Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/12/2010 3:39 PM, RJack wrote:
Which BusyBox authors do not intend for their contributions to 
become interdependent parts merged into the BusyBox program?


BusyBox authors create independent or derivative works (depending on 
whether the code they are writing is new or is a modification of 
existing code). They create a new version of BusyBox by checking this
 code into the BusyBox source code control system, this new version 
being a derivative work of the previous version.


No they don't create a new derivative work and submit the derivative
work to the code control system:

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,
such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications,
which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
“derivative work”.-- 17 USC 101

The developers submit patches or a new source code module that amounts
at most to a few hundreds of bytes.

The BusyBox (remember -- "a single program") source tarball when
unzipped is 7.75 *million* bytes.

The claim that checking in a *few hundred bytes* of new code through GIT
is contributing a "new derivative work" is pure nonsense. In relative,
realistic terms, de minmus amounts of new source code are being
contributed to a 7.75 million byte program as tiny interdependent parts.

Since no BusyBox author has declared his intention that the entire 
work be a joint work, it is not. Instead, it is a collective work 
formed from the contributions of its many authors.


"A collective work formed from the contributions of its many authors" eh?

Hyman, have your eyes read what you just wrote in your preceding
paragraph, "[T]hey create a new version of BusyBox by checking this code
into the BusyBox source code control system, this new version being a
derivative work of the previous version"?

Oh. I understand now! You have invented a new copyright concept
called a "derivative-collective work". It is either a collective work or
a derivative work depending on how you feel at the moment. That's kind
of convenient just like "copyleft" isn't it?

Maybe you've been working too hard Hyman. Sit back, pop a Budweiser and
take a deep breath -- you'll soon return to reality.

"Captain Moglen 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 SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/12/2010 3:39 PM, RJack wrote:

Which BusyBox authors do not intend for their contributions to
become interdependent parts merged into the BusyBox program?


BusyBox authors create independent or derivative works
(depending on whether the code they are writing is new
or is a modification of existing code). They create a
new version of BusyBox by checking this code into the
BusyBox source code control system, this new version
being a derivative work of the previous version. Since
no BusyBox author has declared his intention that the
entire work be a joint work, it is not. Instead, it is
a collective work formed from the contributions of its
many authors.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/12/2010 2:27 PM, RJack wrote:

"17 USC 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."


And therefore a work is not a joint work if every author has not so
intended. Like BusyBox.


I wish to help Hyman!

Which BusyBox authors do not intend for their contributions to
become interdependent parts merged into the BusyBox program?
We need to stop the abuse of these authors' copyrights.

Please list those authors who do not wish for their code to be merged
into the BusyBox program. I will inform the BusyBox project maintainers
and if necessary, I will provide monetary assistance to the authors so
they may retain legal counsel to sue the BusyBox project. We need to
stop this involuntary incorporation of code into BusyBox!

Please list their names here:
1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Respond quickly Hyman so that you and I may stop this horrific copyright
abuse.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/12/2010 2:27 PM, RJack wrote:

"17 USC 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."


And therefore a work is not a joint work if every author
has not so intended. Like BusyBox.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/12/2010 8:07 AM, amicus_curious wrote:
These cases seem to center around some unsuspecting developer 
making the fatal mistake of using the BusyBox utilities for some 
embedded computer device and failing to pay homage to the FOSSers 
by posting yet another copy of the BusyBox source code somewhere.


Steve Martin used to do this comedy routine: How to make $1,000,000 
and not pay taxes on it - First, make $1,000,000. Then, don't pay 
taxes on it. When the IRS comes to ask you why, say "I forgot".


Developers are not permitted to be unsuspecting when they incorporate
 third-party code into their own programs. They must make sure that 
all licenses for such code are complied with properly. This is as 
true for GPLed components as for components which require payment.


Hyman why can't you understand that ownership formation questions must
be resolved prior to even speaking of "licensing".

"17 USC 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."

Erik Andersen has sworn that BusyBox is "a single computer" program
which is to say that it is a "unitary whole"

"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."

The Copyright Act is crystal clear: "unitary whole" and "interdependent
parts"!!!

Now if Erik claims that his intent was not to merge his code "the
interdependent parts" of the single computer program called "BusyBox"
that's fine with me. Let him remove his interdependent parts. It's his
code. Let him take it home and put it under his pillow. Who cares?

BUTTYOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS Hyman.

Of course now that he has removed his contributed interdependent parts,
(remember, Erik swears that he is "the owner of copyrights in that
computer program"), he no longer has any legal interest in BusyBox.
Fair enough Hyman? Bye-Bye lawsuit.

"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 SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/12/2010 1:48 PM, RJack wrote:

Alexander has proven that claim to be false.


He has not, if you mean with respect to Verizon.
The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is
accompanied by source found at
.
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 , 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]

On 2/12/2010 1:44 PM, RJack wrote:

The procdures for acceptance and approval at the BusyBox development site:
http://busybox.net/developer.html
determine how the contributing authors works are jointly committed to
the single program called BusyBox. The GPL has nothing to do with it.
The joint authors may license their code under any license they wish but
that fact doesn't prevent the formation of a joint work.


In order for BusyBox to be a joint work, every one of its authors
must intend, or have intended, for it to be a joint work. Absent
proof of such intention, it is not a joint work but a collective
work, with derivative works generated by each change. As we see in

 "Each new version ... is a separate derivative work"
software development spins off endless numbers of such derivative
works during the course of development, no matter how minor the
changes.


The joint work may be released under the GPL to the public


It is not a joint work.


but that fact  does not change the reality that the GPL is

> unenforceable as a contract

It is not a contract but a license, and it is enforceable only
to the extent that someone is agreeing to be bound by it. If they
do not wish to be bound by it, they need not be, but then they
have no other permission to copy and distribute the GPLed work.


and is preeempted by 17 USC 301(a)


Preemption of copyright issues by federal law is completely
irrelevant with respect to the GPL, which is a copyright
license and grants extra permission beyond what unadorned
copyright law allows, consistent with the rights of copyright
holders to grant such permission as defined by 17 USC 106.

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/12/2010 1:23 PM, RJack wrote:

JUST SHOW ME THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS.


Settlement agreements are usually private arrangements between the
parties, and are not available for public review. As outside 
observers, we can only examine public results. In every case the SFLC

has filed, the defendants have come into compliance with the GPL.


Alexander has proven that claim to be false.

In every case the SFLC has filed, my dog has eaten that day which
proves my dog's appetite is controlling the SFLC litigation.


"Captain Moglen 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

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/11/2010 8:25 PM, amicus_curious wrote:

So taking someone else's work and republishing it as a whole is not
 joint authorship? You are in an untenable position to be sure!


A joint work is created through the intention of all authors to form
it. Without such intention, the work is not joint, it is collective,
with copyright on each component owned by the author of the
component, and copyright on the arrangement owned by the arrangers. 
For modifications made to existing components or their arrangement,

copyright is owned by the original author and as well by the author
making the change, as a derivative work.

In fact, the concepts of derivative work and joint work are in
certain ways opposite. A joint work is created through intention of
co-authors, and each author has full rights to the work, while a
derivative work is created with permission from the original author
and then copyright in the result is held by both authors, and that
work can be copied and distributed only with permission of both
authors.

The GPL speaks of modifications as derivative works. In no way does
it speak of joint works, and therefore authors who use it as the
license for code they produce have indicated that they are not
creating a joint work.


The procdures for acceptance and approval at the BusyBox development site:
http://busybox.net/developer.html

determine how the contributing authors works are jointly committed to
the single program called BusyBox. The GPL has nothing to do with it.
The joint authors may license their code under any license they wish but
that fact doesn't prevent the formation of a joint work.

The joint work may be released under the GPL to the public but that fact 
does not change the reality that the GPL is unenforceable as a contract 
and is preeempted by 17 USC 301(a).


Sincerely,
RJack
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/12/2010 1:23 PM, RJack wrote:

JUST SHOW ME THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS.


Settlement agreements are usually private arrangements between
the parties, and are not available for public review. As outside
observers, we can only examine public results. In every case the
SFLC has filed, the defendants have come 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: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[RJack]

Rex Ballard wrote:

On Feb 12, 7:13 am, RJack  wrote:

SFLC voluntary dismissals should be coming soon in Best Buy et. al.
 case.



The SFLC cannot risk a judge actually interpreting the GPL license.
 The court would read the covenants in the GPL contract which Eben
 Moglen claims are "conditions" and quickly file the license in the
 court's little round filing bin -- if he didn't die laughing
first.



The GPL license is just another copyright license.  The judges can't
 really nullify the terms of a copyright license unless the license 
requires that the licensee engage in criminal acts such as collusion,
 illegal wiretapping, or fraud.  Even these restrictions vary from 
country to country.



Another frivolous lawsuit to which the SFLC can spin:


The goals of the SFLC is not to make a boatload of cash for FSF.  The
 primary goal is to assure compliance with key license terms.


Rex, I have to agree that the goal is not to raise a boatload of cash
for the FSF. The goal is to raise a boatload of cash to pay the staff
at the SFLC. Eben Moglen and Dan Ravicher have now tapped the SFLC
public charity donations for upwards of a million dollars in salaries
and expenses.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/24/sflc-2009-appeal/
Simply check the SFLC's public filings as a 501(3) non-profit. The
economy is bad right now and donations are lagging. The SFLC has to make
a lot of public fund raising noise or go broke (and so goes the
attorneys and staff).


The penalties for copyright violation provide good incentives. In the
 United States, the penalty for violating a copyright license, for 
illegally copying and distribution of software, is $150,000 or up to 
5 years in federal prison if convicted in a criminal proceeding.


WOW! I didn't know the SFLC was a branch of the United States Department
of Justice. Eric Holder a close friend?

The cost of compliance with the GPL, providing a location where the 
link to the source code for the GPL portions of the vendor's software
 implementation, is just a few hundred dollars per year. Normally, 
the SFLC issues a warning letter indicating the required actions 
before filing the lawsuit.  If the target organization refuses to 
comply, or after various attempts to make contact are ignored, the 
SFLC files a lawsuit, which then REQUIRES a response, because the 
defendant does not want to lose to a defuault judgement.


The cost to the SFLC for losing just one frivolous copyright lawsuit is
detailed in:

§ 505. Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees
In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may
allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the
United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by
this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the
prevailing party as part of the costs.

Attorney fees to litigate a copyright suit can easily run upwards of a
millon dollars.
http://www.ipmall.org/hosted_resources/IDEA/33_IDEA/33-2_IDEA_211_Bocchieri.pdf

THAT IS ANOTHER REASON WHY THE SFLC WILL NEVER ALLOW THEIR FRIVOLOUS
COMPLAINTS TO PROCEED TO COURT.

Bullshit walks and money talks. Best Buy Inc. has a market
capitalization of $15,000,000,000 (fifteen billion dollars). Do
actually think Best Buy gives a fuck about the legal propaganda noise
generated by a 501(c) public charity?


Once the defendant realizes that communication is no longer optional,
 the defendent's legal council usually realizes that the SFLC has a 
strong case, and that the terms of the settlement are very 
reasonable.


Usually but not always huh? Have you been privy to these actual matters?
I suppose that you, like some others in this group have solid knowledge
concerning *non-existent* settlements. JUST SHOW ME THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS. Your delusion about "the SFLC scared 'em out of the water"
wouldn't convince a ten year old.


At that point, the defendant is usually advised to settle, and a
settlement usually covers the legal costs of the plaintiffs,
publication of the link to the location of the source code for the
GPL licensed software and other OSS software, and pubilcation of the
information to inform those who did not get the link in the
documentation.




"Captain Moglen scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7e...
ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.



The companies who get these lawsuits don't laugh, until they comply 
with the settlement.  When they compare the terms of the GPL to those
 of companies like Microsoft, Oracle, or IBM, they can laugh along 
with the SFLC lawyers at how reasonable the GPL really is.


Remember, it's not that hard to comply with the licenses and still 
have key proprietary technology as well.  Often, it's as simple as 
using LGPL software to interface to the GPL software, or plug-ins 
such as Linux driver modules.


For example, the earliest versions of Android had drivers compiled 
directly into the kernel, but now mo

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/12/2010 9:30 AM, Rex Ballard wrote:

In the United States, the penalty for violating a copyright license,
for illegally copying and distribution of software, is $150,000 or up
to 5 years in federal prison if convicted in a criminal proceeding.


Based on some of the (non-GPL) cases we've seen go by, that
can't really happen. For one thing, it seems that the precise
version being distributed must have been registered with the
copyright office before the infringement occurred in order for
statutory infringement to apply.

Instead, the copyright holder will register the version being
infringed once the infringement is discovered, and then apply
to the court for an injunction to prevent the infringing use,
so that the particular version can no longer be copied and
distributed.

In practice, since these GPL infringements seem to be the result
of inattention and laziness, the simple act of filing the suit
alerts the infringers to the problem and they act to correct it.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/12/2010 8:07 AM, amicus_curious wrote:

These cases seem to center around some unsuspecting developer making the
fatal mistake of using the BusyBox utilities for some embedded computer
device and failing to pay homage to the FOSSers by posting yet another
copy of the BusyBox source code somewhere.


Steve Martin used to do this comedy routine:
How to make $1,000,000 and not pay taxes on it -
First, make $1,000,000.
Then, don't pay taxes on it.
When the IRS comes to ask you why, say "I forgot".

Developers are not permitted to be unsuspecting when they
incorporate third-party code into their own programs. They
must make sure that all licenses for such code are complied
with properly. This is as true for GPLed components as for
components which require payment.
___
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]

On 2/11/2010 8:25 PM, amicus_curious wrote:

So taking someone else's work and republishing it as a whole is not
joint authorship? You are in an untenable position to be sure!


A joint work is created through the intention of all
authors to form it. Without such intention, the work
is not joint, it is collective, with copyright on
each component owned by the author of the component,
and copyright on the arrangement owned by the arrangers.
For modifications made to existing components or their
arrangement, copyright is owned by the original author
and as well by the author making the change, as a
derivative work.

In fact, the concepts of derivative work and joint work
are in certain ways opposite. A joint work is created
through intention of co-authors, and each author has full
rights to the work, while a derivative work is created with
permission from the original author and then copyright in
the result is held by both authors, and that work can be
copied and distributed only with permission of both authors.

The GPL speaks of modifications as derivative works. In no
way does it speak of joint works, and therefore authors who
use it as the license for code they produce have indicated
that they are not creating a joint work.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[David Kastrup]

Rex Ballard  writes:

> On Feb 12, 7:13 am, RJack  wrote:
>> SFLC voluntary dismissals should be coming soon in Best Buy et. al.
>> case.
>
>> The SFLC cannot risk a judge actually interpreting the GPL license.
>> The court would read the covenants in the GPL contract which Eben
>> Moglen claims are "conditions" and quickly file the license in the
>> court's little round filing bin -- if he didn't die laughing first.
>
> The GPL license is just another copyright license.

"just another" is somewhat misleading in that most "copyright licenses"
for software nowadays purport to be contracts of one kind or another
rather than mere licenses: shrinkwrap or clickthrough.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[Rex Ballard]

On Feb 12, 7:13 am, RJack  wrote:
> SFLC voluntary dismissals should be coming soon in Best Buy et. al.
> case.

> The SFLC cannot risk a judge actually interpreting the GPL license.
> The court would read the covenants in the GPL contract which Eben
> Moglen claims are "conditions" and quickly file the license in the
> court's little round filing bin -- if he didn't die laughing first.

The GPL license is just another copyright license.  The judges can't
really nullify the terms of a copyright license unless the license
requires that the licensee engage in criminal acts such as collusion,
illegal wiretapping, or fraud.  Even these restrictions vary from
country to country.

> Another frivolous lawsuit to which the SFLC can spin:

The goals of the SFLC is not to make a boatload of cash for FSF.  The
primary goal is to assure compliance with key license terms.  The
penalties for copyright violation provide good incentives.

In the United States, the penalty for violating a copyright license,
for illegally copying and distribution of software, is $150,000 or up
to 5 years in federal prison if convicted in a criminal proceeding.

The cost of compliance with the GPL, providing a location where the
link to the source code for the GPL portions of the vendor's software
implementation, is just a few hundred dollars per year.

Normally, the SFLC issues a warning letter indicating the required
actions before filing the lawsuit.  If the target organization refuses
to comply, or after various attempts to make contact are ignored, the
SFLC files a lawsuit, which then REQUIRES a response, because the
defendant does not want to lose to a defuault judgement.

Once the defendant realizes that communication is no longer optional,
the defendent's legal council usually realizes that the SFLC has a
strong case, and that the terms of the settlement are very
reasonable.  At that point, the defendant is usually advised to
settle, and a settlement usually covers the legal costs of the
plaintiffs, publication of the link to the location of the source code
for the GPL licensed software and other OSS software, and pubilcation
of the information to inform those who did not get the link in the
documentation.


> "Captain Moglen scared them out of the 
> water!"http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7e...

> ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

The companies who get these lawsuits don't laugh, until they comply
with the settlement.  When they compare the terms of the GPL to those
of companies like Microsoft, Oracle, or IBM, they can laugh along with
the SFLC lawyers at how reasonable the GPL really is.

Remember, it's not that hard to comply with the licenses and still
have key proprietary technology as well.  Often, it's as simple as
using LGPL software to interface to the GPL software, or plug-ins such
as Linux driver modules.

For example, the earliest versions of Android had drivers compiled
directly into the kernel, but now most of those drivers and driver
interfaces have been converted to modules, allowing vendors to use
proprietary drivers when they don't want to give away details about
chip-sets.

> Sincerely,
> RJack :)

Rex Ballard
http://www.open4success.org/index.php
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[chrisv]

> rat wrote:
>>
>> Depending on your view of the whole thing, they are either

Maybe rats are only capable of seeing those two views, but those of us
who are not rats interpret the situation differently.

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[David Kastrup]

"amicus_curious"  writes:

> "RJack"  wrote in message
> news:oosdnvn5rvxl2ojwnz2dnuvz_odi4...@giganews.com...
>
>>
>> Another frivolous lawsuit to which the SFLC can spin:
>>
> One can only wonder how many of these things are necessary for the FSF
> and SFLC and Moglen (which seem to be MOL synonymous terms).  I don't
> think anyone is intimidated or even slightly fooled by the practice.

Well, since the GPLed source has been made available in each single
case, it would appear that "these things" are effective.  As long as
they keep batting 1.0, there would appear little enough reason to stop.
It obviously helps with customers getting GPLed source.

> At the same time the FSF et al parades around suggesting that they are
> there to save us all from unscrupulous companies that create some
> desirable product

By hijacking the work of others without heeding their licensing
conditions.

> and then want us to pay them to be able to use it.

They can ask for payment in arbitrary amounts.  That's not an issue for
the FSF.  But if they sell the stuff, they need to do it _properly_,
including the GPLed sources.  If they don't want to do that, they can
very well develop their own software instead of misusing that of others
for unlicensed purposes.

> Depending on your view of the whole thing, they are either being
> clowns or are a serious cancer in the industry.  I think they are just
> clowns desperate for recognition in some vanity fair sort of way.

The defendants recognize them, the courts recognize them.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[amicus_curious]

"RJack"  wrote in message 
news:oosdnvn5rvxl2ojwnz2dnuvz_odi4...@giganews.com...




Another frivolous lawsuit to which the SFLC can spin:

One can only wonder how many of these things are necessary for the FSF and 
SFLC and Moglen (which seem to be MOL synonymous terms).  I don't think 
anyone is intimidated or even slightly fooled by the practice.  A small 
state school could hit up the alumni for big bucks to build an average 
football team and then go schedule a bunch of weak sisters ala' Slippery 
Rock Teacher's College to play against so as to be able to claim a winning 
or even undefeated season.  But the savvy observer is not going to be 
fooled.


These cases seem to center around some unsuspecting developer making the 
fatal mistake of using the BusyBox utilities for some embedded computer 
device and failing to pay homage to the FOSSers by posting yet another copy 
of the BusyBox source code somewhere.  Any downstream manufacturer who 
trades in such a device is then pounced upon by the Moglen mob and extorted 
for legal fees and headlines.  At the same time the FSF et al parades around 
suggesting that they are there to save us all from unscrupulous companies 
that create some desirable product and then want us to pay them to be able 
to use it.  Depending on your view of the whole thing, they are either being 
clowns or are a serious cancer in the industry.  I think they are just 
clowns desperate for recognition in some vanity fair sort of way. 


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[David Kastrup]

RJack  writes:

> SFLC voluntary dismissals should be coming soon in Best Buy et. al.
> case.

Once the defendants have agreed to come into compliance and pay the
incurred costs, that's the usual course.  Do you have any information
pertaining to that?

> The SFLC cannot risk a judge actually interpreting the GPL license.

It is quite unlikely that a judge will have to take a look at the GPL
unless the defendant states that he has accepted it.  But with such a
statement, compliance and settlement is the sanest course to cut further
legal costs.  And without such a statement, there is no point for a
judge to look at the GPL.

> The court would read the covenants in the GPL contract which Eben
> Moglen claims are "conditions" and quickly file the license in the
> court's little round filing bin -- if he didn't die laughing first.

Sure, if the conditions are not met (and no attempt to do so is claimed
by the defendant), the license does not apply and can be filed in the
bin: the resulting plain case of copyright violation without a license
is no longer about the GPL.

> Another frivolous lawsuit to which the SFLC can spin:

A world in which a lawsuit for copying without license is frivolous
would certainly be to the liking of the FSF.

But it's not ours.

> Sincerely,

Hardly.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[RJack]

SFLC voluntary dismissals should be coming soon in Best Buy et. al.
case.

The SFLC cannot risk a judge actually interpreting the GPL license.
The court would read the covenants in the GPL contract which Eben
Moglen claims are "conditions" and quickly file the license in the
court's little round filing bin -- if he didn't die laughing first.

Another frivolous lawsuit to which the SFLC can spin:

"Captain Moglen 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

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen  writes:

> On 2/11/2010 3:21 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> Yeah, yeah, and airplanes can't fly at all because the GPL
>> doesn't say that airplanes can fly.
>
> Whenever you post a content-free response, a fairy gets its wings.

We got too many winged beasts circling the horses here in summer
already.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> 
>> On 2/10/2010 6:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> > One *SINGLE* (consisting of a separate unique whole) project is not a
>> > joint work although it produces a (single) (combined) "larger program"???
>> 
>> Correct. A joint work is created only when all of its
>
> Why didn't Erik Andersen fork the busybox to create his own non-joint
> version of busybox?

How would you know the difference?  He did not have to negotiate
permission with previous authors for continuing to maintain it.

With free software, there is no way to know which is the fork, and which
the mainline.

If you take a look at gcc history, you'll find that the egcs fork became
the main line eventually.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss