Re: An Open Letter of Thanks to Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote: [...] You are more like working on poo. You've been TROLLED stupid dak! Ha ha. :-) 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: SFLC in frivolous mode again
Alexander Terekhov wrote: (Update) RJack wrote: After having read this newsgroup and learning that you must register your BusyBox copyrights prior to filing suit for infringement, the SFLC has filed a new lawsuit with fourteen defendants this time. Seven defendants appeared though the NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by their lawyers: Comtred ZYXEL Dobbs Western Westinghouse Astak JVC Humax Phoebe BTW, Eben The Bullshiter was bragging about his I've got a GPL compliance lawsuit against BestBuy during the freetard cult brainwashing fest in the QA section... http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2010/feb/08/audio-and-video-eben-moglens-talk-freedom-cloud-no/ if I recall correctly. I wish the real lawyers now appearing in the lawsuit decide enough is enough and bring a disciplinary bar action against the bullshiter... thus far. Pacer's 02/03/2010 38 for JVC was the latest. 01/06/2010 15 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Emily Bab Kirsch on behalf of Comtred Corporation (Kirsch, Emily) (Entered: 01/06/2010) 01/07/2010 16 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Emily Bab Kirsch on behalf of ZYXEL Communications Inc. (Kirsch, Emily) (Entered: 01/07/2010) 01/07/2010 17 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Michael T. Mervis on behalf of Dobbs-Stanford Corporation (Mervis, Michael) (Entered: 01/07/2010) 01/07/2010 18 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Justin F. Heinrich on behalf of Dobbs-Stanford Corporation (Heinrich, Justin) (Entered: 01/07/2010) 01/26/2010 31 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Ognjan Varbanov Shentov on behalf of Western Digital Corporation (Shentov, Ognjan) (Entered: 01/26/2010) 01/27/2010 32 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Kyle Bradford Fleming on behalf of Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC (Fleming, Kyle) (Entered: 01/27/2010) 02/02/2010 36 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Emily Bab Kirsch on behalf of Astak Inc. (Kirsch, Emily) (Entered: 02/02/2010) 02/02/2010 37 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Lynn Michelle Marvin on behalf of Western Digital Corporation (Marvin, Lynn) (Entered: 02/02/2010) 02/03/2010 38 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David Lawrence Yohai on behalf of JVC Americas Corporation (Yohai, David) (Entered: 02/03/2010) 02/05/2010 39 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Airina Lynn Rodrigues on behalf of Humax USA Inc. (Rodrigues, Airina) (Entered: 02/05/2010) 02/05/2010 40 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Andrew Lawrence Deutsch on behalf of Humax USA Inc. (Deutsch, Andrew) (Entered: 02/05/2010) 02/09/2010 41 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Andrew Kaver on behalf of Phoebe Micro, Inc. (Kaver, Andrew) (Entered: 02/09/2010) 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Spamowitz Roy http://boycott-boycottnovell.com/index.php/the-news/88-roy-schestowitz-demands-expansion-of-qgodwins-lawq wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Copyrights and wrongs http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/02/08/copyrights-and-wrongs/ See comments. Huh? In comments, Larry Rosen correctly noted: Under US copyright law, only the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right is entitled ... to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right... 17 USC 501. So if all you have is a non-exclusive license, or indeed if all you have is joint ownership, you cannot enforce that copyright in court without the other owners joining in. At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ in which (1) the Software Freedom Conservancy is utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known as busybox at http://busybox.net/. 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ in which (1) the Software Freedom Conservancy is utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known as busybox at http://busybox.net/. Under your legal theories, Apple could not sue for violation of MacOSX licenses unless Berkeley university joins their lawsuit. But it's certainly not the first time that the reality in the courts does not match your wet dreams. You'll be sulking over drunken judges and whatever else soon again, no doubt. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
On 2/10/2010 10:08 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ in which (1) the Software Freedom Conservancy is utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known as busybox at http://busybox.net/. The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it has filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the GPL. No defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs. I understand how frustrating it must be for the GPL skeptics to see such untrammeled success, and how they must hope for some external force to appear and turn things their way. But that won't happen. You are also quite wrong about joint works in at leats four separate ways. http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html, According to the Copyright Act, the authors of a joint work jointly own the copyright in the work they create. A joint work is defined in Section 101 of 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. When the copyright in a work is jointly owned, each joint owner can use or license the work in the United States without the consent of the other owner, provided that the use does not destroy the value of the work and the parties do not have an agreement requiring the consent of each owner for use or licensing. A joint owner who licenses a work must share any royalties he or she receives with the other owners. First, BusyBox is a joint work only if all the authors have agreed to make it so. Given that one of the authors is a party to the suit and can insist that he did not intend to form such a joint work, the plaintiffs might have a difficult time showing otherwise. Second, if BusyBox is a joint work, then each author has full rights in the work and may sue for infringement without needing permission from the other authors. Third, even if BusyBox is a joint work, each contributing author has released his changes under the GPL, and therefore it may be argued that there is an agreement in place among the authors that the only way their work may be copied and distributed is by GPL. Fourth, even if BusyBox is a joint work, the plaintiffs need to demonstrate that they have permission to copy and distribute it in some way other than under the GPL, granted to them by some author of the joint work. That one author has said after the suit was filed that he does not want to be a party to it does not mean that he has granted permission to copy and distribute BusyBox outside of the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Take your meds, Hyman. Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 10:08 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ in which (1) the Software Freedom Conservancy is utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known as busybox at http://busybox.net/. The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it has filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the GPL. No defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs. I understand how frustrating it must be for the GPL skeptics to see such untrammeled success, and how they must hope for some external force to appear and turn things their way. But that won't happen. You are also quite wrong about joint works in at leats four separate ways. http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html, According to the Copyright Act, the authors of a joint work jointly own the copyright in the work they create. A joint work is defined in Section 101 of 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. When the copyright in a work is jointly owned, each joint owner can use or license the work in the United States without the consent of the other owner, provided that the use does not destroy the value of the work and the parties do not have an agreement requiring the consent of each owner for use or licensing. A joint owner who licenses a work must share any royalties he or she receives with the other owners. First, BusyBox is a joint work only if all the authors have agreed to make it so. Given that one of the authors is a party to the suit and can insist that he did not intend to form such a joint work, the plaintiffs might have a difficult time showing otherwise. Second, if BusyBox is a joint work, then each author has full rights in the work and may sue for infringement without needing permission from the other authors. Third, even if BusyBox is a joint work, each contributing author has released his changes under the GPL, and therefore it may be argued that there is an agreement in place among the authors that the only way their work may be copied and distributed is by GPL. Fourth, even if BusyBox is a joint work, the plaintiffs need to demonstrate that they have permission to copy and distribute it in some way other than under the GPL, granted to them by some author of the joint work. That one author has said after the suit was filed that he does not want to be a party to it does not mean that he has granted permission to copy and distribute BusyBox outside of the GPL. 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 10:39 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of ownership http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered copyright on the issues and the books. ... McFarlanes registrations no more revealed an intent to claim copyright in Gaimans contributions, as distinct from McFarlanes own contributions as compiler and illustrator, . . . Uh retard Hyman. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2ti=1,2Search%5FArg=busyboxSearch%5FCode=TALLCNT=25PID=C56aDfGGYoWR1oMK5BIoLaV4QdHU7SEQ=20100210103005SID=1 Basis of Claim: New and revised computer source code by Erik Andersen. Take the meds and call your doctor to explain to you that ownership of computer source code (aka a computer program work under 17 USC 101) has nothing to do with ownership as compiler as in 17 USC 101 'compilation'. Nor has it anything to do with ownership of separate and independant works such Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works under 17 USC 101, silly. 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
On 2/10/2010 11:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: ownership of computer source code (aka a computer program work under 17 USC 101) has nothing to do with ownership as compiler as in 17 USC 101 'compilation'. Nor has it anything to do with ownership of separate and independant works such Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works under 17 USC 101 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered copyright on the issues and the books. ... 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, . . . Your reading comprehension is as lacking as always. Registration of copyright in a work is not a claim against any co-authors who may exist. It is a formal notice by an author that he has copyright in the work. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Take your meds, Hyman. Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 11:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: ownership of computer source code (aka a computer program work under 17 USC 101) has nothing to do with ownership as compiler as in 17 USC 101 'compilation'. Nor has it anything to do with ownership of separate and independant works such Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works under 17 USC 101 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered copyright on the issues and the books. ... McFarlanes registrations no more revealed an intent to claim copyright in Gaimans contributions, as distinct from McFarlanes own contributions as compiler and illustrator, . . . Your reading comprehension is as lacking as always. Registration of copyright in a work is not a claim against any co-authors who may exist. It is a formal notice by an author that he has copyright in the work. 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Take your meds, Hyman. How would that help your running out of arguments? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] A compilation work which you call 'MacOSX' is a collective work (see 17 USC 101 for both 'compilation' and 'collective work') of Apple and only Apple, silly. Without any components with copyright by other parties? The copyright on components (distinct from the compilation work) is totally separate/independent copyright (distinct from the copyright on compilation) you retard dak. So for any component with copyrighted parts from other parties (like BSD), Apple could not sue for breach of copyright without having the other parties joining the suit? Reality check... Apple's COMPILATION WORK is NOT A JOINT WORK you retard. Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple. It's not a joint work under 17 USC 101. 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Take your meds, Hyman. How would that help your running out of arguments? Hyman just can't grok it. Or rather he is simply acting as an utter moron just for fun, I think. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane That would not, to repeat, matter in a case such as this in which the registered work is a compilation. That would not, to repeat, matter in a case such as this in which the registered work is a compilation. That would not, to repeat, matter in a case such as this in which the registered work is a compilation. Here's more: Gaiman contends that he and McFarlane are joint owners of the copyrights on the three characters by reason of their respective contributions to joint (indivisible) work. 17 U.S.C. § 101; Seshadri v. Kasraian, 130 F.3d 798, 803-04 (7th Cir. 1997); Erickson v. Trinity Theatre, Inc., 13 F.3d 1061, 1067-72 (7th Cir. 1994); Thomson v. Larson, 147 F.3d 195, 199-205 (2d Cir. 1998). McFarlane concedes Gaimans joint ownership of Angela, but not of the other two; . . . As a co-owner, McFarlane was not violating the Copyright Act by unilaterally publishing the jointly owned work, but, as in any other case of conversion or misappropriation, he would have to account to the other joint owner for the latters share of the profits. Zuill v. Shanahan, supra, 80 F.3d at 1369. When co-ownership is conceded and the only issue therefore is the contractual, or in the absence of contract the equitable, division of the profits from the copyrighted work, there is no issue of copyright law and the suit for an accounting of profits therefore arises under state rather than federal law. Goodman v. Lee, 78 F.3d 1007, 1013 (5th Cir. 1996); Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630, 633 and n. 2 (9th Cir. 1984); Mountain States Properties, Inc. v. Robinson, 771 P.2d 5, 6-7 (Colo. App. 1988). It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Saturday Evening Post Co. v. Rumbleseat Press, Inc., 816 F.2d 1191, 1194-95 (7th Cir. 1987); T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823, 824, 828 (2d Cir. 1964) (Friendly, J.); cf. International Armor Limousine Co. v. Moloney Coachbuilders, Inc., 272 F.3d 912, 915-16 (7th Cir. 2001). And in that event the applicable statute of limitations would be state rather than federal. Hey moron dak: It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. But the GPL is not a contract, right dak? LMAO!!! 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
On 2/10/2010 11:30 AM, RJack wrote: The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals The words chose and involuntary don't go together. You appear to have ongoing difficulties with the English language, which perhaps explains some of your difficulty understanding the GPL and the law. Why why would a plaintiff answer a Complaint that has been dismissed? The plaintiffs dismissed their cases once the defendants agreed to a settlement whereby they would comply with the GPL, as evidenced by the fact that after the cases were ended, all the defendants came into compliance with the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 11:30 AM, RJack wrote: The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals The words chose and involuntary don't go together. You appear to have ongoing difficulties with the English And there is absolutely no chance at all that RJack simply mistyped it either inintentionally or with intent to show what a sucker you are with your difficulties with the English reply? regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
On 2/10/2010 11:57 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: And there is absolutely no chance at all that RJack simply mistyped it either inintentionally or with intent to show what a sucker you are with your difficulties with the English reply? Actually, I thought that it was written by you - I didn't notice that the other resident crank had chimed in. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: So for any component with copyrighted parts from other parties (like BSD), Apple could not sue for breach of copyright without having the other parties joining the suit? Reality check... Apple's COMPILATION WORK is NOT A JOINT WORK you retard. Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple. How did the copyright of BSD come to cease on the portions that Apple changed? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 10:08 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ in which (1) the Software Freedom Conservancy is utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known as busybox at http://busybox.net/. The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it has filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the GPL. No defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals before What's automatic and involuntary about dismissals that are filed after settling? any judge could ever read their frivolous Complaints. Why why would a plaintiff answer a Complaint that has been dismissed? Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available in the course of a settlement? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 11:57 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: And there is absolutely no chance at all that RJack simply mistyped it either inintentionally or with intent to show what a sucker you are with your difficulties with the English reply? Actually, I thought that it was written by you - I didn't Take your meds, Hyman. Take your meds. And call the doctor, Hyman. regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple. How did the copyright of BSD come to cease on the portions that Apple changed? BSD copyright didn't come to cease (it's too early for expiration and I'm unaware of any abandonment/dedications to the public domain of the BSD'd works) on the BSD'd portions that Apple changed unless Apple's changes resulted in a complete removal of BSD'd protected expression. At this point, why don't you just piss off and call http://www.justlanded.com/english/Germany/Germany-Guide/Health/Emergencies you retard dak? regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple. How did the copyright of BSD come to cease on the portions that Apple changed? BSD copyright didn't come to cease (it's too early for expiration and I'm unaware of any abandonment/dedications to the public domain of the BSD'd works) on the BSD'd portions that Apple changed unless Apple's changes resulted in a complete removal of BSD'd protected expression. Ah, so that means that according to your legal theories, we have a joint copyright situation for those portions, and anybody can take any parts of Apple's changes and use them without worry, since Apple could only possibly sue if it managed to get Berkeley interested to sue together with them, and Berkeley's choice of license made perfectly clear that Berkeley is not interested much in suing. Do you really not understand why your theories about the GPL case are so absurd and don't stand up to real world cases? At this point, why don't you just piss off and call http://www.justlanded.com/english/Germany/Germany-Guide/Health/Emergencies you retard dak? It's funny how every time you are shown to be wrong, you holler for doctors, medications, and retards. Not to mention drunk judges. Such a transparent maneuver, and what a pathetic excuse for a smoke screen. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available There's no reason to do it -- to wit: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp To Hyman: take your meds first! regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available There's no reason to do it -- to wit: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp That's a link to a firmware upgrade. This firmware update is applicable to both Actiontec and Verizon branded FiOS Routers. As I hear, those routers come with a manual detailing where to get the source to the firmware. The links have been pointed out to you as well. To Hyman: take your meds first! Oh you are running out of arguments again? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
David Kastrup wrote: [...] BSD copyright didn't come to cease (it's too early for expiration and I'm unaware of any abandonment/dedications to the public domain of the BSD'd works) on the BSD'd portions that Apple changed unless Apple's changes resulted in a complete removal of BSD'd protected expression. Ah, so that means that according to your legal theories, we have a joint copyright situation for those portions, and anybody can take any It's quite reasonable to expect that Apple's BSD layer fork known as Darwin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) work may well contain joint copyright portions, dak. I know this whole material is too complicated to grok for someone of your intellectual capacity... Hey GNUtian dak, BTW: http://www.tug.org/interviews/kastrup.html Please note that shareware is not free software. The principal problem with free software as a business model is that there really is little in the way of bootstrapping it. Programmers tend to be mad scientists to some degree or other, and TeX programming mostly has attraction for the worst of those. This means that you often have people with a bad judgment concerning business requirements and project management and time planning and customer interaction. For proprietary software, this is less of a problem: if you are the only supplier for a marketable product, poor market interaction does not kill your business prospects. In a free software market, however, being the developer of a product gives you just a headstart for marketing your own product, but it does not put anybody else out of the race. (LOL) Don't you know that http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html Market It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software users in general, as a market. right, GNUtian dak? regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available There's no reason to do it -- to wit: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp That's a link to a firmware upgrade. This firmware update is applicable to both Actiontec and Verizon branded FiOS Routers. As I hear, those routers come with a manual detailing where to get the source to the firmware. The links have been pointed out to you as well. That where to get is NOT Verizon's location and has nothing to do with Verison's location above, silly dak. regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 10:39 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of ownership http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered copyright on the issues and the books. ... 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. GPL skeptics are so wrong, in so many ways. 1) The Best Buys et.al. suit filed by the SFLC is in the Second Circuit not the Seventh Circuit of the Gaiman_v._McFarlane suit. 2) The Gaiman_v._McFarlane suit was about a declaration of ownership, not a copy infringement suit. 3) You're mixing out of context apples and oranges issues: POSNER, Circuit Judge. Neil Gaiman brought suit under the Copyright Act against Todd McFarlane and corporations controlled by him that we can ignore, seeking a declaration that he (Gaiman) owns copyrights jointly with McFarlane in certain comic-book characters. Erik Andersen signed a *Complaint* explicitly claiming that: 20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program. BusyBox is a single computer program that comprises a set of computing tools and optimizes them for computers with limited resources, such as cell phones, PDAs, and other small, specialized electronic devices. Erik Andersen is *not* the author of the single computer program know as BusyBox -- this is a patently false statement. 23. Under the License, Mr. Andersen grants certain permissions to other parties to copy, modify and redistribute BusyBox so long as those parties satisfy certain conditions. Notice that *Mr Andersen* grants... -- doesn't say *the developers* of BusyBox grant... 31. Mr. Andersen is, and at all relevant times has been, a copyright owner under United States copyright law in the FOSS software program known as BusyBox. See, e.g., “BusyBox, v.0.60.3.”, Copyright Reg. No. TX0006869051 (10/2/2008). Here is the release of busybox-0.60.3 that Erik claims he authored. http://www.busybox.net/downloads/legacy/ Decompress it and see if Erik claims a compilation copyright on the arrangement and selection of the source code. Let's grant that he does have a copyright on the arrangement of that specific tarball release. Remember that the copyright resides in the specific arrangement and selection of the constituent elements in a compilation. That was on 27-Apr-2002 (735K). Are you seriously claiming that the fourteen defendants in the pending SFLC suit are infringing *that* particular arrangement “BusyBox, v.0.60.3”? The last 2008 release is busybox-1.13.2.tar.bz2-31-Dec-2008. The source tarball with more efficient compression is 2.0M -- three times as large with thousands of patches. The current SFLC lawsuit is so fucked up it doesn't even deserve the label wrong. Eben Moglen is an incompetent socialist moron. Hyman Rosen sez, 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it has filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the GPL. No defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals before What's automatic and involuntary about dismissals that are filed after settling? any judge could ever read their frivolous Complaints. Why why would a plaintiff answer a Complaint that has been dismissed? Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available in the course of a settlement? If the full force and credibility of your arguments turn on others hurried typographical errors, you've got even bigger problems than I first imagined. Retreat to that tactic implies an utterly desperate lack of serious intellect. Well, appears like you have answered hurriedly again, since my reply had nothing whatsoever to do with typographical errors. Maybe you'll appear like less of an idiot if you actually read what you are responding to. What that does imply for the imaginary problems you fancy me having will likely remain your secret. And what this kind of evasive tactics and nonsensical accusations imply for you in the category utterly desperate lack of serious intellect is pretty easy for everyone to see. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Posted On: September 7, 2009 by David Johnson Good Copyright Registration Hygiene Necessary to Obtain Copyright Protection over Revised Versions of Software http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/good_copyright_registration_hy_1.html The case was SimplexGrinnell LP v. Integrated Systems Power, Inc., U.S.D.C., Southern District of New York, Case No. 07Civ2700. The plaintiff, Simplex, makes fire alarm and sprinkler equipment. The defendant, ISPI, was an installer of Simplex's equipment in the New York and New Jersey areas and was granted, as part of a bankruptcy court order, a license to use Simplex's programming software to service Simplex alarm systems for ISPI's existing customers. However, ISPI began using Simplex's software to service new customers, as well. Simplex sued for copyright infringement, seeking to block ISPI from using its software to service new customers... Copyright law classifies works as original and derivative works. A derivative work is a work that is based on one or more preexisting works. 17 U.S.C. § 101. To be fully protected, derivative works must be copyrighted separately from the original works on which they are based. In an attempt to circumvent the Court's ruling, Simplex argued that the changes it had made in the software between the serial editions of each revision were trivial, so the different editions within each revision did not qualify as derivative works and did not require separate copyright registration. Under Simplex's theory, because each version of the software was not a derivative work, it registration of one of the versions within each revision should be sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction over the entire revision. However, the Court found that the evidence at trial simply did not support the claim that the changes made in the serial editions of each revision were trivial. Second Circuit case law establishes that only a minimal degree of changes must be made for a work to be considered derivative. See Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, Inc. v. Ostar Sifrea Lubavitch, Inc., 312 F.3d 94, 97 (2nd Cir. 2002) (to be considered original, a work must be independently created by the author and possess at least some minimal degree of creativity.). Here, the evidence showed that there were numerous changes between different versions: For example between versions 10.01.01 and 10.50, an additional audio programming feature was added and 275 defects were repaired. Anybody still think SFLC litigation over busybox-0.60.3 (27-Apr-2002 735K) still has legs? ROFL 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
On 2/10/2010 1:15 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: That where to get is NOT Verizon's location and has nothing to do with Verison's location above, silly dak. 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. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] 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. Uh MORON Hyman: GPL Code Requests 4250 Buckingham Drive Suite #400 Colorado Springs, Co 80907 Right? Now, http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_6f3dp Actiontec Electronics, Inc (Actiontec) 4250 Buckingham Dr # 400 Colorado Springs, CO 80907 . . . Phone: (719) 884-8306 Website: www.actiontec.com Ads by Google http://yellowpages.gazette.com/actiontec.9.52901761p.home.html Actiontec (719) 955-9001 4250 Buckingham Dr Colorado Springs, CO 80907 Map and Directions Own this business? Sign in to update your listing Take your meds, you MORON Hyman. regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Peter Köhlmann wrote: [...] That where to get is NOT Verizon's location and has nothing to do with Verison's location above, silly dak. Oh, and you twit can certainly point to the exact place in the GPL where http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/2007/09/peter-khlmann-liar.html The Peter Köhlmann liar So you admit that you have no such link or citation Figures. You are as dishonest as Snot Michael Glasser -- The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the stupidity of your action. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] Notice here that he says a copyright owner not the copyright owner. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf 20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that program, he is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program. BusyBox is a single computer program, it is really a single computer program and Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that program, he is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program. BusyBox is a single computer program, it is really a single computer program. [repeat Moglen's Bullshit rap] 20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that program, he is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program. BusyBox is a single computer program, it is really a single computer program and Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that program, he is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program. BusyBox is a single computer program, it is really a single computer program. [repeat Moglen's Bullshit rap] http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf Does Mr. Andersen plan to offer an insanity defence against the request for justice by the defendants, you MORON Hyman? regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
On 2/10/2010 2:09 PM, RJack wrote: Posted On: September 7, 2009 by David Johnson Good Copyright Registration Hygiene Necessary to Obtain Copyright Protection over Revised Versions of Software http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/good_copyright_registration_hy_1.html http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2009/04/settlement-disagreement-leads-to.html Settlement disagreement leads to copyright ... claims ... The court found that SG was entitled to an injunction against copyright infringement. ... The injunction, however, would only extend to the particular versions of the programs over which the court had proper subject matter jurisdiction. The Second Circuit doesn’t allow the kind of general prophylactic injunction that other circuits do. (Query whether this rule will fall along with the Second Circuit’s ruling rejecting the Tasini settlement, when the Supreme Court does reverse.) SG’s remedy for other infringements is to register the other versions. Notice that last sentence. As usual, the links posted by the cranks demonstrate against their theories. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
On 2/10/2010 2:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] Notice here that he says a copyright owner not the copyright owner. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf 20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program... http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf Yes, the complaint is phrasing it both ways. The defendants will routinely deny these claims in their responses, and then the plaintiffs will have to prove their claims sufficiently so that their charge of copyright infringement will stand. All the plaintiffs need to show is that Andersen holds copyright in a part of BusyBox, and that the defendants are copying and distributing it without permission. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 2:24 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: GPL Code Requests 4250 Buckingham Drive Suite #400 Colorado Springs, Co 80907 Right? Now, http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_6f3dp Actiontec Electronics, Inc (Actiontec) 4250 Buckingham Dr # 400 Colorado Springs, CO 80907 . . . Phone: (719) 884-8306 Website: www.actiontec.com http://yellowpages.gazette.com/actiontec.9.52901761p.home.html Actiontec (719) 955-9001 4250 Buckingham Dr Colorado Springs, CO 80907 Map and Directions Why is this surprising? Actiontec makes the routers and the firmware, so they are the natural parties to fulfill the The SFLC has sued Verizon (the case was then quickly dismissed with prejudice against plaintiffs and without any settlement filed to be rolled into a court order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation)) and you've been bragging about all plaintiffs being scared out of the water, Hyman. But to wit: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp Where is the complete corresponding source code regarding the complete binary code above YOU MORON HYMAN? Please share with us the location of the complete corresponding source code (re: complete binary code at http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp) YOU MORON HYMAN, please. regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
On 2/10/2010 3:19 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The SFLC has sued Verizon True. (the case was then quickly dismissed with prejudice against plaintiffs The case was quickly dismissed by the plaintiffs, not against the plaintiffs, because the sides settled. It is common to dismiss a case with prejudice once a settlement is reached, so that the defendants can be confident that the plaintiffs will not attempt to re-litigate the issue. and without any settlement filed to be rolled into a court order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation)) As usual, your links demonstrate that you are wrong: In other situations (as where the claims have been satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of money) the plaintiff and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has been dismissed. and you've been bragging about all plaintiffs being scared out of the water In each case filed by the SFLC, the defendants have settled and have come into compliance with the GPL. I don't impute this to fear. It is more likely the case that the defendants have been careless with respect to the GPL, thinking of GPLed code as being public domain rather than having a license which must be honored. The lawsuit brings this to their attention forcefully, and then they comply. Indeed they have no reason not to, since compliance with the GPL is simple. http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp Where is the complete corresponding source code regarding the complete binary code above? Please share with us the location of the complete corresponding source code (re: complete binary code at 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. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 2:09 PM, RJack wrote: Posted On: September 7, 2009 by David Johnson Good Copyright Registration Hygiene Necessary to Obtain Copyright Protection over Revised Versions of Software http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/good_copyright_registration_hy_1.html http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2009/04/settlement-disagreement-leads-to.html Settlement disagreement leads to copyright ... claims ... The court found that SG was entitled to an injunction against copyright infringement. ... The injunction, however, would only extend to the particular versions of the programs over which the court had proper subject matter jurisdiction. The Second Circuit doesn’t allow the kind of general prophylactic injunction that other circuits do. (Query whether this rule will fall along with the Second Circuit’s ruling rejecting the Tasini settlement, when the Supreme Court does reverse.) SG’s remedy for other infringements is to register the other versions. Notice that last sentence. As usual, the links posted by the cranks demonstrate against their theories. Three things Hyman. 1) The link: http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2009/04/settlement-disagreement-leads-to.html isn't my link http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/good_copyright_registration_hy_1.html 2) Did you notice the future tense in your cite, ... when the Supreme Court does reverse ? You got a direct line to Antonin Scalia? Assume will make an *ASS* out of *U* and ME*. 3) The NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. TASINI, 533 U.S. 483 (2001) decision concerned *distribution* of established collective works -- not registration of ongoing derivative works. So please explain Hyman, WTF are talking about? 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: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
On 2/10/2010 3:29 PM, RJack wrote: 1) The link: http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2009/04/settlement-disagreement-leads-to.html isn't my link http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/good_copyright_registration_hy_1.html But they are discussing the same case. 2) Did you notice the future tense in your cite, ... when the Supreme Court does reverse ? Yes. That refers to The Second Circuit doesn’t allow the kind of general prophylactic injunction that other circuits do. It does not refer to SG’s remedy for other infringements is to register the other versions. 3) The NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. TASINI, 533 U.S. 483 (2001) decision concerned *distribution* of established collective works -- not registration of ongoing derivative works. Again, that does not refer to SG’s remedy for other infringements is to register the other versions. So please explain Hyman, WTF are talking about? As my cite states, the court found that SG was entitled to an injunction against copyright infringement for those versions of its work that it had registered. If it wanted injunctions for infringement against the other versions, it could get those by first registering those versions and then filing a claim. This applies tp GPLed programs in the same way. Even if a court chooses to enjoin only registered versions of GPLed programs from being copied and distributed unless the GPL is honored, the remedy for a copyright holder is simply to register the version so being copied and distributed and then file for injunction. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
You don't understand, Hyman. The idea is that by doing a few modifying and copyrightable changes into a single program in response to the GPL offer one becomes a joint copyright owner of the entire work as a whole and can rightfully license that entire work (with 'as a whole' as 'defined' and intended by the GPL) in disrespect of the GPL. It's jujitsu against jujitsu, if you like. Copyleft against copyright? The copyright can fire back in jujitsu mode much better! Got it now, Hyman? regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 10:39 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of ownership http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered copyright on the issues and the books. ... 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. GPL skeptics are so wrong, in so many ways. 37 CFR § 202.3 Registration of copyright. (a) General. (1) This section prescribes conditions for the registration of copyright, and the application to be made for registration under sections 408 and 409 of title 17 of the United States Code, as amended by Pub. L. 94–553. (2) For the purposes of this section, the terms audiovisual work , compilation , copy , derivative work , device , fixation , literary work , motion picture , phonorecord , pictorial, graphic and sculptural works , process , sound recording , and their variant forms, have the meanings set forth in section 101 of title 17. The term author includes an employer or other person for whom a work is “made for hire” under section 101 of title 17. (3) For the purposes of this section, a copyright claimant is either: (i) The author of a work; (ii) A person or organization that has obtained ownership of all rights under the copyright initially belonging to the author. --- 1) Is Erik Anderson the author of release tarball BusyBox, v.0.60.3.tar.bz2? 3) Is Erik Anderson a person that has obtained ownership of all rights in release BusyBox, v.0.60.3.tar.bz2? Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] settlement is reached, so that the defendants can be confident that the plaintiffs will not attempt to re-litigate the issue. http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html LAS VEGAS -- I just got out of a QA session with Verizon Communications President and COO Denny Strigl and being an open source guy I asked Strigl about open source. Specifically I asked what role does open source play at Verizon now, especially in light of the recent SFLC lawsuit against Verizon on GPL infringement. Strigl looked at me with a blank face and asked me to repeat my question. He was completely clueless. He then asked one of his PR people to answer, and they too were clueless. In December of 2007 the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) filed its GPL lawsuit, whichwas settled in March of this year. The win was hailed as a victory for open source by the SFLC and others. Apparently though open source types (like myself) thought the Verizon thing was a big deal, it apparently never... regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 3:29 PM, RJack wrote: 1) The link: http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2009/04/settlement-disagreement-leads-to.html isn't my link http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/good_copyright_registration_hy_1.html But they are discussing the same case. 2) Did you notice the future tense in your cite, ... when the Supreme Court does reverse ? Yes. That refers to The Second Circuit doesn’t allow the kind of general prophylactic injunction that other circuits do. It does not refer to SG’s remedy for other infringements is to register the other versions. 3) The NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. TASINI, 533 U.S. 483 (2001) decision concerned *distribution* of established collective works -- not registration of ongoing derivative works. Again, that does not refer to SG’s remedy for other infringements is to register the other versions. So please explain Hyman, WTF are talking about? As my cite states, the court found that SG was entitled to an injunction against copyright infringement for those versions of its work that it had registered. If it wanted injunctions for infringement against the other versions, it could get those by first registering those versions and then filing a claim. WTF does that have to do with the Supreme Court and NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. TASINI. TASANI didn't address blanket injunctions concerning copyright registration in derivative works. This applies tp GPLed programs in the same way. Says who? POTUS or Moglen? Even if a court chooses to enjoin only registered versions of GPLed programs from being copied and distributed unless the GPL is honored, the remedy for a copyright holder is simply to register the version so being copied and distributed and then file for injunction. A court will NEVER, NEVER choose to enjoin a GPL program. A federal judge will NEVER, NEVER get a chance to read the GPL if the SFLC has anything to do with it. Automatic voluntary dismissals are neat aren't they Hyman? 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
On 2/10/2010 3:53 PM, RJack wrote: 37 CFR § 202.3 Registration of copyright. (3) For the purposes of this section, a copyright claimant is either: (i) The author of a work; (ii) A person or organization that has obtained ownership of all rights under the copyright initially belonging to the author. 1) Is Erik Anderson the author of release tarball BusyBox, v.0.60.3.tar.bz2? Yes: 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. The significance of registration is that it is a prerequisite to a suit to enforce a copyright. 3) Is Erik Anderson a person that has obtained ownership of all rights in release BusyBox, v.0.60.3.tar.bz2? No. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
On 2/10/2010 3:57 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html As evidence that Verizon does know about the GPL, see http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/fiosinternet/networking/setup/questionstwo/98770.htm http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/fiosinternet/networking/setup/questionstwo/98768.htm http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/FiOSInternet/Networking/Troubleshooting/QuestionsOne/124346.htm ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
On 2/10/2010 4:08 PM, RJack wrote: WTF does that have to do with the Supreme Court and NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. TASINI. TASANI didn't address blanket injunctions concerning copyright registration in derivative works. You would have to ask the author of the citation. It sounds to me that she believes that Tasini will be overturned and this will then cause the Second Circuit to allow the same prophylactic injunctions that other circuits do. I simply quoted an entire paragraph, and the Tasini reference was part of it. This applies tp GPLed programs in the same way. Says who? POTUS or Moglen? I do, reasoning by analogy since the cases seem obviously the same. The court said that if you want an injunction against infringement, go register the work, then come and ask for the injunction. A court will NEVER, NEVER choose to enjoin a GPL program. A federal judge will NEVER, NEVER get a chance to read the GPL if the SFLC has anything to do with it. Automatic voluntary dismissals are neat aren't they Hyman? The dismissals are not automatic, they are a result of the parties settling and the defendants agreeing to comply with the GPL. The neat part is gaining compliance with the GPL, which every single defendant has agreed to. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Alexander Terekhov wrote: You don't understand, Hyman. The idea is that by doing a few modifying and copyrightable changes into a single program in response to the GPL offer one becomes a joint copyright owner of the entire work as a whole and can rightfully license that entire work (with 'as a whole' as 'defined' and intended by the GPL) in disrespect of the GPL. It's jujitsu against jujitsu, if you like. Copyleft against copyright? The copyright can fire back in jujitsu mode much better! 17 USC Sec. 101 -- A “joint work” is 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. Every developer who contributes source code to the Linux kernel unquestionably does so with the the intention that his source code become an interdependent part of the Linux kernel as a whole (dak or hyman might argue that the contributions are offered so they won't work with the rest of the kernel code but that's a minority veiw). Any developer whose code appears in the Linux kernel is obviously a joint owner. Ahh... a thousand joint owners of the Linux kernel -- I'll bet Linus loves that fact. 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: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
On 2/10/2010 4:39 PM, RJack wrote: 17 USC Sec. 101 -- A “joint work” is 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. Precisely. In order for a many-authored GPLed work to be a joint work, you would need to demonstrate that each author has so intended, and has intended to give all the co-authors equal rights to the work. You would fail, since each author has dictated the terms under which others may make derivative works or copy and distribute the work, namely the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] As evidence that Verizon does know about the GPL, see http://www22.verizon.com/resi. . . Verizon does know about many things and nobody disputes that Verizon does know something about the GPL, you retard Hyman. But: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp Where is the complete corresponding source code regarding the complete binary code above YOU MORON HYMAN? Please share with us the location of the complete corresponding source code (re: complete binary code at http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp) YOU MORON HYMAN, please. regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp Where is the complete corresponding source code regarding the complete binary code above? Please share with us the location of the complete corresponding source code (re: complete binary code at http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp), please. 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. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Take your meds, Hyman. Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] Precisely. In order for a many-authored GPLed work to be a joint work, you would need to demonstrate that each author has so intended, and has intended to give all the co-authors equal rights to the work. Heck, are you seriously suggesting that the GPL doesn't intend to protect user's rights indended to be equal to the developers rights and that co-author's developer rights under the GPL are not equal rights to the other co-author(s), YOU MORON HYMAN? Please elaborate. TIA!!! regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 3:50 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The idea is that by doing a few modifying and copyrightable changes into a single program in response to the GPL offer one becomes a joint copyright owner of the entire work as a whole and can rightfully license that entire work (with 'as a whole' as 'defined' and intended by the GPL) in disrespect of the GPL. Good gravy, what a ludicrous claim. You are a fscking idiot. No, that's completely wrong: 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. A second author cannot hijack someone else's work to become a joint author - joint authorship has to be consented to by every author of the work, including the first. Rather, the first author has authorized the preparation of derivative works only under the GPL, and any secondary author who makes changes and copies and distributes the resulting work other than under the GPL is simply infringing copyright. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
On 2/10/2010 5:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: actiontec.com is NOT verizon.net Rjack wrote: 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. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
chrisv http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/2007/09/chrisv-liar.html wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 3:50 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The idea is that by doing a few modifying and copyrightable changes into a single program in response to the GPL offer one becomes a joint copyright owner of the entire work as a whole and can rightfully license that entire work (with 'as a whole' as 'defined' and intended by the GPL) in disrespect of the GPL. Good gravy, what a ludicrous claim. You are a fscking idiot. Fsck you arsehole troll. http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/2007/09/chrisv-liar.html regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 5:48 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: LMAO! Don't you think that the GPL is not the state and as such it just can't grant any copyright irrespective of jointness under 17 USC 101 In the case of a GPLed work . . . One *SINGLE* (consisting of a separate unique whole) project is not a joint work although it produces a (single) (combined) larger program??? If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html (The static linking whole aside for a moment, that is.) Please elaborate, Hyman. TIA!!! regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 5:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Heck, are you seriously suggesting that the GPL doesn't intend to protect user's rights indended to be equal to the developers rights and that co-author's developer rights under the GPL are not equal rights to the other co-author(s) People who release code under the GPL grant others the right to create derivative works and copy and distribute those works provided that they are distributed under the GPL. There is no basis for claiming that a person releasing code under the GPL is volunteering to give downstream authors joint copyright in the original work. Indeed, the GPL, as a copyright license, enumerates the only ways that another author may prepare and copy and distribute derivative works outside of what copyright law alone would permit, ? OUTSIDE OF COPYRIGHT LAW? ?? That's pure contract law for those GPL users! Oh dear Hyman, just show me the downstream contractual privity required to make this crackpot scheme enforcable. and since the GPL does not grant such other authors joint copyright, they do not have it. You GPL thumpers are just like Bible thumpers when relying on the literal languge of the GPL. You confuse contract *construction with the interpretation of contract language intent: In Ram Construction, we defined construction of a contract as the process of determining its legal effect. Id. at 1053 (citing 3 Corbin on Contracts Sec. 534). Interpretation, in contrast, is a narrower process of ascertaining the meaning of the particular words used and their applicability to a specific factual situation. The distinction is clearly stated by Williston: The word 'interpretation' is used with respect to language itself; it is the process of applying the legal standard to expressions found in the agreement in order to determine their meaning. 'Construction,' on the other hand, is used to determine, not the sense of the words or symbols, but the legal meaning of the entire contract; the word is rightly used wherever the import of the writing is made to depend upon a special sense imposed by law. Williston on Contracts Sec. 602, at 320 (3d ed. 1961). See also Patterson, The Interpretation and Construction of Contracts, 64 Colum.L.Rev. 833, 833-36 (1964). JOHN F. HARKINS COMPANY, INC. v. The WALDINGER CORPORATION 796 F.2d 657 (3rd Cir 1986). Operation of copyright law definition supercedes language intent. 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 5:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: actiontec.com is NOT verizon.net Rjack wrote: RJack didn't wrote that actiontec.com is verizon.net, YOU MORON HYMAN. regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] All the plaintiffs need to show is that Andersen holds copyright in a part of BusyBox, and that the defendants are copying and distributing it without permission. http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/02/08/copyrights-and-wrongs/ Larry Rosen correctly noted: Under US copyright law, only the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right is entitled ... to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right... 17 USC 501. So if all you have is a non-exclusive license, or indeed if all you have is joint ownership, you cannot enforce that copyright in court without the other owners joining in. At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ in which (1) the Software Freedom Conservancy is utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known as busybox at http://busybox.net/. regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- 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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 5:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: actiontec.com is NOT verizon.net Rjack wrote: 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. How can RJack be wrong when RJack addresses Hyman and then RJack is right when Hyman addresses Alexander? I'm confused. 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
