Re: A simple question
Hi, Rjack, In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: I have a simple question. The United States Copyright Act, 17 USC sets out what comprises copyright infringement: ? 501. Infringement of copyright [ 24 lines of legal text snipped. ] The following doesn't seem to be a simple question at all: How can someone infringe on another's copyrighted work without violating one the specific exclusive rights as described in sections 106 through 122 and section 106(A)? The answer to this question could resolve many disagreements among open source license debaters. Maybe it could, maybe it can't. You'd get a better quality of debate if you posted the question on a legal forum. I can personally imagine no situation where the above quoted section would a allow a charge of infringement without actually violating one of the enumerated exclusive rights. Neither can I, to be honest. But that's mainly because I'm not interested in the minutiae of a foreign country's somewhat arcane copyright statutes. Like I said, you'd be better posting the question on a USA legal forum, not gnu.misc.discuss. Sincerely, Rjack :) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
The comedy continues to unroll. Uh retarded crackpot free softies. LOL! http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=1294 A big legal victory for open source Date: February 21st, 2010 Author: Jack Wallen Category: General Tags: Software, GPL, Victory, Open Source, Tools Techniques, Management, Jack Wallen Many of you may not realize, but a large victory for open source software was won February 19, 2010. The case, at first blush, seemed very simple (and cut and dry). A software developer (and member of the Java Model Railroad Interface Project), Robert Jacobson, had created a piece of software released under the GPL that the defendant (Matthew Katzer - owner of a proprietary model train controlling software KAMIND) ripped off. Not only did the defendant rip off the code, he removed all mention of authorship for the original code and stripped away the copyright notice. Of course the removal of the copyright was a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act...so legal president was present. The original patent claim Katzer made against Jacobson was in 2004. The case dragged on quite some time (for all the details you can visit the Wikipedia entry for Jacobson v. Katzer). And although this was a big win for Jacboson, the long-term effects for F/OSS could be bigger. Why? Precedent. Our court system runs on precedent. A precedent is a prior legal case that a court uses as a reference when deciding on a current case. One of the biggest issues facing open source software was that there was no precedent to fall back on. Now there is. Now the open source licensing model stands up in a court of law and is legally entitled to copyright protection. What this does, IMHO, is that it gives businesses and developers a security they didnt have prior to the verdict. And because this case eventually went to U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the ruling was binding in all district courts underneath the US FCCA. What started as a small victory for a model railroad aficionado and developer became a huge victory for an entire community of developers. How? The GPL is valid in a court of law. You can develop your software now, release it under the GPL and know the US Federal Court has your back. This small victory will ensure big companies no longer pilfer various GPL codes, place them into their own code, and get away with the crime. Now they will pay. Is the open source development community better protected because of this ruling? Yes No Remains to be seen Do not have enough information View Results Loading ... Although I hope this doesnt turn into a coup, with open source developers scrambling through other codes to try to find violations, I am thrilled the open source community can now continue their work with actual legal protection waiting for them in the wings. This ruling has been a long time coming. This victory is deserving. Thank you Robert Jacobson for fighting for your rights and for the rights of open source developers across the globe. Jack Wallen was a key player in the introduction of Linux to the original Techrepublic. Beginning with Red Hat 4.2 and a mighty soap box, Jack had found his escape from Windows. It was around Red Hat 6.0 that Jack landed in the hallowed halls of Techrepublic. Read his full bio and profile. ROFL!!! 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 hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: The comedy continues to unroll. Uh retarded crackpot free softies. LOL! URL:http://www.pvponline.com/2008/06/30/interlude-the-adventures-of-lolbat/ -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Alexander Terekhov wrote: The comedy continues to unroll. Uh retarded crackpot free softies. LOL! http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=1294 A big legal victory for open source Date: February 21st, 2010 Author: Jack Wallen Category: General Tags: Software, GPL, Victory, Open Source, Tools Techniques, Management, Jack Wallen Many of you may not realize, but a large victory for open source software was won February 19, 2010. The case, at first blush, seemed very simple (and cut and dry). A software developer (and member of the Java Model Railroad Interface Project), Robert Jacobson, had created a piece of software released under the GPL that the defendant (Matthew Katzer - owner of a proprietary model train controlling software KAMIND) ripped off. Not only did the defendant rip off the code, he removed all mention of authorship for the original code and stripped away the copyright notice. Of course the removal of the copyright was a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act...so legal president was present. The original patent claim Katzer made against Jacobson was in 2004. The case dragged on quite some time (for all the details you can visit the Wikipedia entry for Jacobson v. Katzer). And although this was a big win for Jacboson, the long-term effects for F/OSS could be bigger. Why? Precedent. Our court system runs on precedent. A precedent is a prior legal case that a court uses as a reference when deciding on a current case. One of the biggest issues facing open source software was that there was no precedent to fall back on. Now there is. Now the open source licensing model stands up in a court of law and is legally entitled to copyright protection. What this does, IMHO, is that it gives businesses and developers a security they didn’t have prior to the verdict. And because this case eventually went to U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the ruling was binding in all district courts underneath the US FCCA. What started as a small victory for a model railroad aficionado and developer became a huge victory for an entire community of developers. How? The GPL is valid in a court of law. You can develop your software now, release it under the GPL and know the US Federal Court has your back. This small victory will ensure big companies no longer pilfer various GPL codes, place them into their own code, and get away with the crime. Now they will pay. Is the open source development community better protected because of this ruling? Yes No Remains to be seen Do not have enough information View Results Loading ... Although I hope this doesn’t turn into a coup, with open source developers scrambling through other codes to try to find violations, I am thrilled the open source community can now continue their work with actual legal protection waiting for them in the wings. This ruling has been a long time coming. This victory is deserving. Thank you Robert Jacobson for fighting for your rights and for the rights of open source developers across the globe. Jack Wallen was a key player in the introduction of Linux to the original Techrepublic. Beginning with Red Hat 4.2 and a mighty soap box, Jack had found his escape from Windows. It was around Red Hat 6.0 that Jack landed in the hallowed halls of Techrepublic. Read his full bio and profile. ROFL!!! I'll bet Jacobsen will be as surprised as the rest of us that his model train software is now GPL. I'll also bet the CAFC will be surprised to find that all those district courts under them (exactly zero) are bound by their copyright precedent. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: A simple question
Alan Mackenzie wrote: Hi, Rjack, In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: I have a simple question. The United States Copyright Act, 17 USC sets out what comprises copyright infringement: ? 501. Infringement of copyright [ 24 lines of legal text snipped. ] The following doesn't seem to be a simple question at all: How can someone infringe on another's copyrighted work without violating one the specific exclusive rights as described in sections 106 through 122 and section 106(A)? The answer to this question could resolve many disagreements among open source license debaters. Maybe it could, maybe it can't. You'd get a better quality of debate if you posted the question on a legal forum. MAYBE frogs wouldn't bump their asses IF they had wings. I can personally imagine no situation where the above quoted section would a allow a charge of infringement without actually violating one of the enumerated exclusive rights. Neither can I, to be honest. But that's mainly because I'm not interested in the minutiae of a foreign country's somewhat arcane copyright statutes. Why not then, just... STFU? Like I said, you'd be better posting the question on a USA legal forum, not gnu.misc.discuss. Since you're not the moderator of this group, I'm fairly sure that you fully understand that I don't really give a rat's fuck what you think about my posting in this group. Why not trot down to your elite foreign library and find that misc is a common abbreviation for the word miscellaneous. Next, take down a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary and feast your condescending eyes on the definition of the word miscellaneous. Your pathetic whining because you can't censor what is posted in this miscellaneous newsgroup is just that -- pathetic. Sincerely, RJack :) Have a nice day Alan! _ _ |R| |R| |J| /^^^\ |J| _|a|_ (| o |) _|a|_ _| |c| | _(_---_)_ | |c| |_ | | |k| ||-|_| |_|-|| |k| | | | | / \ | | \/ / /(. .)\ \ \/ \/ / / | . | \ \ \/ \ \/ /||Y||\ \/ / \__/ || || \__/ () () || || ooO Ooo ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
On 2/19/2010 5:02 PM, RJack wrote: No, no Hyman, it's Judge vs. Judge: The condition that the user insert a promin,ent notice of attr noibution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather, Defendants’ alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create liability for copyright infringement where it would not otherwise exist. Judge White in Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 (N.D. CA 2007) This was the decision overturned by the appeals court, so your judge loses. and Appeals Panel vs. Appeals Panel: In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely unremarkable principle that uses that violate a license agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all. Storage Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005) There is no vs. here, since the entirely unremarkable principle is intact. The infringing use is the copying and distribution of a work without adhering to its license, violating the exclusive rights of the author under 17 USC 106. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: A simple question
On 2/21/2010 1:25 PM, RJack wrote: How can someone infringe on another's copyrighted work without violating one the specific exclusive rights as described in sections 106 through 122 and section 106(A)? The answer to this question could resolve many disagreements among open source license debaters. Why do you believe that someone is claiming copyright infringement outside of the enumerated rights of 17 USC 106? Even the FSF's wrong opinion about dynamic linking rests on the incorrect belief that it involves creating a derivative work, which is one of the enumerated exclusive rights. The claims are about copying and distributing works without permission of their rights holders, just as in 17 USC 106. You seem very confused. Perhaps it is time for you to mention preemption again? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
On 2/22/2010 12:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, why you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum? There is no conundrum, just twisting and spinning by anti-GPL cranks who want to convince people that violation of a license does not constitute copyright infringement. The only person I know of who was trying to fight that fight has just given up and agreed to pay a $100,000 penalty for that point of view. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: A simple question
On 2/22/2010 12:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum, why? There is no conundrum, just twisting and spinning by anti-GPL cranks who want to convince people that violation of a license does not constitute copyright infringement. The only person I know of who was trying to fight that fight has just given up and agreed to pay a $100,000 penalty for that point of view. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: A simple question
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] cranks who want to convince people that violation of a license does not constitute copyright infringement. The only person I Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as violation of a renting license constitutes a trespass, you 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 hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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
Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote: [In a typical silly net flamewar, one might explain it as simple pigheadedness and unwillingness to admit error (AFAICT, these are the common driving forces), but he's been spewing his bile so frequently, and for so long, it seems like there must be _some_ reason ... did he get spanked for stealing free software at some point?] How do one steals free software? ___ 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 Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Victor Tarabola Cortiano victorcorti...@gmail.com wrote: [In a typical silly net flamewar, one might explain it as simple pigheadedness and unwillingness to admit error (AFAICT, these are the common driving forces), but he's been spewing his bile so frequently, and for so long, it seems like there must be _some_ reason ... did he get spanked for stealing free software at some point?] How do one steals free software? By using it in his binary and distributing it without source... -miles -- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: A simple question
On 2/22/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as violation of a renting license constitutes a trespass, you retard Hyman. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. ... Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Court vs. crank. Court wins. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
On 2/22/2010 12:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as violation of a renting license constitutes a trespass, you retard Hyman. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. ... Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Court vs. crank. Court wins. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] cranks who want to convince people that violation of a license does not constitute copyright infringement. The only person I Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as violation of a renting license constitutes a trespass, you retard Hyman. If there is a toll box for access, and you choose to climb in through the backyard instead... It depends on whether you want to claim that you wanted to pay (and it did not register or whatever) or that you did not even think about trying. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Hyman Rosen wrote: [... choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance ...] That's contract law claim, not tort. WHY ARE YOU BEING SUCH AN IDIOT 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 hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: A simple question
Hyman Rosen wrote: [... choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance ...] That's contract law claim, not tort. WHY ARE YOU BEING SUCH AN IDIOT 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 hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
On 2/22/2010 12:54 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: That's contract law claim, not tort. WHY ARE YOU BEING SUCH AN IDIOT HYMAN? http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License are enforceable copyright conditions, ... ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: A simple question
On 2/22/2010 12:55 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: That's contract law claim, not tort. WHY ARE YOU BEING SUCH AN IDIOT HYMAN? http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License are enforceable copyright conditions, ... ___ 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 2/22/2010 12:14 PM, Victor Tarabola Cortiano wrote: How do one steals free software? By not complying with the conditions its rights holders have specified for permitting its copying and distribution. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: A simple question
Hyman Rosen wrote: [... enforceable copyright condition ...] Hyman, please formulate what is enforceable copyright condition, 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 hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: A simple question
On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, please formulate what is enforceable copyright condition, you retard. Copying and distributing without permission from the rights holders, with such permission expressed in the license they may offer. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Hyman Rosen wrote: [... enforceable copyright condition ...] Hyman, please formulate what is enforceable copyright condition, 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 hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, please formulate what is enforceable copyright condition, you retard. Copying and distributing without permission from the rights holders, with such permission expressed in the license they may offer. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: A simple question
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, please formulate what is enforceable copyright condition, you retard. Copying and distributing without permission from the rights holders, with such permission expressed in the license they may offer. Hyman, why you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum? 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 hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, please formulate what is enforceable copyright condition, you retard. Copying and distributing without permission from the rights holders, with such permission expressed in the license they may offer. Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum, why? 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 hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: A simple question
On 2/22/2010 1:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, why you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum? http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License are enforceable copyright conditions, ... ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, please formulate what is enforceable copyright condition, ... Copying and distributing without permission from the rights holders, with such permission expressed in the license they may offer. Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum, why? Perhaps because that's such an arcane, fine distinction that he's no more interested in it than the judges were who judged Jacobsen vs. Katzer. What matters is that the terms and conditions in the GPL are legally valid, and have now been tested in an appeals court in the United States of America. regards, alexander. [ snip spam ] -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ 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
Victor Tarabola Cortiano writes: How do one steals free software? BY making off with copies (i.e., tangible property) belonging to someone else. Copyright infringement is not theft (and no, that does not mean it is not illegal nor is a judgement as to whether it is right or wrong). -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote: On 2/22/2010 1:42 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: What matters is that the terms and conditions in the GPL are legally valid, and have now been tested in an appeals court in the United States of America. That was the Artistic License, not the GPL, but good enough. Ah, thanks! I thought there was something a little wrong. Still, if the artistic license holds up, the GPL'll be a doddle. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ 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
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote: Copyright infringement is not theft (and no, that does not mean it is not illegal nor is a judgement as to whether it is right or wrong). That was my point :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: A simple question
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/21/2010 1:25 PM, RJack wrote: How can someone infringe on another's copyrighted work without violating one the specific exclusive rights as described in sections 106 through 122 and section 106(A)? The answer to this question could resolve many disagreements among open source license debaters. Why do you believe that someone is claiming copyright infringement outside of the enumerated rights of 17 USC 106? Even the FSF's wrong opinion about dynamic linking rests on the incorrect belief that it involves creating a derivative work, which is one of the enumerated exclusive rights. The claims are about copying and distributing works without permission of their rights holders, just as in 17 USC 106. You seem very confused. Perhaps it is time for you to mention preemption again? I was addressing the Jacobsen decision and rights of attribution. Me thinks *you're* confused. Moron. Sincerely, RJack :) Captain Moglen scared them out of the water! http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: A simple question
On 2/22/2010 4:18 PM, RJack wrote: I was addressing the Jacobsen decision and rights of attribution. Me thinks *you're* confused. Moron. There is no right of attribution in the United States. It is simply that permission is required from rights holders to copy and distribute works, and attribution (or GPL requirements, or other such things) is required by those rights holders if you wish to receive such permission. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 12:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright
infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as
violation of a renting license constitutes a trespass, you retard
Hyman.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright holders
who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the
modification and distribution of copyrighted material. ... Copyright
licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages
alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact
consideration in the form of compliance with the open source
requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as
a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition.
Court vs. crank. Court wins.
Nope courts (plural) vs. moron. Courts (plural) win.
Not only did the court not state that “uses” that fall outside the
scope of the license would necessarily constitute a copyright violation,
but the allegedly unlawful “use” in that case was the copying of
architectural plans. Id. at 32; see Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys.
Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1167 (1st Cir. 1994). In light of their
facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely unremarkable principle
that “uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright
infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any
license agreement at all. -- {CAFC)
The scope of the nonexclusive license is, therefore, intentionally
broad. The condition that the user insert a prominent notice of
attribution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather, Defendants’
alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have
constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create
liability for copyright infringement where it would not otherwise exist.
Therefore, based on the current record before the Court, the Court finds
that Plaintiff’s claim properly sounds in contract and therefore
Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating likelihood of success
on the merit of his copyright claim and is therefore not entitled to a
presumption of irreparable harm -- (ND CA)
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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 1:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the
analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum, why?
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License
are enforceable copyright conditions, ...
Not only did the court not state that “uses” that fall outside the
scope of the license would necessarily constitute a copyright violation,
but the allegedly unlawful “use” in that case was the copying of
architectural plans. Id. at 32; see Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys.
Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1167 (1st Cir. 1994). In light of their
facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely unremarkable principle
that “uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright
infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any
license agreement at all. -- {CAFC)
The scope of the nonexclusive license is, therefore, intentionally
broad. The condition that the user insert a prominent notice of
attribution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather, Defendants’
alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have
constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create
liability for copyright infringement where it would not otherwise exist.
Therefore, based on the current record before the Court, the Court finds
that Plaintiff’s claim properly sounds in contract and therefore
Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating likelihood of success
on the merit of his copyright claim and is therefore not entitled to a
presumption of irreparable harm -- (ND CA)
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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Alan Mackenzie wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, please formulate what is enforceable copyright condition, ... Copying and distributing without permission from the rights holders, with such permission expressed in the license they may offer. Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum, why? Perhaps because that's such an arcane, fine distinction that he's no more interested in it than the judges were who judged Jacobsen vs. Katzer. What matters is that the terms and conditions in the GPL are legally valid, and have now been tested in an appeals court in the United States of America. Ummm... The Artistic license is now abbreviated GPL. Hmm... Alan is a poet and using poetic license... 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
On 2/22/2010 4:33 PM, RJack wrote: the entirely unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all Yes. And the use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in the absence of any license agreement at all. (ND CA) Of what use is it to quote a district court ruling that was overturned on appeal? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
On 2/22/2010 4:36 PM, RJack wrote:
“uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright
infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any
license agreement at all. -- {CAFC)
The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes
in the absence of any license agreement at all.
(ND CA)
This is the ruling which CAFC overturned.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
RJack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote: Alan is a poet and using poetic license... I have a good sense of rhythm, balance, and flow, yes. :-) Sincerely, RJack -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
On 2/22/2010 5:06 PM, RJack wrote: I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel violated CAFC rules. Court vs. crank. You can tell me a hundred times more, but nothing you tell me changes the fact that the so-called valid opinion is overturned. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
RJack u...@example.net wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel violated CAFC rules. If you were correct, a single time would suffice. Here's the *valid* opinion: [ ] Sorry, Rjack, by definition the opinion of that appeals court is the valid one. Why can't you simply admit you've been mistaken on this issue for quite a long time? No shame in that, even the lower court got it wrong to begin with. Sincerely, RJack :) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/22/2010 5:06 PM, RJack wrote: I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel violated CAFC rules. Court vs. crank. You can tell me a hundred times more, but nothing you tell me changes the fact that the so-called valid opinion is overturned. 1) The erroneous Jacobsen decision, having been voluntarily settled, can't be overturned. 2) The erroneous Jacobsen decision can never be used as precedent in any federal court of the United States. 3) I know you will deny these facts but then you feel free to deny any fact and just make up your own. Solipsism is unfalsifiable and unassailable through rational argument. 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Alan Mackenzie wrote: RJack u...@example.net wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel violated CAFC rules. If you were correct, a single time would suffice. With Hyman listening? ROFL. Here's the *valid* opinion: [ ] Sorry, Rjack, by definition the opinion of that appeals court is the valid one. Sorry Alan, some of you foreigners are utterly ignorant of that fact that under U.S. law no appeals court can overrule the Supreme Court of the United States: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155.; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). [U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be.; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982). Why can't you simply admit you've been mistaken on this issue for quite a long time? No shame in that, even the lower court got it wrong to begin with. Because I'm not legally mistaken and *I* have the Supreme Court of the United States on *my* side. You have Hyman Rosen on yours... (sounds of chortling and mirth). Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
On 2/22/2010 5:30 PM, RJack wrote: 1) The erroneous Jacobsen decision, having been voluntarily settled, can't be overturned. The original decision was overturned and remanded. That's the one you're quoting. 2) The erroneous Jacobsen decision can never be used as precedent in any federal court of the United States. The reasoning of the court can and will be duplicated, and will be brought to the attention of other courts which consider similar matters, regardless of whether the decision itself is binding on other courts. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in the absence of any license agreement at all. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Here is what Judge White said, in his decision post CAFC: http://jmri.org/k/docket/395.pdf Under the Copyright Act, a copyright owner is entitled to recover compensatory damages in the amount of actual damages suffered or the disgorgement of profits by the infringer attributable to the infringement. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Although it is undisputed that Plaintiff distributed the copied work on the Internet at no cost, there is also evidence in the record attributing a monetary value for the actual work performed by the contributors to the JMRI project. (See Declaration of Victoria K. Hall in support of opposition, Ex. F (expert report of Michael A. Einhorn).)2 Because there are facts in the record which may establish a monetary damages figure, the Court finds Plaintiff has made a showing sufficient to establish the existence of a dispute of fact regarding the monetary value of Plaintiff’s work for purposes of his copyright claim. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this basis is denied. So even though Judge White is still fixated on monetary damage despite what his appeals court told him, he nevertheless finds that distributing a work for free on the internet does not free infringers from copyright infringement claims. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in the absence of any license agreement at all. And you're full of beans Hyman: In exchange and in consideration for this collaborative work, the copyright holder permits users to copy, modify and distribute the software code subject to conditions that serve to protect downstream users and to keep the code accessible.2 By requiring that users copy and restate the license and attribution information, a copyright holder can ensure that recipients of the redistributed computer code know the identity of the owner as well as the scope of the license granted by the original owner. The Artistic License in this case also requires that changes to the computer code be tracked so that downstream users know what part of the computer code is the original code created by the copyright holder and what part has been newly added or altered by another collaborator. -- CAFC Show me the exclusive right to attribution in the Copyright Act and I'll kiss your ass on the public square. Likewise show me where in the Copyright Act that *failure* to copy something gives rise to infringement. An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155.; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Sincerely, RJack :) Captain Moglen scared them out of the water! http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
On 2/22/2010 6:15 PM, RJack wrote: Show me the exclusive right to attribution in the Copyright Act There is no exclusive right to attribution. There is the exclusive right to authorize copying and distribution. Such authorization may be conditional on the copier performing certain actions, and if the copier copies and distributes without doing those actions, he is infringing the exclusive rights of the holders. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Here is what Judge White said, in his decision post CAFC: http://jmri.org/k/docket/395.pdf Under the Copyright Act, a copyright owner is entitled to recover compensatory damages in the amount of actual damages suffered or the disgorgement of profits by the infringer attributable to the infringement. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Although it is undisputed that Plaintiff distributed the copied work on the Internet at no cost, there is also evidence in the record attributing a monetary value for the actual work performed by the contributors to the JMRI project. (See Declaration of Victoria K. Hall in support of opposition, Ex. F (expert report of Michael A. Einhorn).)2 Because there are facts in the record which may establish a monetary damages figure, the Court finds Plaintiff has made a showing sufficient to establish the existence of a dispute of fact regarding the monetary value of Plaintiff’s work for purposes of his copyright claim. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this basis is denied. So even though Judge White is still fixated on monetary damage despite what his appeals court told him, he nevertheless finds that distributing a work for free on the internet does not free infringers from copyright infringement claims. 1) ... in his decision post CAFC: Huh? Of course Judge White said that post CAFC -- he didn't have any choice -- the appeals court decision was binding on him in this specific action. What a surprise! 2) Look at your citation again. Because there are facts in the record which MAY establish a monetary damages figure ... just MAYBE. ... showing sufficient to establish the existence of a DISPUTE of fact. So MAYBE there's a DISPUTE -- after the appeals court told him to say that. You're attempting to put the words of the appeals court ruling concerning conditions into Jugde White's mouth. So what? You can't make an end run around the Supreme Court: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155.; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). There wasn't any infringement in Katzer's distribution and that's exactly what Judge White found *prior* to the CAFC summarily overruling SCOTUS. ROFL! 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/22/2010 6:15 PM, RJack wrote: Show me the exclusive right to attribution in the Copyright Act There is no exclusive right to attribution. There is the exclusive right to authorize copying and distribution. Such authorization may be conditional on the copier performing certain actions, and if the copier copies and distributes without doing those actions, he is infringing the exclusive rights of the holders. Only if those conditions or certain actions limit the *specific* exclusive rights of copying or distribution of the author. An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155.; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). The Artistic License broadly *permits* copying and distribution just as Judge White originally found when he applied the correct Supreme Court precedents. Contractual covenants aren't grant conditioners. No end runs around the Supreme Court Hyman. 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in the absence of any license agreement at all. Providing or not providing attribution is not copying you moron, it's providing or not providing attribution. Take your meds, 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 hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] report of Michael A. Einhorn).)2 Because there are facts Oh yeah, report from Michael A. Einhorn. chuckles http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/369-6.pdf (Case3:06-cv-01905-JSW Document369-6 Filed 11/13/09 Page 5 of 146) SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. Open source software is a highly practical institution for creating computer programs with written code that incorporates the coincident insights of a worldwide base of voluntary contributors. 2. Open source software presents a wide range of economic benefits related to efficiency and innovativeness. 3. It is used by many high-tech companies, including Sun, IBM, and Red Hat, which monetize investments in open source with other creative tactics in their business models. 4. Open source software has the apparent potential of resolving difficult scientific and mathematical problems through trial-and-error, feedback, and increasing complexity. 5. The defendant in this case has wrongfully benefited by taking and reusing copyrighted code from an open source project without proper license. As damage compensation, plaintiff may recover a sum equal to the defendants value of use of the taking. The value of use would be the hours that would have been spent but for the infringements at issue. 6. There are three ways to impute the number of hours in the defendants taking . survey estimate of total work hours by plaintiffs programmers, classification of files times work hours per file type, and line count and translation into hours needed to produce it. 7. I have reviewed a survey of programmers that counted the amount of time that each donated to the project. Estimated programmer hours total to 1530 hours. 8. In as second compendium, program files were categorizing the files in three groups. Multiplying by the expected number of hours needed to program files in each, the estimated hourly total using the second method is 1576 hours. 9. In a third diagnostic, I counted the number of lines in the infringing files and estimated the subtotal that implicated some minutes of new input. Multiplying the line total by an estimated programming time of five minutes per line gives a total hours count of 1548. 10. Assuming an hourly rate for freelance programmers of $100 per hour, I find that the three independent approaches present a converging consensus to similar results that justify an award between $153,000 to $157,600. LOL! 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 hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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
