Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[Richard Tobin]

In article <4b7d8706.c45ed...@web.de>,
Alexander Terekhov   wrote:

>Hyman, you're really crank.

What language is this?

-- Richard
-- 
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
___
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 2/18/2010 5:46 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Now tell me that you really tried to visit those links (Hyman's 
"Residential Help" links) and build the binaries from that 'source'

you silly dak. Did you try that?


The version numbers on the source and binary links match. There is no
reason to believe that the companies involved are deliberately
providing mismatched versions. Believing in odd conspiracy theories
is the hallmark of a crank.


Demanding documentation of specious claims is the the hallmark of a
thoughtful, skeptical person. Your claims that "correlation proves
causation" prove only that you are willing slip into denial of
reality. Google the phrase  [ "correlation does not prove causation" ]
and you'll get over 93,000 examples of how the World views your
facetious conclusions.

Hyman, please continue to claim that "up" is "down" -- it won't help
but keep trying anyway.

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 2/18/2010 6:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman, are seriously claiming that "they" are "complete corresponding
source code" under the GNU GPL for
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp


Yes.
___
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

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 2/18/2010 5:56 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >> The manufacturers of the hardware also make source
> >> available at, and
> >
> > Did you try to even take a look at that source?
> 
> Sure. They're gzipped tar files of stuff. The names are

Hyman, are seriously claiming that "they" are "complete corresponding
source code" under the GNU GPL for 

http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp

you silly?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.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.P.S. "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, the Copyright Law is
quite specific in stating that only the "owner of an exclusive right
under a copyright" may bring suit."

Hyman's lovin'
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/402/881/510088/

--
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]

On 2/18/2010 6:02 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

The version numbers on the source and binary links match.

LOL!!! But what makes you think that it is a "complete corresponding
source code" under the GNU GPL?


Because Verizon and Actiontec are making the source code
available, and the version numbers on the links match.
___
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 2/18/2010 5:56 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

The manufacturers of the hardware also make source
available at, and


Did you try to even take a look at that source?


Sure. They're gzipped tar files of stuff. The names are
actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr_fw-56-0-10-7.tar.gz and
actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-acd_fw-56-0-10-11-6.tgz

The top-level README file says
This release includes all the GPL and LGPL source code and scripts used
by Actiontec to build their firmware. This build will support router models
MI424WR, KI414WG, VI424WG, BA212WG and RI408. To build for MI424WR
$ cd rg
$ make config CONFIG_RG_GPL=y DIST=MI424WR LIC=../jpkg_actiontec_gpl.lic && 
make

To build for other models replace MI424WR above with the right model.

The makefile in the ditribution expects Jungo's openrg GCC 3.3.2 based 
compiler
at /usr/local/openrg. Both x86 (i386-jungo-linux-gnu) and arm 
(armv5b-jungo-linux-gnu)
compiler should be installed.

All the files are uncompressed from flash into ram during bootup. If you 
want to
install new files on the ram disk you can use tftp as follows:
1.Enable local administration, telnet support.
2.Telenet to the router
3.Shell command will get user to sh prompt.
4.tftp get serverip:serverfile localfile, serverfile is the name of the 
file residing
  on the server and localfile is the localfile name.

___
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

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> The version numbers on the source and binary links match.

LOL!!! But what makes you think that it is a "complete corresponding
source code" under the GNU GPL, silly Hyman?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.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.P.S. "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, the Copyright Law is
quite specific in stating that only the "owner of an exclusive right
under a copyright" may bring suit."

Hyman's lovin'
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/402/881/510088/

--
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

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> The manufacturers of the hardware also make source
> available at , and

Did you try to even take a look at that source retard Hyman? 

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.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.P.S. "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, the Copyright Law is
quite specific in stating that only the "owner of an exclusive right
under a copyright" may bring suit."

Hyman's lovin'
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/402/881/510088/

--
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]

On 2/18/2010 5:46 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Now tell me that you really tried to visit those links (Hyman's
"Residential Help" links) and build the binaries from that 'source' you
silly dak. Did you try that?


The version numbers on the source and binary links match.
There is no reason to believe that the companies involved
are deliberately providing mismatched versions. Believing
in odd conspiracy theories is the hallmark of a crank.
___
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 2/18/2010 5:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

But it has nothing to do with the missing "complete corresponding source
code" under the GNU GPL for
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp


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: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> >
> > What evidence do you want from me stupid dak? That
> >
> > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
> >
> > is not backed by the "complete corresponding source code" under the GNU
> > GPL you silly?
> 
> You got the links already.

Now tell me that you really tried to visit those links (Hyman's
"Residential Help" links) and build the binaries from that 'source' you
silly dak. Did you try that?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.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.P.S. "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, the Copyright Law is
quite specific in stating that only the "owner of an exclusive right
under a copyright" may bring suit."

Hyman's lovin'
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/402/881/510088/

--
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

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

[... ResidentialHelp ...] 

Yes, you really need it (Residential Help) Hyman. 

But it has nothing to do with the missing "complete corresponding source
code" under the GNU GPL for 

http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp

you retard.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.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.P.S. "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, the Copyright Law is
quite specific in stating that only the "owner of an exclusive right
under a copyright" may bring suit."

Hyman's lovin'
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/402/881/510088/

--
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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov  writes:
>> 
>> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> >
>> > [... excuse ...]
>> >
>> > Stop making claims that you can't support with evidence, silly Hyman.
>> 
>> How about doing that yourself?
>
> What evidence do you want from me stupid dak? That 
>
> http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
>
> is not backed by the "complete corresponding source code" under the GNU
> GPL you silly?

You got the links already.

> Do you want me to prove that black is not white as well you retard?

Your rants are obviously not helping either your case, your reputation,
or your mood.

Why bother?

-- 
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

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/18/2010 5:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
is not backed by the "complete corresponding source code" under the GNU
GPL


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: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov  writes:
> 
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >
> > [... excuse ...]
> >
> > Stop making claims that you can't support with evidence, silly Hyman.
> 
> How about doing that yourself?

What evidence do you want from me stupid dak? That 

http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp

is not backed by the "complete corresponding source code" under the GNU
GPL you silly?

Do you want me to prove that black is not white as well you retard?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.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.P.S. "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, the Copyright Law is
quite specific in stating that only the "owner of an exclusive right
under a copyright" may bring suit."

Hyman's lovin'
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/402/881/510088/

--
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]

On 2/18/2010 4:30 PM, RJack wrote:

Your links lead back to an old Actiontec site -- not Verizon.


What does "old" mean? Alexander's beloved page,
,
links to
.
On Verizon's page

we see a link for firmware source "MI424WR - FW: 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.11.6".
On Actiontec's page, , we see
MI424WR (Rev. A, C or D)
MI424WR - FW: 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7
MI424WR - FW: 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.11.6

Both companies are working together, Actiontec making the FiOS
routers for Verizon, and both are supplying GPLed sources for
the binaries they ship.


Verizon received a voluntary dismissal *with prejudice* from the SFLC


The SFLC dismissed its case once the two sides settled.
Dismissing with prejudice is routine in settlements, to
prevent the plaintiffs from reopening a settled case.


couldn't give a rat's ass less about the SFLC *or* the GPL. I doubt
anyone at Verizon knows who the SFLC is or what the GPL is.


The persons at Verizon responsible for these pages on their site,



know about the GPL, since these pages reference it. So do the
people who wrote this manual,
,
since it is Verizon-branded and mentions the GPL.

But insisting that the obvious is illusory is par for
the course for a crank.


No defendant ever cares about an SFLC lawsuit because any lawsuit filed
by the SFLC is subsequently followed by a plaintiff's voluntary
dismissal.


After each case filed by the SFLC ended, the defendants came into
compliance with the GPL.


There is a *verifiable* factual cause and effect here. One
hundred percent of the time, the *verifiable* court records reflect a
complaint filed then no further legal action that is subsequently
followed by voluntary dismissal and no settlement agreement. Defendants
know the SFLC lawsuit is all-blow-and-no-go designed to stimulate public
donations to SFLC staff salaries.


After each case filed by the SFLC ended, the defendants came into
compliance with the GPL. Since the only goal of the SFLC lawsuits
is for the defendants to comply with the GPL, and since after each
case the defendants comply with the GPL, the goals of the lawsuit
are accomplished. Accomplishment of goals constitutes success.


All this collateral spin about compliance certainly deflects the focus
away from the fact that the GPL is preempted by the Copyright Act and
unenforceable as a contract.


Preemption is irrelevant to the GPL, since the GPL deals only with
normal federal copyright law. It is not enforceable as a contract,
since it is a voluntary license. However, copyright infringement is
enforceable, because there is no other way for GPLed code to be
copied and distributed.


Professor Robert P. Merges of the Berkeley Law School has noted this
fact in his treatise "The End of Friction? Property Rights and Contract
in the 'Newtonian' World of On-Line Commerce" (12 Berkeley Tech. L.J.
115). He describes the GPL license as legally unenforceable restrictions
on digital works:

---
"One prominent organization, the Free Software Foundation, promotes this
norm today through the institution of "copyleft," a copyright license
that requires transferees of free software to promise not to incorporate
it in a commercial product and to pass it on, even if embedded in a
larger program, to others free of use restrictions.46


The GPL does not require anyone to promise anything, does not
disallow inclusion into commercial software, and does not require
anyone to pass anything on. It requires only that covered software
be distributed only under its terms, and that when incorporated
into certain types of collective works, that those works as a
whole be distributed that way.


By its own terms, the copyleft agreement is an unusual license; at the
most basic level consider the problem of determining damages when the
licensee frustrates the licensor's expectation of zero profits under the
contract.


The JMRI appeals court already covered this subject. Damages
need not be monetary in nature. Copyright law already provides
for statutory damages, and in any case the infringing party can
be enjoined from continuing the infringement.

> But what is most significant about the agreement is that it

purports to restrict subsequent transferees who receive software from a
licensee, presumably even

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> [... excuse ...]
>
> Stop making claims that you can't support with evidence, silly Hyman.

How about doing that yourself?

-- 
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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> to do so make their local changes.  If that renders the router
>
> Go try making "local changes" regarding
>
> http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
>
> and report your results back here, silly dak. It won't happen, I know,
> you silly dak.

I have not bought (and consequently licensed) anything from Verizon or
Actiontec.  So of course nothing like this will happen by me.  And
similarly, nothing proving the contrary will happen by you.

So applying your kind of logic, you are as silly as I am.  Personally, I
should consider you much sillier, exactly because of the kind of logic
you employ.

-- 
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]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/18/2010 2:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Go try making "local changes" regarding 
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp and report 
your results back here


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.


Your links lead back to an old Actiontec site -- not Verizon. Verizon
received a voluntary dismissal *with prejudice* from the SFLC and
couldn't give a rat's ass less about the SFLC *or* the GPL. I doubt
anyone at Verizon knows who the SFLC is or what the GPL is.

No defendant ever cares about an SFLC lawsuit because any lawsuit filed
by the SFLC is subsequently followed by a plaintiff's voluntary
dismissal. There is a *verifiable* factual cause and effect here. One
hundred percent of the time, the *verifiable* court records reflect a
complaint filed then no further legal action that is subsequently
followed by voluntary dismissal and no settlement agreement. Defendants
know the SFLC lawsuit is all-blow-and-no-go designed to stimulate public
donations to SFLC staff salaries.

All this collateral spin about compliance certainly deflects the focus
away from the fact that the GPL is preempted by the Copyright Act and
unenforceable as a contract.

Professor Robert P. Merges of the Berkeley Law School has noted this
fact in his treatise "The End of Friction? Property Rights and Contract
in the 'Newtonian' World of On-Line Commerce" (12 Berkeley Tech. L.J.
115). He describes the GPL license as legally unenforceable restrictions
on digital works:

---
"One prominent organization, the Free Software Foundation, promotes this
norm today through the institution of "copyleft," a copyright license
that requires transferees of free software to promise not to incorporate
it in a commercial product and to pass it on, even if embedded in a
larger program, to others free of use restrictions.46

By its own terms, the copyleft agreement is an unusual license; at the
most basic level consider the problem of determining damages when the
licensee frustrates the licensor's expectation of zero profits under the
contract. But what is most significant about the agreement is that it
purports to restrict subsequent transferees who receive software from a
licensee, presumably even if the licensee fails to attach a copy of the
agreement. As this new transferee is not in privity with the original
copyleft licensor, the stipulation seems unenforceable."
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol12/Merges/html/reader.html

--

**TO ALL FREE SOFTIES**: Please note that Professor Merges correctly
refers to downstream participants as "transferees" and not "licensees".

Even if 17 USC sec 301(a) didn't preempt the GPL, the lack of privity
between "downstream" participants ("all third parties") is absent. There
is a fundamental principle of contract law prohibiting the parties to a
contract from binding nonparties. See, e.g., EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc.,
534 U.S. 279, 294 (2002) ("It goes without saying that a contract cannot
bind a nonparty.").


"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

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

[... crank ... crank ... crank ... crank ...]

Take your meds and call your doctor, retard Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.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.P.S. "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, the Copyright Law is
quite specific in stating that only the "owner of an exclusive right
under a copyright" may bring suit."

Hyman's lovin'
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/402/881/510088/

--
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]

On 2/18/2010 3:48 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Stop making claims that you can't support with evidence.


The defendants in each of the SFLC cases now have web sites
from which they serve the GPLed sources for the binaries they
distribute. If a GPL crank wishes to assert that these sources
do not in fact build to those binaries, I see no reason to
believe that crank any more than I believe anything else that
crank says, since it is the essence of a crank to be eternally
wrong.

___
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

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

[... excuse ...]

Stop making claims that you can't support with evidence, silly Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.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.P.S. "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, the Copyright Law is
quite specific in stating that only the "owner of an exclusive right
under a copyright" may bring suit."

Hyman's lovin'
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/402/881/510088/

--
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]

On 2/18/2010 3:29 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Why don't you try it yourself (checking whether the offered source code
corresponds to the "complete corresponding source code" under the GNU
GPL)? Is it because you are insufficiently motivated to go
set up a GNU/Linux system so that you can do the builds? Why so?


At work I use Solaris/x86 and at home I use Windows. I don't
particularly feel any great need to do the checking myself,
not enough to bother setting up a system so that I can do the
build.
___
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

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

[magical source code]

> available at , and
> offer physical copies for $10 as well.

Why don't you try it yourself (checking whether the offered source code
corresponds to the "complete corresponding source code" under the GNU
GPL), silly Hyman? Is it because you are insufficiently motivated to go
set up a GNU/Linux system so that you can do the builds, retard Hyman?
Why so?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.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.P.S. "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, the Copyright Law is
quite specific in stating that only the "owner of an exclusive right
under a copyright" may bring suit."

Hyman's lovin'
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/402/881/510088/

--
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]

On 2/18/2010 2:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Go try making "local changes" regarding
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
and report your results back here


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: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> to do so make their local changes.  If that renders the router

Go try making "local changes" regarding

http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp

and report your results back here, silly dak. It won't happen, I know,
you 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. "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, the Copyright Law is
quite specific in stating that only the "owner of an exclusive right
under a copyright" may bring suit."

Hyman's lovin'
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/402/881/510088/

--
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

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen  writes:

> On 2/18/2010 12:46 PM, RJack wrote:
>> They're *your* unverified claims. Neither myself nor, I doubt, anyone
>> else is going to foolishly carry *your* burden and produce *your*
>> "facts" for you.
>
> Your "facts" require the belief that after settling the lawsuits,
> the defendants set up the ability for customers to obtain GPLed
> sources, but then provide sources that do not match the binaries
> being distributed. (For it is incontrovertible that those GPL
> download sites exist.) That beggars belief.
>
>> The "sequence" you postulate is simply an unverified string of events.
>
> Only anti-GPL cranks find this to be true.

Let's not forget that the Cisco(?) case was mainly about Cisco "dragging
its feet" with regard to compliance, namely _not_ timely making
available the _corresponding_ sources to new versions.

So it would appear that verifying the matching version is easy enough
for legal purposes.

Also, providing non-matching sources intentionally in order to _feign_
license compliance is fraud, which is a criminal offense.

While our local cranks have no qualms assuming that companies will
happily commit fraud just to let our court jesters here hop in glee,
that is hardly to be expected in reality.

After all, the main point of the GPLed sources is to let people inclined
to do so make their local changes.  If that renders the router
unfunctional even without the local changes, that would be rather
obvious.  If it _does_ not render the router unfunctional, where is the
point in providing different functional sources?

Sure, it is work to diligently verify actual compliance, but there is
nothing to be gained by the company providing different sources.

-- 
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

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/18/2010 12:46 PM, RJack wrote:

They're *your* unverified claims. Neither myself nor, I doubt, anyone
else is going to foolishly carry *your* burden and produce *your*
"facts" for you.


Your "facts" require the belief that after settling the lawsuits,
the defendants set up the ability for customers to obtain GPLed
sources, but then provide sources that do not match the binaries
being distributed. (For it is incontrovertible that those GPL
download sites exist.) That beggars belief.


The "sequence" you postulate is simply an unverified string of events.


Only anti-GPL cranks find this to be true.


You should either produce a verifiable copy of a settlement agreement


Settlement agreements are often held private between the
settling parties, there being no particular reason that
both sides should want them to be public. Instead, we look
at outcomes. First there is a suit for copyright infringement,
then there is a settlement, then the defendants come into
compliance with the GPL. Non-cranks see this as evidence of a
successful outcome of the cases. Cranks twist and spin to avoid
the obvious.


The central topic of the discussion in this group has always been the
legal enforceability of the GNU GPL adhesion contract. Nothing short of
a *ruling* by a judge in a federal court will establish the legal effect
of the GPL. The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER allow this to happen -- they are
perfectly aware that the GPL is preempted by 17 USC 301(a). The only
hope the SFLC and Free Softies can rely upon is that the gullible public
will believe the logical fallacy that "correlation proves causation".


The GPL is a straightforward copyright license, and anyone who seeks
to copy and distribute GPL-covered software must abide by its terms,
or else be guilty of copyright infringement. It is so straightforward
that when companies are put on notice that they are in violation (and
sometimes this notice takes a lawsuit, because sometimes people are
like that), they quickly come into compliance. Courts rule on disputes
where the parties cannot agree. Waiting to believe that the GPL is a
valid copyright license until a court rules it so is like waiting to
believe that the sky is blue until a court rules it so.
___
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

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 2/18/2010 12:45 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Why don't you try to perform your own verification and post
>  > here the results
> 
> Because I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux
> system so that I can do the builds.

Stop making an utter idiot of yourself, Hyman. You won't listen, I know. 

Hyman, you're really crank.

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. "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, the Copyright Law is
quite specific in stating that only the "owner of an exclusive right
under a copyright" may bring suit."

Hyman's lovin'
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/402/881/510088/

--
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]

On 2/18/2010 12:45 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Why don't you try to perform your own verification and post

> here the results

Because I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux
system so that I can do the builds.
___
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 2/18/2010 11:38 AM, RJack wrote:

Claiming "it is very easy" is just another unverified claim. You're
 entitled to your own opinion but not your own unverified facts. 
Sorry.


Claiming that my claim is unverified is very easy, but false. I have
 explained how verification can be accomplished - use the sources to
 build the binary, and see if that binary matches the distributed
one.



They're *your* unverified claims. Neither myself nor, I doubt, anyone
else is going to foolishly carry *your* burden and produce *your*
"facts" for you.

I leave it to you to convince the 99.999% of the World that holds 
the opinion contrary to yours.


The sequence of suit-settlement-action is quite convincing. The only
 ones who hold a contrary opinion are the anti-GPL cranks, who cannot
 countenance the SFLC's effectiveness.


The "sequence" you postulate is simply an unverified string of events.
As I stated, you may remain in solipsistic denial forever but
correlation will never prove causation. Reality is often a difficult
thing to face Hyman. You should either produce a verifiable copy of a
settlement agreement or own up to reality -- there has never been a
settlement agreement, let alone *seven* agreements, with respect to the
seven frivolous SFLC lawsuits that have been voluntarily dismissed by
the the plaintiffs.

The central topic of the discussion in this group has always been the
legal enforceability of the GNU GPL adhesion contract. Nothing short of
a *ruling* by a judge in a federal court will establish the legal effect
of the GPL. The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER allow this to happen -- they are
perfectly aware that the GPL is preempted by 17 USC 301(a). The only
hope the SFLC and Free Softies can rely upon is that the gullible public
will believe the logical fallacy that "correlation proves causation".


"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

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> I have explained how verification can be accomplished - use the
> sources to build the binary, and see if that binary matches the
> distributed one.

Why don't you try to perform your own verification and post here the
results, silly 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. "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, the Copyright Law is
quite specific in stating that only the "owner of an exclusive right
under a copyright" may bring suit."

Hyman's lovin'
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/402/881/510088/

--
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]

On 2/18/2010 11:38 AM, RJack wrote:

Claiming "it is very easy" is just another unverified claim. You're
entitled to your own opinion but not your own unverified facts. Sorry.


Claiming that my claim is unverified is very easy, but false.
I have explained how verification can be accomplished - use the
sources to build the binary, and see if that binary matches the
distributed one.


I leave it to you to convince the 99.999% of the World that holds
the opinion contrary to yours.


The sequence of suit-settlement-action is quite convincing.
The only ones who hold a contrary opinion are the anti-GPL
cranks, who cannot countenance the SFLC's effectiveness.
___
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 2/17/2010 6:48 PM, RJack wrote:
Whatever (unverifiable) source code that is provided out there (if 
in fact there is any) is years old, out of datesource modules that 
mock the claim "gaining compliance". You simply can't verify what's
 posted out there any more than you can produce a copy of a 
settlement agreement.


It is very easy to verify compliance; take the allegedly compliant 
source code, follow its building instructions, and see if the result

 is the same as the binary being copied and distributed. (I would say
 "identical" but there may be artifacts such as build-time tags in
the binary that prevent exact identity.)


Claiming "it is very easy" is just another unverified claim. You're
entitled to your own opinion but not your own unverified facts. Sorry.



If the binaries have been built from old sources, then those are the
 sources that need to be distributed for compliance, so that users of
 the software can run, read, modify, and share the version that is on
 their device.

What you are doing Hyman is attempting to claim that "correlation 
implies causation". You can't even factually establish a 
correlation. You're practicing one of the oldest logical fallacies 
that naive people succumb to.


Silly RJack! Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Now,

 it's true that correlation doesn't prove causation, but when there
is a plausible mechanism along with the correlation, then parsimony 
accepts one as a cause of the other. For anyone but devoted anti-GPL

 cranks, the sequence of one, a lawsuit with demands by the
plaintiff, two, a settlement of the suit, and three, the defendants
acting as the plaintiffs demanded, is proof that the lawsuit brought
about the actions.


I leave it to you to convince the 99.999% of the World that holds
the opinion contrary to yours. Again, you are freely entitled to your
own opinion but not your own logical system of thought. You may adopt a
solipsist posture for which there is no logical refutation but it won't
convince the rest of the World. You may argue that Red is Green ad
infinitum but you'll only be addressing yourself. I'm afraid your ego
and your id are trapped in a vicious circle of correlation and
causation. Enjoy Hyman. Enjoy.


"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 2/17/2010 6:48 PM, RJack wrote:

Whatever (unverifiable) source code that is provided out there (if in
fact there is any) is years old, out of datesource modules that mock the
claim "gaining compliance". You simply can't verify what's posted out
there any more than you can produce a copy of a settlement agreement.


It is very easy to verify compliance; take the allegedly compliant
source code, follow its building instructions, and see if the result
is the same as the binary being copied and distributed. (I would say
"identical" but there may be artifacts such as build-time tags in the
binary that prevent exact identity.)

If the binaries have been built from old sources, then those are the
sources that need to be distributed for compliance, so that users of
the software can run, read, modify, and share the version that is on
their device.


What you are doing Hyman is attempting to claim that "correlation
implies causation". You can't even factually establish a correlation.
You're practicing one of the oldest logical fallacies that naive people
succumb to.


Silly RJack! Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Now,
it's true that correlation doesn't prove causation, but when there
is a plausible mechanism along with the correlation, then parsimony
accepts one as a cause of the other. For anyone but devoted anti-GPL
cranks, the sequence of one, a lawsuit with demands by the plaintiff,
two, a settlement of the suit, and three, the defendants acting as
the plaintiffs demanded, is proof that the lawsuit brought about the
actions.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss