Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/13/2010 7:11 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: A collective work can also be a joint work It certainly can be, if all the authors of the collective work intend it to be so. That intent must be demonstrated. Since the BusyBox is licensed only under the GPL, its authors have indicated that it is not a joint work. Take your meds Hyman. Since the GPL says nothing about going to the toilet from time to time, the busybox authors are never pissing and shitting, right 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: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/12/2010 8:09 PM, RJack wrote: 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. http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2009/04/settlement-disagreement-leads-to.html Each new version of SG’s program is a separate derivative work, as set forth in SG’s registrations themselves. Tell it to the court. Derivative works are explicitly included in the subject matter of copyright as defined by the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. § 103. But this principle is subject to two important and related limitations. First, to support a copyright the original aspects of a derivative work must be more than trivial. Second, the scope of protection afforded a derivative work must reflect the degree to which it relies on preexisting material and must not in any way affect the scope of any copyright protection in that preexisting material; Durham Industries Inc v. Tomy Corporation, 630 F2d 905 (2nd Cir 1980). Tell it to the court Hyman. 1) A ratio of a few lines to 7.7 million lines is trivial. 2) Your theory says BusyBox is a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative a derivative of a derivative of a derivative ... through literally thousands of iterations of derivative works. I'll leave it to you to identify the individual contributions and ownership claims in this 7.7 million byte derivative work when you address the court. Be careful what you wish for Hyman, you might just receive it. Captain Moglen scared them out of the water! http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) 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
On 2/16/2010 6:46 AM, RJack wrote: First, to support a copyright the original aspects of a derivative work must be more than trivial. Second, the scope of protection afforded a derivative work must reflect the degree to which it relies on preexisting material and must not in any way affect the scope of any copyright protection in that preexisting material; Durham Industries Inc v. Tomy Corporation, 630 F2d 905 (2nd Cir 1980). Tell it to the court Hyman. 1) A ratio of a few lines to 7.7 million lines is trivial. Perhaps you should listen to the court. It has already addressed triviality. http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/good_copyright_registration_hy_1.html 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. Simplex argued that the evidence also showed that some versions contained fewer alterations. For example, it pointed out that version 10.61.10 added no new functional changes or enhancements over version 10.61 and only repaired a handful of defects. However, the Court pointed out that, in focusing on these changes, Simplex was looking at the wrong standard. The issue is not the degree to which a change affects the functionality of the software, but the amount of changes made in the literal elements of the computer program, i.e., their source and object codes. The Court stated: Even if adding a new feature, or repairing a defect, is functionally trivial, it does not follow that the change did not involve originality in the new computer code that effects the functional change. 2) Your theory says BusyBox is [a sequence of derivative works] I'll leave it to you to identify the individual contributions and ownership claims in this 7.7 million byte derivative work when you address the court. Every author has ownership in the pieces of work he has contributed and in the arrangement of the components in the whole of BusyBox in every version after he has contributed changes. As we know from Gaiman v. McFarlane, each author can register copyright in the work, and that registration represents only his own interest in the work, and does not affect or disparage ownership claims of the other authors. Registration then allows the author to sue for infringement. ___ 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 wrote: 2) Your theory says BusyBox is [a sequence of derivative works] I'll leave it to you to identify the individual contributions and ownership claims in this 7.7 million byte derivative work when you address the court. Every author has ownership in the pieces of work he has contributed and in the arrangement of the components in the whole of BusyBox in every version after he has contributed changes. 17 USC sec. 101 -- A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result. As we know from Gaiman v. McFarlane, each author can register copyright in the work, and that registration represents only his own interest in the work, Since each author owns his copyrights, there are literally thousands of pieces of source code that comprise modules and their patches. Each has it's own copyright from the respective authors. There are currently 681 C language source code modules in BusyBox. Most of these 681 code modules have multiple patches and multiple contributions from disparate authors. When an author contributes a patch to BusyBox he is going contribute to at most *one* source code module (that was probably patched before) that he is currently modifying. - 17 USC 101 -- 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 sec. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:... (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; - Obviously, If you author a derivative work you *must* be able to identify the owners of the one or more preexisting works *that you modified*. If you modify say basename.c (* Copyright (C) 1999-2004 by Erik Andersen) you don't create a derivative work from the code owned by the fifty or more distinct authors of some of the other 680 source code modules -- you didn't even touch their work. So you didn't create a derivative work of BusyBox -- you crated a derivative work of basename.c owned by Erik Andersen. You can't simultaneously claim BusyBox is a single computer program for purposes of defining a derivative work *and* that BusyBox is a compilationspaghetti of code representing each of fifty disparate authors' own interests. and does not affect or disparage ownership claims of the other authors. Registration then allows the author to sue for infringement. A copyright owner cannot file an infringement claim over another's code and he can't grant permission to form a derivative work for code he doesn't own. The binary ownership nodes of *individually owned* derivative works comprising the 680 C modules and their patches probably runs into *millions* of nodes. BusyBox is actually a compilation of thousands of tiny derivatives works spaghetti code. Using combinatorial statistics how many patches and modifications of original source code modules have occurred in the last ten years of BusyBox development? 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 wrote: [...] every version after he has contributed changes. As we know from Gaiman We know from Gaiman that the GPL says nothing about going to the toilet from time to time, but does that mean that GPL'd work authors are never pissing and shitting, 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: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
I just can't resist to poke stupid Hyman once again... Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] affect or disparage ownership claims of the other authors. Registration then allows the author to sue for infringement. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ The suit was filed on behalf of the Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy) Hey Hyman, care to find any copyright registrations addressed to/from the Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy) you retard? http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Software+Freedom+ConservancySearch_Code=NALLPID=H_LZj_4cL3T27_AZjvFkHET8UpWYSEQ=20100216135031CNT=25HIST=1 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: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
On 2/16/2010 12:06 PM, RJack wrote: Obviously, If you author a derivative work you *must* be able to identify the owners of the one or more preexisting works *that you modified*. No, that's not true, and does not follow from anything you quoted. To create a derivative work you must have permission from the rights holders. In the case of GPLed code, that permission is expressed through the license, and no specific knowledge of the identity of the owners is required. If you modify say basename.c (* Copyright (C) 1999-2004 by Erik Andersen) you don't create a derivative work from the code owned by the fifty or more distinct authors of some of the other 680 source code modules -- you didn't even touch their work.So you didn't create a derivative work of BusyBox -- you crated a derivative work of basename.c owned by Erik Andersen. Correct. You create a derivative work of all the code that is in basename.c, which itself might have many distinct authors. You can't simultaneously claim BusyBox is a single computer program for purposes of defining a derivative work *and* that BusyBox is a compilationspaghetti of code representing each of fifty disparate authors' own interests. Of course you can. When you build a new BusyBox executable using the module you have modified, and possibly even by simply checking the new module into the BusyBox source code repository, you create a derivative work of the collective work which is the creative arrangement of modules which form BusyBox. A copyright owner cannot file an infringement claim over another's code and he can't grant permission to form a derivative work for code he doesn't own. True, but irrelevant. Every contributor to BusyBox owns copyright on the code he contributed, and on the entire collective work from his version onward. The binary ownership nodes of *individually owned* derivative works comprising the 680 C modules and their patches probably runs into *millions* of nodes. BusyBox is actually a compilation of thousands of tiny derivatives works spaghetti code. Using combinatorial statistics how many patches and modifications of original source code modules have occurred in the last ten years of BusyBox development? Why does that matter? ___ 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
On 2/16/2010 2:01 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ The suit was filed on behalf of the Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy) Hey Hyman, care to find any copyright registrations addressed to/from the Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy)? http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ The SFLC is a non-profit law firm established in 2005 to provide pro-bono legal services to Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) developers. The suit was filed on behalf of the Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy), the non-profit corporate home of the popular software application BusyBox and many other FOSS projects, and Erik Andersen, one of the program's principal developers and copyright holders. http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/overview/ The Software Freedom Conservancy is an organization composed of Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects (called Conservancy's “member projects”). Conservancy is a fiscal sponsor for these member projects, thus the Conservancy's member projects benefit from financial, administrative services and non-profit oversight. By joining the Conservancy, member projects can obtain the benefits of a formal legal structure while keeping themselves focused on software development. ___ 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 wrote: On 2/16/2010 12:06 PM, RJack wrote: Obviously, If you author a derivative work you *must* be able to identify the owners of the one or more preexisting works *that you modified*. No, that's not true, and does not follow from anything you quoted. To create a derivative work you must have permission from the rights holders. In the case of GPLed code, that permission is expressed through the license, and no specific knowledge of the identity of the owners is required. Hyman: Uh your honor, I received permission from some unknown authors to create this derivative work. It's a new work known under copyright law as a derivative of a 'compilation of derivative works by unknown authors'. Judge: Could you please point to the section of the Copyright Act defining this category of original creative work? Hymen: Yes your honor, it follows the section that defines copyleft that was added by Richard Stallman. It's my proudest contribution to the new, improved Copyright Act of 2010. Judge: I thought only Congress could amend the Copyright Act. Hyman: Not in the land of GNU your Honor. We play by different rules here. We often accomplish several impossible things by noon each day! 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 wrote: On 2/16/2010 2:01 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ The suit was filed on behalf of the Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy) Hey Hyman, care to find any copyright registrations addressed to/from the Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy)? http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ The SFLC is a non-profit law firm established in 2005 to provide pro-bono legal services to Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) developers. The suit was filed on behalf of the Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy), the non-profit corporate home of the popular software application BusyBox and many other FOSS projects, and Erik Andersen, one of the program's principal developers and copyright holders. http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/overview/ The Software Freedom Conservancy is an organization composed of Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects (called Conservancy's “member projects”). Conservancy is a fiscal sponsor for these member projects, thus the Conservancy's member projects benefit from financial, administrative services and non-profit oversight. By joining the Conservancy, member projects can obtain the benefits of a formal legal structure while keeping themselves focused on software development. [Note 3] ... We do not believe that the Copyright Act permits holders of rights under copyrights to choose third parties to bring suits on their behalf. While F.R.Civ.P. 17(a) ordinarily permits the real party in interest to ratify a suit brought by another party, see Urrutia Aviation Enterprises v. B.B. Burson Associates, Inc., 406 F.2d 769, 770 (5th Cir.1969); Clarkson Co. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 441 F.Supp. 792 (N.D.Calif.1977), the Copyright Law is quite specific in stating that only the owner of an exclusive right under a copyright may bring suit. 17 U.S.C. Sec. 501(b) (Supp. IV 1980).; Eden Toys Inc v. Florelee Undergarment Co Inc, 697 F.2d 27 (2nd Cir 1983). http://openjurist.org/697/f2d/27/eden-toys-inc-v-florelee-undergarment-co-inc 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
On 2/16/2010 4:09 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman: Uh your honor, I received permission from some unknown authors to create this derivative work. It's a new work known under copyright law as a derivative of a 'compilation of derivative works by unknown authors'. The work is licensed. There is no reason to disbelieve the license, when it is a well-known license used for a great deal of software. Nothing in the definitions of collective work and derivative work suggests that one cannot form a derivative work of a collective 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
On 2/16/2010 4:18 PM, RJack wrote: [Note 3] ... We do not believe that the Copyright Act permits holders of rights under copyrights to choose third parties to bring suits on their behalf. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY, INC. and ERIK ANDERSEN, Plaintiffs -against- BEST BUY CO.,INC.,... ... In addition to being the fiscal sponsor of its member projects, the Conservancy also serves as copyright enforcement agent for some owners of copyrights in the member projects. So Erik Andersen himself is a party to the suit, rendering all of this argument moot. (You mat repeat to yourself your post on agency.) ___ 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 hyro...@mail.com writes: On 2/16/2010 4:09 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman: Uh your honor, I received permission from some unknown authors to create this derivative work. It's a new work known under copyright law as a derivative of a 'compilation of derivative works by unknown authors'. The work is licensed. There is no reason to disbelieve the license, when it is a well-known license used for a great deal of software. Licenses are not a matter of belief. License are a matter of commerce. You get software from somewhere _under_ a certain license. You don't find software somewhere fallen off a truck, look inside, find a file named COPYING and assume that the whole software must be licensed under GPL. To you. The software could be some non-released software that the author decided against releasing after all (or already), even though he already put licensing files and headers into it. That does not make the software free for the taking if you manage to hack into his computer. Or got the software from somebody who did. Or even if it _was_ distributed properly and you have access to the computer of the person who acquired it, you don't have the liberty to just make your own copy without permission from the person in legal possession of the copy. There are software users who pay quite a bit for GPLed software because it is not easy to come by (for example, if it still needs to be written). Those users are then free to give you a licensed copy. But you are not free to take it from them without asking. -- 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
RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/16/2010 4:18 PM, RJack wrote: [Note 3] ... We do not believe that the Copyright Act permits holders of rights under copyrights to choose third parties to bring suits on their behalf. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY, INC. and ERIK ANDERSEN, Plaintiffs -against- BEST BUY CO.,INC.,... ... In addition to being the fiscal sponsor of its member projects, the Conservancy also serves as copyright enforcement agent for some owners of copyrights in the member projects. So Erik Andersen himself is a party to the suit, rendering all of this argument moot. (You mat repeat to yourself your post on agency.) [T]he Copyright Law is quite specific in stating that only the owner of an exclusive right under a copyright may bring suit; Eden Toys Inc v. Florelee Undergarment Co Inc, 697 F.2d 27 (2nd Cir 1983). http://openjurist.org/697/f2d/27/eden-toys-inc-v-florelee-undergarment-co-inc Hyman, go have a Budweiser. Relax and clear your mind. You'll eventually be able to shake your denial and comprehend what Alexander and I are trying to teach you. I know it's not easy -- but try. Captain Moglen scared them out of the water! http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php Technically in Serbia there is no such thing as software licence in law. Software is regarded as copy of CD , when you buy CD you own software, therefore reverse engineering and hacking of said software is explicitly allowed by the law. Microsoft pushed muscles (perhaps bouhgt right people), that tax collector agents perform task of mafia, that is enter some private company, enter usb stick or diskete which will boot DOS and read windows registry. Then they have to show bills for software. All in all there are no knolegable layer in Serbia to write non contravrsial law, as in Segrbia software == CD. There is no such thing shareware , if tehy give yo uto dowload you own it and yu can reverse engener it. Perhaps microsoft should write new law, as Serbina law in current state is nothing but huck to allow microsoft mafia thing. Of course those tax agents don;t check government pirated software, because goverment can;t collect tax from itslef ;) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
