2001? The creator of a compilation is entitled to copyright it as long as it’s a work “formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” H... where is that specific, exclusive arrangement of busybox-0.60.3 code? If Andersen claims a specific* arrangement of 2001 BusyBox code to evade fraudulent registration then he has exactly zero chance of proving infringment of current 2009 BusyBox releases. Hyman sometimes I think you live so deep in the Land of GNU that reality is slipping from your grasp. The Captain's scared them out of the water! http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
On 2/8/2010 2:44 PM, RJack wrote: So now you are claiming that eight years later in (Dec. 2009) that 14 companies are distributing a *specific* arrangement (compilation) of source code that Erik Andersen himself personally arranged as an original work in 2001? No. I see that failure to read is included among your many failings. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s own contributions as compiler and illustrator, than the copyright notices did Erik Anderson registered copyright in BusyBox because he is an author of some of it, and needed to register in order to pursue an infringement claim. As you can see from the court case, it is legitimate to do so. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Moglen's bullshit rap at its finest
peterwn wrote: [...] This guy you call a bull artist studied at Yale, was a clark to one of the US Supreme Court Justices and is a professor at an Ivy League law school (Columbia). http://67.23.5.65/articles/p/2005-04-08-intellectual-property-is-so-last-year?url=%23 The class is Perspectives in Modern Legal Thought, and the Professor is one Eben Moglen. A few words about the course. The official name of the class is misleading for two reasons. One, as nearly everyone I knew pointed out within the first week, there is only one perspective offered in the classMoglens. Two, most of our readings are socialist monographs that precede the fall of Communism, and are therefore neither especially modern nor legal. And a few introductory words about the Professor. Think Dartmouth education Professor Andrew Garrod meets Mussolini. An acid-tongued student in the class once described Moglen as equal parts The Fountainheads Ellsworth Toohey, Invitation to a Beheadings Monsieur Pierre, and The Offices David Brent. He is the type of professor who plays music to begin and end each class. Selections so far have included the Beatles Revolution and a rendition of the Internationale by Ani DiFranco. He is a celebrity of sorts in something called the Free Software Movement and the author of something called The Dot-Communist Manifesto. And now on to the class. Besides playing the Beatles to establish his revolutionary bona fides, Moglen wasted no time in diving into the heart of the course. We were, on that first fateful day, informed that Rudy Guliani is a fascist, reminded of Justice Scalias duck hunt with Vice President Cheney, instructed on the immorality of the second Iraq war, and somberly updated that the United States is now a torturing society...and when was the vote on that? Skeptics might wonder whether these incendiary points were absolutely essential, or even relevant, to an investigation of Oliver Wendell Holmes The Path of the Law, published in 1897, which was our assigned reading for the week. But the sort of person who would wonder something like that doesnt understand what Eben is trying to do, according to another student in the class who was frustrated that an alarming number of us didnt seem to be digging the vibe. The vibe was laid down very early: I think there was technically a vote, but the first order of business was the imperative that we were to call Eben by his first name, not Professor or Professor Moglen. The second important thing we were to keep in mind was that class was not going to be a bunch of lectures, but an ongoing conversation. This conversation would continue outside of the classroom when students could e-mail their opinions to the rest of the class. These comments vary in quality, but I have the suspicion that Im one of the only people who actually reads them. One student, apparently frustrated at accidentally opening e-mails from the mailing list, actually sent out a suggestion that future posts include a uniform heading on the title/subject of the e-mail to make the sorting of the e-mail a heck of a lot easier. Eben did not find that that particular proposal advanced the conversation, and vetoed the idea. One early submission to the mailing list, on the topic of anarchy, caught my attention: There is a rich philosophical and political anarchist movement (historical and contemporary) both in the United States and abroad. Anarchists lead [sic] the Spanish Civil War against fascism, the U.S. labor movement at the turn of the last century, and now the contemporary anti-corporate globalization movement. In New York City, they can be found building libraries and community centers, saving community gardens, and advocating peaceful discussion. There are christian [sic] anarchists, queer anarchists, anarchists of color, anarchafeminists, anarcho-hedonists, anarchoprimitivists, and anarcho-syndicalists, to name a few. The writer obviously leaves out such types as the anarcho-Haymarket-Riot-bomber and anarcho-Presidential assassin. Sadly, the e-mail is not un-representative of a large portion of the mailing list. But let me start at the beginning. I had heard the Moglen legendsthat he had, for example, murdered his father (he didnt, per se, he assisted the suicide) or that he dated students, supposedly being engaged to a woman in the current graduating class (this one may have actually been true). I was, you can imagine, wary of entering the class. I had spoken to a few Moglen veteranssome who loved him, some who hated him, and believe it or not a few in betweenand their advice was unequivocal: if you intend to survive the course, dont open your mouth. Ever. I was too stunned by what I saw the first day to deviate from their counsel, but after witnessing a foolhardy conservative literally be shouted down by Eben in class, I vowed to enter the fray. The topic was whether a society could survive without a legal system. In the spirit of Hobbes, a student pointed out
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] Erik Anderson registered copyright in BusyBox because he is an author of some of it, and needed to register Some of it being what, in contrast to the author of the work, you retard Hyman? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 3:58 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] Erik Anderson registered copyright in BusyBox because he is an author of some of it, and needed to register Some of it being what, in contrast to the author of the work By having written some parts of BusyBox, he has copyright He may have written some parts of a work called BusyBox, v.0.60.3 (as a whole, including individual contributions, and compilation of contributions overall). But he is certainly not the author of the work you moron Hyman. A whole bunch of contributions where submitted to him by others, meaning that others have authored material and/or selection work to include that material in a compilation. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
On 2/8/2010 4:24 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: But he is certainly not the author of the work As I said, I have not studied the history of BusyBox so I am in no position to gauge the accuracy of this claim. If the defendants choose to dispute this claim, then the plaintiffs will need to prove it. If he can demonstrate that he is an author of the work, he may continue with his infringement claims. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] If he can demonstrate that he is an author of the work, he may continue with his infringement claims. Existence of another author precludes the claim absent the joint claim of infringement you retard. Your A authorship in W (as in W=A+B authorship) doesn't entitle you to demand knowledge of (existence of) agreement(s) between X and B regarding W. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
On 2/8/2010 4:49 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Existence of another author precludes the claim absent the joint claim of infringement Says who? Your A authorship in W (as in W=A+B authorship) doesn't entitle you to demand knowledge of (existence of) agreement(s) between X and B regarding W. Of course it does, since X has no right to enter into agreements with B regarding W without permission of A. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] Your A authorship in W (as in W=A+B authorship) doesn't entitle you to demand knowledge of (existence of) agreement(s) between X and B regarding W. Of course it does, since X has no right to enter into agreements with B regarding W without permission of A. You are mistaken Hyman. X may well enter into agreements with B regarding W without permission of A. A's only claim agains B is A's proportional share of monetary profits gained by B. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/ownership.html One of the authors can use the entire work as they please without seeking permission from the other joint author(s). However, if a single author makes a profit through the exploitation of the joint work, then the profits will have to be shared with the other joint authors. http://www.smhllaw.com/2009/08/21/joint-authorship-and-the-copyright-act-what-happens-when-there-are-multiple-contributors-to-a-song/ The main issue under consideration by the court was whether the song was a joint work. This is because authors of a joint work each have the right to grant non-exclusive licenses for the work. [2] [2] Note that unless there is a written agreement to the contrary, a joint author must still account to the other joint author(s) for profits. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
On 2/8/2010 5:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: X may well enter into agreements with B regarding W without permission of A. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/ownership.html One of the authors can use the entire work as they please without seeking permission from the other joint author(s). However, if a single author makes a profit through the exploitation of the joint work, then the profits will have to be shared with the other joint authors. http://www.smhllaw.com/2009/08/21/joint-authorship-and-the-copyright-act-what-happens-when-there-are-multiple-contributors-to-a-song/ The main issue under consideration by the court was whether the song was a joint work. This is because authors of a joint work each have the right to grant non-exclusive licenses for the work. [2] [2] Note that unless there is a written agreement to the contrary, a joint author must still account to the other joint author(s) for profits. But also, http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/ownership.html A joint work is defined by the Copyright Act as: a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole. Under this definition, both authors must intend that their contributions be combined, and this intention must exist at the time the contribution is created. If there is no joint work, then the combined efforts of multiple authors are considered separate works temporarily joined together. ... neither party can use the work of the other party without their permission. So the defendants could try to demonstrate that this is a joint work (which would involve proving that every author intended to create a joint work) and that another author has given them permission to do what they're doing with the work. Sounds more difficult than complying with the GPL, but then I'm not a crank. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] difficult than complying with the GPL, but then I'm not a crank. You're a crank Hyman, moronic GPL aside for a moment. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
