Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: 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. I don't see how that follows. They are licenses with a somewhat similar basic legal mechanism (based on copyright, granting additional permissions), but the actual license is quite different. So I see no base for the AFPL holds - GPL doddle claim. I see no qualitative difference discussed that would support such a gradation. -- 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
RJack u...@example.net wrote: 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. Maybe you've got a point there. 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: No, I grok that. Perhaps it is the case that this appeals court didn't actually overrule the Supreme Court. USA law is a complicated beast, you know. 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). Katzer's behaviour violated such exclusive rights, namely by distribution and adaptation. 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. Don't tell me - the chief judge there is your uncle, or something, and he consults you before each judgement is reached. 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
RJack u...@example.net writes: Alan Mackenzie wrote: 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: So the appeals court did not overrule the Supreme Court. And nobody except you claimed that it did, while at the same not being able to do so. It did overrule a lower court. The lower court not being the Supreme Court. Perhaps you need to think about it a bit more. -- 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 terek...@web.de writes: 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. In this case, permission to copy was given depending on proper attribution. Proper attribution was not made, so no permission to copy was available. -- 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
David Kastrup wrote: [...] In this case, permission to copy was given depending on proper attribution. Proper attribution was not made, so no permission to copy was available. If you rent me an apartment depending on proper monthly payment, my failure to pay doesn't automatically nullify the permission to occupy your apartment and somehow making me liable for http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausfriedensbruch etc. See the light now, silly dak? 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: David Kastrup wrote: [...] In this case, permission to copy was given depending on proper attribution. Proper attribution was not made, so no permission to copy was available. If you rent me an apartment depending on proper monthly payment, my failure to pay doesn't automatically nullify the permission to occupy your apartment and somehow making me liable for http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausfriedensbruch etc. See the light now, silly dak? You are confusing a _contract_ with a _license_. In the case of the appartment, both parties stipulate their willingness to fulfill the contractual relationship they have agreed on. The contract is first established, later breached. If the landlord can establish that the tenant never intended to fulfill his contractual duties, he might be able to get the contract annulled, in which case continued residence might indeed become a case of Hausfriedensbruch. Similarly, if he gets the contract terminated and an eviction order given, the tenant will have to pay the rent up to the time of termination, and may be liable to the equivalent to Hausfriedensbruch eventually if he does not obey the eviction order. Anyway, the important point is that we are talking about a contract signed by two parties, not a unilateral license grant under conditions. If we have no stipulation of willingness of the licensee to accept the license terms, the license may as well be non-existent with regard to the relationship of the parties. -- 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
David Kastrup wrote: [...] You are confusing a _contract_ with a _license_. You're really a crackpot, dak. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizenz Im Privatrecht regeln Kaufverträge, Leihverträge und spezielle Lizenzverträge die Rechte des Erwerbers und seine Pflichten gegenüber dem Lizenzgeber. [...] Ein Lizenzvertrag ist ein im Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (BGB) nicht eigens geregelter Vertragstyp. Er wird deshalb auch als Vertrag eigener Art (Vertrag sui generis) klassifiziert. Durch den Vertrag erteilt der Inhaber eines geschützten Rechts dem Lizenznehmer ein definiertes Nutzungsrecht. Lizenzen werden vor allem für die Nutzung von Patenten, Gebrauchsmustern, Marken, Know-how oder Software erteilt. Durch Lizenzverträge können einfache oder exklusive (= ausschließliche) Rechte eingeräumt werden. Kernpunkte eines Lizenzvertrags sind die Beschreibung des Lizenzgegenstands, die Festlegung des zur Nutzung freigegebenen Marktsegments bzw. der Marktregion, die Laufzeit, das Entgelt und gegebenenfalls auch Vertragsstrafen. Das Entgelt wird häufig in Form eines Down payments am Anfang und einer laufenden Gebühr in Abhängigkeit vom wirtschaftlichen Erfolg bzw. Nutzen geregelt. Ein Beispiel sind Lizenzbauten beim Auto- und Flugzeugbau. Dabei werden dem Lizenznehmer Kopien der Konstruktionspläne überlassen und der Lizenzgeber hilft oft dem Lizenznehmer bei der Produktionsaufnahme. Im Verlagsbereich regeln Lizenzverträge die Nutzung von Urheberrechten. Solche Lizenzverträge werden üblicherweise zwischen dem selbständigen Urheber und einem Verlag oder zwischen zwei Verlagen (z. B. für Übersetzungsversionen) geschlossen. Dass Privatleuten Rechte mittels Lizenzvertrag eingeräumt werden, ist eher unüblich. Eine Ausnahme stellen die Lizenzen dar, die bei freier Software zur Verwendung kommen. Bei diesen wird pauschal jedermann eine Lizenz angeboten. Die Lizenzen von freier Software und lizenzpflichtiger Software haben gemeinsam, dass sie im Sinne des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen (AGB) darstellen. AGB müssen zur Erlangung von Rechtskraft wirksam in den Vertrag zwischen dem Lizenznehmer und dem Lizenzgeber aufgenommen werden, sofern es sich nicht um individuell hergestellte Software handelt. Dem Lizenzvertrag ähnlich ist der Franchisevertrag, basiert aber auf anderen rechtlichen Grundlagen. Der Urheber kann auch mehrere Lizenzen zur Auswahl anbieten. Man spricht dann von einer Mehrfachlizenzierung, siehe Duales Lizenzsystem. 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: David Kastrup wrote: [...] You are confusing a _contract_ with a _license_. You're really a crackpot, dak. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizenz Im Privatrecht regeln Kaufverträge, Leihverträge und spezielle Lizenzverträge die Rechte des Erwerbers und seine Pflichten gegenüber dem Lizenzgeber. Since you can't argue my detailed point, you try reverting to context free word games? Anyway, wrong terminology. License in German would be something like Genehmigung or Berechtigung. -- 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
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] You are confusing a _contract_ with a _license_. You're really a crackpot, dak. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizenz Im Privatrecht regeln Kaufverträge, Leihverträge und spezielle Lizenzverträge die Rechte des Erwerbers und seine Pflichten gegenüber dem Lizenzgeber. Since you can't argue my detailed point, you try reverting to context free word games? Anyway, wrong terminology. License in German would be something like Genehmigung or Berechtigung. Uh crackpot dak. In den Gesetzen zum Schutz des Geistigen Eigentums lassen sich insgesamt drei verschiedene Möglichkeiten feststellen, wie eine Lizenz begründet werden kann: erstens kraft staatlichen Hoheitsakts, zweitens kraft Gesetzes und drittens durch Vertrag. http://books.google.de/books?id=q2lkquXoZwEC (Lizenz und Lizenzvertrag im Recht des Geistigen Eigentums By Louis Pahlow) Hth, silly dak. 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
Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following
http://www.boehmanwaltskanzlei.de/mehr-/vertragsrecht/details/lizenzvertragsrecht/355-der-lizenzvertrag.html Allgemein versteht man unter Lizenz die Befugnis, das Immaterialgut eines anderen zu benutzen. Als Immaterialgüter kommen insbesondere Marken, Urheberrecht oder Patente Dritter in Betracht. Nachdem es nur sehr wenige gesetzliche Regelungen gibt, werden Lizenzen üblicherweise in individuellen Verträgen, den Lizenzverträgen, geregelt. Auf Lizenzverträge findet zunächst wie auf alle Verträge das allgemeine Vertragsrecht Anwendung. Daneben werden verschiedene Vorschriften des BGB analog angewandt. Insbesondere die Bereiche der Rechtspacht, des Mietrechts, des Kaufrechts und des Dienstvertragsrechts finden Anwendung. Soweit Lizenzen (wie häufig) in Formularverträgen geregelt werden, finden auch die Regelungen über die Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen der §§ 305 ff BGB Anwendung. 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
Hey Mackenzie, please help comrade dak grok the following as well
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenkungsvertrag Die Schenkung ist ein zweiseitiges Rechtsgeschäft (ein Vertrag), aber nur einseitig verpflichtend, weil nur der Schenker leisten muss. 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: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: http://www.boehmanwaltskanzlei.de/mehr-/vertragsrecht/details/lizenzvertragsrecht/355-der-lizenzvertrag.html Allgemein versteht man unter Lizenz die Befugnis, das Immaterialgut eines anderen zu benutzen. Als Immaterialgüter kommen insbesondere Marken, Urheberrecht oder Patente Dritter in Betracht. Nachdem es nur sehr wenige gesetzliche Regelungen gibt, werden Lizenzen üblicherweise in individuellen Verträgen, den Lizenzverträgen, geregelt. üblicherweise means usually. The GPL is not üblich, and is not handled in individuellen Verträgen but rather as a unilateral offer to all parties willing to stay with the licensing terms. Auf Lizenzverträge findet zunächst wie auf alle Verträge das allgemeine Vertragsrecht Anwendung. Auf Lizenzverträge. With the GPL, no Vertrag is involved in the licensing, since there is no explicit or implicit agreement between two parties. You really have a hard time understanding basic concepts and language... -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Mackenzie, please help comrade dak grok the following as well
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenkungsvertrag Die Schenkung ist ein zweiseitiges Rechtsgeschäft (ein Vertrag), aber nur einseitig verpflichtend, weil nur der Schenker leisten muss. The GPL is not a Schenkung since there is no transfer of ownership. It is actually not true that it is nur einseitig verpflichtend since ownership implies duties. For example, if I make a Schenkungsvertrag over a bunch of toxic waste cans on public ground, it becomes the new owner's responsibility to move them away safely. If I make a Schenkungsvertrag over a horse, it becomes the new owner's responsibility to provide basic care and feeding or face animal protection laws. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: http://www.boehmanwaltskanzlei.de/mehr-/vertragsrecht/details/lizenzvertragsrecht/355-der-lizenzvertrag.html Allgemein versteht man unter Lizenz die Befugnis, das Immaterialgut eines anderen zu benutzen. Als Immaterialgüter kommen insbesondere Marken, Urheberrecht oder Patente Dritter in Betracht. Nachdem es nur sehr wenige gesetzliche Regelungen gibt, werden Lizenzen üblicherweise in individuellen Verträgen, den Lizenzverträgen, geregelt. üblicherweise means usually. The GPL is not üblich, and is not handled in individuellen Verträgen but rather as a unilateral offer to The GPL is an AGB (standard aka boilerplate) form contract you retard. Soweit Lizenzen (wie häufig) in Formularverträgen geregelt werden, finden auch die Regelungen über die Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen der §§ 305 ff BGB Anwendung. Here's a judgment from a German court stating that obvious fact: http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf Uh crackpot dak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allgemeine_Gesch%C3%A4ftsbedingungen Hth, 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 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: Hey Mackenzie, please help comrade dak grok the following as well
David Kastrup wrote: [...] It is actually not true that it is nur einseitig verpflichtend since It's einseitig verpflichtend as in http://dejure.org/gesetze/BGB/518.html and http://vwi.andre-grahl.de/Recht/pdf/03_Script.pdf Pflichtenbegründende Rechtsgeschäfte (Verpflichtungsgeschäfte) - es werden einseitige oder mehrseitige Pflichtenverhältnisse begründet einseitig: Schenkung, Leihe, Erlass zweiseitig: Kaufvertrag, Dienstvertrag, Werkvertrag mehrseitig: Gesellschaftervertrag you crackpot dak. 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
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: 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. In this case, permission to copy was given depending on proper attribution. Proper attribution was not made, so no permission to copy was available. You're trying to force a condition precedent which is a term of contract construction. What you say *could* be true in a license. The critical word is precedent which means to precede. Unfortunately for the Artistic License, you can't attribute a work you haven't yet received permission to create. The very thing that is supposedly being conditioned (the copyright permissions) is required to satisfy the condition (attribution in the created work) -- which is impossible. The same thing happens with respect to sec. 2 of the GPL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Mackenzie, please help comrade dak grok the following as well
Hey dak, just to clarify: the point was not that the GPL is somehow a unilateral contract (it's obviously a bilateral boiler plate contract form, not unilateral) but rather that even gifts are contracts under the German law. A totally gratuitous IP license IS ALSO A CONTRACT, silly dak. Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not an unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner. http://supreme.justia.com/us/273/236/case.html Hth, 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 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: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: http://www.boehmanwaltskanzlei.de/mehr-/vertragsrecht/details/lizenzvertragsrecht/355-der-lizenzvertrag.html Allgemein versteht man unter Lizenz die Befugnis, das Immaterialgut eines anderen zu benutzen. Als Immaterialgüter kommen insbesondere Marken, Urheberrecht oder Patente Dritter in Betracht. Nachdem es nur sehr wenige gesetzliche Regelungen gibt, werden Lizenzen üblicherweise in individuellen Verträgen, den Lizenzverträgen, geregelt. üblicherweise means usually. The GPL is not üblich, and is not handled in individuellen Verträgen but rather as a unilateral offer to The GPL is an AGB (standard aka boilerplate) form contract you retard. Nonsense, since there is no implicit contract (like with sales typically done over the counter) and no exchange of consideration. Talk about retard. Soweit Lizenzen (wie häufig) in Formularverträgen geregelt werden, The GPL is not a Formularvertrag since it is not a Vertrag at all: agreement is _not_ implied for normal use under copyright. It is optional, and the GPL spells this out. finden auch die Regelungen über die Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen der §§ 305 ff BGB Anwendung. Here's a judgment from a German court stating that obvious fact: http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf I'd say that this side sentence of the reasoning is not completely correct. The court states: Die Lizenzbedingungen des GPL sind als allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen anzusehen, die einer Prüfung nach §§506ff BGB unterfallen. However, §305(1) states Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen sind alle für eine Vielzahl von Verträgen vorformulierten Vertragsbedingungen, die eine Vertragspartei (Verwender) der anderen Vertragspartei bei Abschluss eines Vertrags stellt. But there is no Vertrag involved with licensing under the GPL. Now it turns out that even when pretending the GPL _were_ an AGB (which has implications on the forms and contents it may assume), this court considered the GPL valid. I don't agree with its arguments here, as it states Da die Lizenzbedingungen des GPL ohne weiteres im Internet abrufbar sind, bestehen keine Bedenken, daß diese in das Vertragsverhältnis zwischen den Urhebern und der Beklagten einbezogen wurden.. That is plainly ridiculous. The Internet is a vast space. The presence of the GPL somewhere on the Internet certainly can't make it an implied precondition to any purported contract. If the outcome of the case had positively depended in this particular part of the court's reasoning, I would have guessed that the defendant would have had good chances at appeal. But throwing out the whole AGB part does not help the defendant one bit, so there was likely nothing to be gained by contesting this part of the reasoning. Uh crackpot dak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allgemeine_Gesch%C3%A4ftsbedingungen Hth, silly. Looks like you have run out of arguments again. Nothing left but irrelevant links and insults. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Mackenzie, please help comrade dak grok the following as well
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] It is actually not true that it is nur einseitig verpflichtend since It's einseitig verpflichtend as in http://dejure.org/gesetze/BGB/518.html and http://vwi.andre-grahl.de/Recht/pdf/03_Script.pdf Pflichtenbegründende Rechtsgeschäfte (Verpflichtungsgeschäfte) - es werden einseitige oder mehrseitige Pflichtenverhältnisse begründet einseitig: Schenkung, Leihe, Erlass zweiseitig: Kaufvertrag, Dienstvertrag, Werkvertrag mehrseitig: Gesellschaftervertrag you crackpot dak. A Schenkung is einseitig verpflichtend between the parties of the Schenkungsvertrag, however, as a consequence of the transfer of ownership, the Verpflichtungen connected with ownership will be established for the new owner. For this reason among others, you can't do a Schenkungsvertrag without the consent of the receiving party. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following
David Kastrup wrote: [...] But throwing out the whole AGB part does not help the defendant one bit, so there was likely nothing to be gained by contesting this part of the reasoning. Das Gericht hat rechtsfehlerhafter Weise die Prüfung eines Verstoßes von Art.81 EGV u. §1 GWB unterlassen. Das Urteil ist diesbezüglich *offensichtlich* falsch, denn einerseits wird die GPL als AGB bezeichnet, andererseits aber wie ein Individualrechtsgeschäft (read: Individualvertrag) behandelt, um den §139 BGB anwenden zu können. So geht es nicht! §139 ist nicht auf AGB anwendbar. Wenn Klauseln in AGB unwirksam sind, so gilt nicht §139 BGB sondern §306 BGB. Danach ist nicht, wie das Gericht irrtümlich meint, der gesamte Lizenzvertrag nichtig, sondern der Vertrag bleibt wirksam und nur die nichtige Klausel wird durch gesetzliche Vorschriften ersetzt. Das Urteil könnte in der Berufung durchaus anders ausfallen. Die vielen Schreibfehler im Urteil sind ebenfalls bemerkenswert. 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 6:39 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: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] But throwing out the whole AGB part does not help the defendant one bit, so there was likely nothing to be gained by contesting this part of the reasoning. Das Gericht hat rechtsfehlerhafter Weise die Prüfung eines Verstoßes von Art.81 EGV u. §1 GWB unterlassen. Das Urteil ist diesbezüglich *offensichtlich* falsch, denn einerseits wird die GPL als AGB bezeichnet, andererseits aber wie ein Individualrechtsgeschäft (read: Individualvertrag) behandelt, um den §139 BGB anwenden zu können. So geht es nicht! diesbezüglich means in this respect. I am not disagreeing with this part of the comment for which you give no source. But going to appeal in order to get the right verdict for all the right reasons instead of the same right verdict for some wrong reasons as well is likely of little interest to the defendant. An upright defending lawyer would probably tell his client we could likely contest this part successfully, but it would not change the outcome. -- 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
On 2/22/2010 6:48 PM, RJack wrote: 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. The Artistic License permits copying and distribution as long as certain conditions are met when doing so. The appeals court properly found that failing to abide by these conditions is copyright infringement. As I said a long time ago when Judge White made his original decision and before he was overruled by CAFC, get back to me once the Supreme Court overturns this. Meanwhile, it's court vs. crank. And 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 2/23/2010 2:13 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: 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. The license grants permission to copy and distribute provided certain conditions are met while doing so. Copying and distributing while not meeting those conditions is copyright infringement. Those conditions can be anything - attribution, paperback format, blue covers. If the copier does not want to meet the conditions, he has no right to copy. ___ 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 2/23/2010 2:13 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: 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. The license grants permission to copy and distribute provided certain conditions are met while doing so. Copying and distributing while not meeting those conditions is copyright infringement. Those conditions can be anything - attribution, paperback format, blue covers. If the copier does not want to meet the conditions, he has no right to copy. Hyman you retardedly confuse conditions precedent with scope restrictions and covenants to do (or not do) something while doing so. Take your meds Hyman. Take your meds. 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 2/23/2010 9:48 AM, RJack wrote: What you say *could* be true in a license. The critical word is precedent which means to precede. Unfortunately for the Artistic License, you can't attribute a work you haven't yet received permission to create. The very thing that is supposedly being conditioned (the copyright permissions) is required to satisfy the condition (attribution in the created work) -- which is impossible. The same thing happens with respect to sec. 2 of the GPL. Unfortunately for you, the court believed otherwise. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and distribute the computer programs and files included in the downloadable software package. ___ 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 2/23/2010 11:06 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman you retardedly confuse conditions precedent with scope restrictions and covenants to do (or not do) something while doing so. The CAFC appears to agree with me: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and distribute the computer programs and files included in the downloadable software package. So I can believe a court, or I can believe you. I choose court. ___ 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 writes: On 2/23/2010 4:50 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: If you rent me an apartment depending on proper monthly payment, my failure to pay doesn't automatically nullify the permission to occupy your apartment and somehow making me liable for http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausfriedensbruch etc. That is because there are special laws that pertain to apartment rentals and evictions, not because of any general principle. Actually, it is because we have a contract signed by two parties rather than a conditional license which one party can choose to make use of or not at its will. -- 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: [...] That is because there are special laws that pertain to apartment rentals and evictions, not because of any general principle. Forget apartments for a moment silly Hyman. If you rent a car on a monthly fee basis and don't pay on time while using it, that DOESN'T make you liable in tort (for theft). Surprised, 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 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 2/23/2010 11:25 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Forget apartments for a moment silly Hyman. If you rent a car on a monthly fee basis and don't pay on time while using it, that DOESN'T make you liable in tort (for theft). That's because the contract specifies consequences for default (and there are special vehicle laws too). If someone were to enter such an agreement with the intention of never paying, he would be liable for fraud and theft. ___ 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 2/23/2010 2:13 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: 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. The license grants permission to copy and distribute provided certain conditions are met while doing so. Copying and distributing while not meeting those conditions is copyright infringement. Those conditions can be anything - attribution, paperback format, blue covers. If the copier does not want to meet the conditions, he has no right to copy. Give it up Alexander. It's Hyman Rosen vs. the United States Supreme Court. Hyman will just indulge in his denial ad infinitum. There is no logical way to counter a retreat into solipsistic denial. It is just as futile as attempting to prove a negative. Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding. Save your ink for conscious entities. 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 2/23/2010 12:00 PM, RJack wrote: Give it up Alexander. It's Hyman Rosen vs. the United States Supreme Court. Hyman will just indulge in his denial ad infinitum. There is no logical way to counter a retreat into solipsistic denial. It is just as futile as attempting to prove a negative. Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding. Save your ink for conscious entities. There is no conflict with the Supreme Court. The infringing use was copying and distribution, infringing because it was done contrary to the conditions demanded by the rights holders. No court's findings are erroneous until another court makes them so. Until then, there is a valid decision and no amount of complaining by people who don't like it will make it any less so. ___ 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 writes: Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding. If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court precedents why has it not been appealed thereto? -- 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
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com writes: RJack writes: Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding. If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court precedents why has it not been appealed thereto? This likely should be considered addressed comprehensively with the scared them out of the water. LOL LOL LOL babble. Why it is apparently this simple to scare sharks is another question. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
NYC LOCAL: Corrected and Improved Announcement of Carl Malamud et al Meeting on Wednesday 24 February 2010
blockquote what=fuller official New York Law School Institute for Information Law Policy announcement correction=New York Law School is distinct from NYU Law School, thus this meeting will not be at NYU Law School. where=This meeting will be in Room A700 of 55 Worth Street on the Island of the Manahattoes. rsvp=rsvp is requested; write to naomi.al...@nyls.edu edits= Subject:Law.Gov | Google Groups X-URL: http://groups.google.com/group/law-dot-gov/msg/250ec7162425e5e4?dmode=print Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:38:01 -0500 (EST) #RSS Atom Go to Google Groups HomeLaw.Gov NYLS Panel on 2/24 Carl Malamud carl+goo...@resource.org Liberating Legal Information: The Law.Gov Movement A Panel Discussion with Carl Malamud, Helen Nissenbaum, and Nicholas Bramble February 24, 2009 6:15-8pm New York Law School Room A700 In 2009, President Obama's Open Government Initiative led to the launch of Data.Gov, an online forum where the public may easily find, download, and use Federal agency datasets. Through Data.Gov, the administration seeks to expand creative use of the data and encourage innovation beyond the walls of government. Law.Gov builds on the success of Data.Gov by documenting what is necessary to establish a distributed registry and repository of all United States legal materials. Public.Resource.Org is leading this revolutionary effort to collect briefs and opinions from the Judiciary; reports, hearings, and laws from the Legislative branch; and regulations, audits, grants, and other materials from the Executive. Join the IILP as we welcome Internet pioneer Carl Malamud, President and Founder of Public.Resource.Org, to discuss the Law.Gov movement and it's opportunities for citizens to help change the way we distribute America's Operating System. He will be joined by distinguished Information Law scholars Helen Nissenbaum and Nicholas Bramble. This event is open to the public. Please RSVP to Naomi Allen at naomi.al...@nyls.edu. --- Carl Malamud is the President and Founder of Public.Resource.Org. Malamud was previously founder of the Internet Multicasting Service and the Chief Technology Officer at the Center for American Progress. He has been awarded Harvard University's Berkman Award for significant contribution to the Internet and its impact on society, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Pioneer Award, and the First Amendment Coalition's Bill Farr Award. Helen Nissenbaum is Professor of Media, Culture and Communication, and Computer Science at New York University, where she is also Senior Faculty Fellow of the Information Law Institute. Her areas of expertise span social, ethical, and political implications of information technology and digital media. Before joining the faculty at NYU, she served as Associate Director of the Center for Human Values at Princeton University. Nicholas Bramble is a Postdoctoral Associate in Law and Kauffman Fellow in Law at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, specializing in research on the problems of collective action and the promises of civic engagement relating to open access in the university setting. Mr. Bramble was previously a judicial clerk for the Honorable Charles F. Lettow of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and was the online managing editor of the Journal of Law Technology while at Harvard Law School. The discussion will be moderated by Christopher Wong, Postgraduate Fellow at the Institute for Information Law Policy at New York Law School and Visiting Postdoctoral Fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. /blockquote Distributed poC TINC: Jay Sulzberger secret...@lxny.org Corresponding Secretary LXNY LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization. http://www.lxny.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
