Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/25/2010 3:07 PM, RJack wrote: Troll vs. Hyman's fertile imagination. Troll wins another one. ROFL. No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court. Moving targets once again, silly Hyman? Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed initial conference and motions. But in the current case defendants seem to be willing to call the SFLC's bluff in court. 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: Settlements
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/25/2010 3:07 PM, RJack wrote: Troll vs. Hyman's fertile imagination. Troll wins another one. ROFL. No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court. Moving targets once again, silly Hyman? Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed initial conference and motions. But in the current case defendants seem to be willing to call the SFLC's bluff in court. Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and run once again. The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge. It's obvious the defendants aren't the slightest bit intimidated by the SFLC clowns. At a glance, the actual complaint demonstrates to the defendant lawyers the amateurish nature of the SFLC lawyers. The joinder of the Software Freedom Conservacy Inc. is a glaring error. From the context of the court's summary of the issues, it is also obvious that the defendants' lawyers know that Erik Andersen is not the owner and author of the single computer program known as BusyBox. The SFLC is heading into a train wreck on March 8th when the Answers to Complaint are due by order of the Court. No more delays. May justice reign! Sincerely, RJack :) [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). 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). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
RJack u...@example.net writes: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/25/2010 3:07 PM, RJack wrote: Troll vs. Hyman's fertile imagination. Troll wins another one. ROFL. No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court. Moving targets once again, silly Hyman? Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed initial conference and motions. But in the current case defendants seem to be willing to call the SFLC's bluff in court. Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and run once again. The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge. It's not likely that it will get it unless a defendant claims compliance as a defense. If he doesn't, there is no reason for a judge to review the GPL as it can't be relevant without the defendant agreeing to rely on its permissions. If he doesn't, it is a piece of paper irrelevant to the parties' relations and the case. It's obvious the defendants aren't the slightest bit intimidated by the SFLC clowns. Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath of the settlements? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
On 2/26/2010 4:12 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court. Moving targets once again, silly Hyman? No. You are trying to make something out of the lawyers in the Perfect 10 case having advised the court of the settlement. But there is nothing to make of that - the reason for this was only that there was a hearing scheduled and they settled too late to file papers canceling it. So everybody showed up in court and told the judge that they had settled. If they had settled a little earlier, the plaintiffs would have just filed the settlement and that would be that. Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed initial conference and motions. But in the current case defendants seem to be willing to call the SFLC's bluff in court. It is not a bluff. It is a clear case of copyright infringement. As to the disposition of the case, we'll see. I expect that it will go like all the others. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
On 2/26/2010 6:47 AM, RJack wrote: Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and run once again. In each of the cases that the SFLC filed, the defendants came into compliance with the GPL once the cases ended. While anti-GPL cranks might like to characterize this as cutting and running, outcomes which match goals are normally classified as victories. The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge. There's not much to review there. It's just a copyright license. It's obvious We'll just wait and see then. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
On 2/26/2010 8:05 AM, David Kastrup wrote: RJacku...@example.net writes: It's obvious the defendants aren't the slightest bit intimidated by the SFLC clowns. Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath of the settlements? He means the new defendants. Remember, to anti-GPL cranks, every case is the one that will finally break the back of the GPL. Until it doesn't, and then it's because the SFLC cut and run or because the judge was drunk, or it's in a court whose precedents aren't binding, or any of a million other excuses. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and run once again. The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge. It's not likely that it will get it unless a defendant claims compliance as a defense. If he doesn't, there is no reason for a judge to review the GPL as it can't be relevant without the defendant agreeing to rely on its permissions. If he doesn't, it is a piece of paper irrelevant to the parties' relations and the case. Why is it that you GNUtians slip into solipsistic denials whenever you are confronted with incontrovertible, verifiable evidence of prevailing law? Your eyes close and you simply refuse to confront reality. The SFLC cases are being prosecuted in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States. You have repeatedly ignored that court's rulings and insisted upon making up your own legal nonsense. One more time: As we said in Bourne, when the contested issue is the scope of a license, rather than the existence of one, the copyright owner bears the burden of proving that the defendant's copying was unauthorized under the license and the license need not be pleaded as an affirmative defense. Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229 (2nd Cir. 1998). Where the dispute turns on whether there is a license at all, the burden is on the alleged infringer to prove the existence of the license. See id. Where the dispute is only over the scope of the license, by contrast, the copyright owner bears the burden of proving that the defendant's copying was unauthorized. Id. Tasini v. New York Times, 206 F.3d 161 (2nd Cir. 2000} affrm'd, New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001) This situation is like Hyman Rosen's repeated denials that the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings are the controlling law within the United States federal system: [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). 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). We can be open to opinions concerning interpretations of facts and law but at some point, continuing your denials on incontrovertible, authoritative rulings simply merits that you be ignored in the future. It's obvious the defendants aren't the slightest bit intimidated by the SFLC clowns. Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath of the settlements? There are no settlements and you can't produce a copy of one. You can only claim imaginary settlements which, of course, no one believes in. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and run once again. The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge. [...] We can be open to opinions concerning interpretations of facts and law but at some point, continuing your denials on incontrovertible, authoritative rulings simply merits that you be ignored in the future. At some point of time you have to make up your mind whether or not there has been an authoritive ruling with regard to the GPL or not. Vehemently claiming both at once looks a bit silly. Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath of the settlements? There are no settlements and you can't produce a copy of one. You can only claim imaginary settlements which, of course, no one believes in. Why else would the defendants bother to make the GPLed source available in the aftermath of the settlements? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
On 2/26/2010 9:32 AM, RJack wrote: As we said in Bourne, when the contested issue is the scope of a license, rather than the existence of one, the copyright owner bears the burden of proving that the defendant's copying was unauthorized under the license and the license need not be pleaded as an affirmative defense. Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229 (2nd Cir. 1998). Sounds correct to me. It will be easy to demonstrate this, since the defendants are not making GPLed sources properly available. This also, from the same decision: http://openjurist.org/144/f3d/229/graham-v-d-james See Grand Union Co. v. Cord Meyer Dev. Co., 761 F.2d 141, 147 (2d Cir.1985) (In the absence of more compelling evidence that the parties intended to create a condition, the negotiation provision must be construed as a promise or covenant.); The GPL clearly establishes requirements as a condition for receiving permission to copy and distribute. This situation is like Hyman Rosen's repeated denials that the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings are the controlling law within the United States federal system: Of course I have denied no such thing. 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 unlicensed use was the copying and distribution of the work, as granted exclusively to the rights holder by 17 USC 106. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
On 2/26/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a (confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a court order? What for? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a (confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a court order? What for? This is done so that the court which was initially assigned the case may retain jurisdiction over it. The court is then free to modify its order as necessary to achieve justice in the case, and a party that breaches the settlement may be held in contempt of court, rather than facing only a civil claim for the breach. In cases where confidentiality is required by the parties, the court order may refer to another document which is not disclosed, but which may be revealed to prove a breach of the settlement. End Quote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation) 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: Settlements
On 2/26/2010 10:29 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a (confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a court order? What for? This is done so that the court which was initially assigned the case may retain jurisdiction over it. The court is then free to modify its order as necessary to achieve justice in the case, and a party that breaches the settlement may be held in contempt of court, rather than facing only a civil claim for the breach. In cases where confidentiality is required by the parties, the court order may refer to another document which is not disclosed, but which may be revealed to prove a breach of the settlement. End Quote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation) Same source: The settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements of the parties, and is often put in force by an order of the court after a joint stipulation by the parties. In other situations (as where the claims have been satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of money) the plaintiff and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has been dismissed. After each one of the SFLC's cases have ended, the defendants have made the GPLed sources properly available. So despite the settlement agreements not being filed with the court, the SFLC has achieved its desired outcome. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 10:29 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a (confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a court order? What for? This is done so that the court which was initially assigned the case may retain jurisdiction over it. The court is then free to modify its order as necessary to achieve justice in the case, and a party that breaches the settlement may be held in contempt of court, rather than facing only a civil claim for the breach. In cases where confidentiality is required by the parties, the court order may refer to another document which is not disclosed, but which may be revealed to prove a breach of the settlement. End Quote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation) Same source: Uh moron Hyman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation)#United_States The settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements of the parties, and is often put in force by an order of the court after a joint stipulation by the parties. In other situations (as where the claims have been satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of money) the plaintiff and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has been dismissed. After each one of the SFLC's cases have ended, the defendants have made the GPLed sources properly available. So despite the settlement agreements not being filed with the court, the SFLC has achieved its desired outcome. 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: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] told the judge that they had settled. If they had settled a little earlier, the plaintiffs would have just filed the settlement and that would be that. When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a (confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a court order, retard Hyman? Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed initial conference and motions. But in the current case defendants seem to be willing to call the SFLC's bluff in court. It is not a bluff. It is a clear case of copyright infringement. Take your meds Hyman. Take your meds. Defendants intend to show that the Plaintiff's have no damages, that the Defendants did nothing actionable under copyright law, that any alleged copying was not willful, that Plaintiffs are not the proper parties, that the copyright held by Mr. Andersen is not applicable, and that, since being put on notice of the purported requirements of the general public license, Defendants have endeavored to come into compliance with what can only be described as a 'moving target'. 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: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] The unlicensed use was the copying and distribution of the work, as granted exclusively to the rights holder by 17 USC 106. Yeah, and failure to provide source code (e.g. NOT acting upon a source code offer) a year later after copying and distribution of the work is still copying and distribution of the work right silly Hyman? 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: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 10:35 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Yeah, and failure to provide source code (e.g. NOT acting upon a source code offer) a year later after copying and distribution of the work is still copying and distribution of the work right silly Hyman? No, it is failure to meet the conditions for having permission to copy and distribute the work, and therefore it is copyright infringement. Copy and distribute the work already happened ONE YEAR BEFORE FAILURE YOU MORON. 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: Settlements
On 2/26/2010 10:42 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Copy and distribute the work already happened ONE YEAR BEFORE FAILURE Permission to copy and distribute is granted on condition of honoring the GPL. Copying and distribution without honoring the provisions of the GPL infringes the copyright of the rights holders. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 9:32 AM, RJack wrote: As we said in Bourne, when the contested issue is the scope of a license, rather than the existence of one, the copyright owner bears the burden of proving that the defendant's copying was unauthorized under the license and the license need not be pleaded as an affirmative defense. Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229 (2nd Cir. 1998). Sounds correct to me. It will be easy to demonstrate this, since the defendants are not making GPLed sources properly available. This also, from the same decision: http://openjurist.org/144/f3d/229/graham-v-d-james See Grand Union Co. v. Cord Meyer Dev. Co., 761 F.2d 141, 147 (2d Cir.1985) (In the absence of more compelling evidence that the parties intended to create a condition, the negotiation provision must be construed as a promise or covenant.); The GPL clearly establishes requirements as a condition for receiving permission to copy and distribute. Alexander and I have gone to great lengths to explain to you the difference between a condition precedent and a scope of use condition. Either you are incapable of understanding the difference in the two concepts or you are deliberately confusing the two concepts. OK, one more time; *** Condition Precedent A condition is an event, not certain to occur, which must occur, unless its non-occurrence is excused, before performance under a contract becomes due.”; Restatement (Second) of Contracts Sec. 224 A condition precedent determines *when* a license grant first comes into existence. Obviously an “event” that *depends* on the performance of a contract cannot occur *before* performance of the contract becomes due. This result is called an impossible condition in contract construction and is *strictly* construed *against* the drafter. Now, one more time; *** Scope of Use Condition; A *direct* stated limitation in a license grant that limits a specific right. 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). Merely calling something in a license a condition does *not* make it a condition -- the condition must violate one of the specific rights granted in 17 USC 106 while no permission in the license otherwise exists to do so. A mistake is often made in open source licenses. A deliberately broad grant of rights is stated in the first part of a license and *then* subsequently, conditions are defined in the license. That constitutes conflicting language and is construed strictly against the drafter. Now, *once* a permission is granted you can't subsequently sue for copyright infringement, only for breach of contract. The Supreme Court established this principle in 1927: Any language used by the owner of the patent or any conduct on his part exhibited to another, from which that other may properly infer that the owner consents to his use of the patent in making or using it, or selling it, upon which the other acts, constitutes a license, and a defense to an action for a tort. Whether this 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.; De Forest Radio Tel. Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, (1927). Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
On 2/26/2010 10:56 AM, RJack wrote: Alexander and I have gone to great lengths to explain to you the difference between a condition precedent and a scope of use condition. The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work. One of the alternatives available to obtain permission is to make source available upon request. If someone copies and distributes a covered work using this provision but does not intend to honor such requests, he is infringing the copyright of the rights holders. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Stop confusing conditions v. scope limitations v. covenants, silly Hyman. There is a reason why these concepts are different. Bluntly calling license's obligations and limitations conditions doesn't change anything (except making things worse for the licensor/drafter). 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: Settlements
On 2/26/2010 12:08 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Stop confusing conditions v. scope limitations v. covenants, silly Hyman. There is a reason why these concepts are different. Bluntly calling license's obligations and limitations conditions doesn't change anything (except making things worse for the licensor/drafter). http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Jacobsen argues that the terms of the Artistic License define the scope of the license and that any use outside of these restrictions is copyright infringement. Katzer/Kamind argues that these terms do not limit the scope of the license and are merely covenants providing contractual terms for the use of the materials, and that his violation of them is neither compensable in damages nor subject to injunctive relief. ... 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. ... For the aforementioned reasons, we vacate and remand. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 10:56 AM, RJack wrote: Alexander and I have gone to great lengths to explain to you the difference between a condition precedent and a scope of use condition. The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work. Back to denial already Hyman? 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.; GPL sec 2 Please identify the section of 17 USC 106 where causing someone to license a work conflicts with a specific exclusive right of an owner of copyrights. 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). I await your answer with 'bated breath. One of the alternatives available to obtain permission is to make source available upon request. If someone copies and distributes a covered work using this provision but does not intend to honor such requests, he is infringing the copyright of the rights holders. Please identify the section of 17 USC 106 where failing to provide source code conflicts with a specific exclusive right of an owner of copyrights. Living in your cocoon of denial probably feels good Hyman but you really should try to reintegrate yourself into the real world. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] make source available upon request. If someone copies and distributes a covered work using this provision but does not intend to honor such requests, he is infringing the copyright Think of someone simply changing his mind later or just losing all the sources for some reason you retard. Hyman: Hello distributor, I've got your offer, give me the sources. Distributor: Sources? Fuck, where is the sources?! Shit, my wife shredded all that stuff!!! Hyman: You fucking copyright infringer! I'm calling SFLC!!! 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: Settlements
On 2/26/2010 11:49 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Think of someone simply changing his mind later or just losing all the sources for some reason http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/77imono.phtml You.. can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You say.. Steve.. how can I be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes? First.. get a million dollars. Now.. you say, Steve.. what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, 'You.. have never paid taxes'? Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: I forgot! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
On 2/26/2010 12:05 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work. Back to denial already Hyman? Please identify the section of 17 USC 106 where causing someone to license a work conflicts with a specific exclusive right of an owner of copyrights. The GPL requires that as a condition to copy and distribute a covered work, you must license the whole work at no charge to all others. I have no idea what your question above even means; the English seems not quite right. It is the copying and distribution which is the exclusive right of the copyright holders; granting the license is a condition of receiving permission from the rights holders to copy and distribute. 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 unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution, exactly as specified in 17 USC 106. The use is unlicensed when the copier fails to meet the conditions required by the GPL in order for permission to copy and distribute to be granted. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 12:08 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Stop confusing conditions v. scope limitations v. covenants, silly Hyman. There is a reason why these concepts are different. Bluntly calling license's obligations and limitations conditions doesn't change anything (except making things worse for the licensor/drafter). http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Jacobsen argues that the terms of the Artistic License define the scope of the license and that any use outside of these restrictions is copyright infringement. Katzer/Kamind argues that these terms do not limit the scope of the license and are merely covenants providing contractual terms for the use of the ... 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. ... For the aforementioned reasons, we vacate and remand. Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above. Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? Judge HOCHBERG: Of course five. Abraham Lincoln: No, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg! 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: Settlements
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 12:08 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Stop confusing conditions v. scope limitations v. covenants, silly Hyman. There is a reason why these concepts are different. Bluntly calling license's obligations and limitations conditions doesn't change anything (except making things worse for the licensor/drafter). http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Jacobsen argues that the terms of the Artistic License define the scope of the license and that any use outside of these restrictions is copyright infringement. Katzer/Kamind argues that these terms do not limit the scope of the license and are merely covenants providing contractual terms for the use of the ... 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. ... For the aforementioned reasons, we vacate and remand. Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above. http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=661 Worst judge I have yet encountered. Decides the case beforehand and her opinions are excerpts from her predetermined winner's briefs. Ignores the facts and pleadings. When you lose, you want to at least feel the judge listened and considered what you had to say -- not so with this judge. She blows you off and makes it clear she's blowing you off. Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? Judge HOCHBERG: Of course five. Abraham Lincoln: No, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg! 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: Settlements
On 2/26/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above. Crank vs. court. Court wins. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above. Crank vs. court. Court wins. Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? Judge HOCHBERG: Of course five. Abraham Lincoln: No, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg! 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: Settlements
On 2/26/2010 12:54 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=661 She can spot a player a mile away and takes appropriate action in the name of justice. One can only hope that you have an opportunity to appear before her! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above. Crank vs. court. Court wins. [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). 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). My court's bigger 'n your court. Denier* vs. Supreme Court Supreme Court wins. *denier2 definition de·nier (dē nī′ər, di-) noun a person who denies http://www.yourdictionary.com/denier ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 12:54 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=661 She can spot a player a mile away and takes appropriate action in the name of justice. One can only hope that you have an opportunity to appear before her! One can only hope that she has an opportunity to appear before the United States Supreme Court! [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). 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 :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
On 2/26/2010 3:55 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 unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution, exactly as specified in 17 USC 106. The use is unlicensed when the copier fails to meet the conditions required by the GPL in order for permission to copy and distribute to be granted. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
On 2/26/2010 3:58 PM, RJack wrote: One can only hope that she has an opportunity to appear before the United States Supreme Court! Judges don't appear before the Supreme Court in the U.S. 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 unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution, exactly as specified in 17 USC 106. The use is unlicensed when the copier fails to meet the conditions required by the GPL in order for permission to copy and distribute to be granted. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 12:05 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work. Back to denial already Hyman? Please identify the section of 17 USC 106 where causing someone to license a work conflicts with a specific exclusive right of an owner of copyrights. The GPL requires that as a condition to copy and distribute a covered work, you must license the whole work at no charge to all others. I have no idea what your question above even means; the English seems not quite right. It seems that everyone in the World except a few GNUtians understand that licensing (the act of contract formation) doesn't require the copying and distribution of source code. It is the copying and distribution which is the exclusive right of the copyright holders; granting the license is a condition of receiving permission from the rights holders to copy and distribute. The act of granting the license does *not* involve copying and distribution of source code Hymen. It is an act that consists of forming a legal relationship -- an exchange of legally binding promises. 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 unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution, exactly as specified in 17 USC 106. Bull. The unlicensed use you claim is failure to license (form a contract). The use is unlicensed when the copier fails to meet the conditions required by the GPL in order for permission to copy and distribute to be granted. It's not a condition unless it involves the copying and distribution of the source code. Contract formation (licensing) is a legal operation and does not utilize source code exclusive rights. Ever see a copyright license written in computer source code? If you have please show me said claimed license. Sincerely, RJack :) 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). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
On 2/26/2010 4:28 PM, RJack wrote: It seems that everyone in the World except a few GNUtians understand that licensing (the act of contract formation) doesn't require the copying and distribution of source code. Everyone understands that granting a license doesn't require anything except stating the terms of it. The act of granting the license does *not* involve copying and distribution of source code Correct. The unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution, exactly as specified in 17 USC 106. Bull. The unlicensed use you claim is failure to license (form a contract). In all of these cases, companies copied and distributed GPL- covered code without adhering to the conditions of the GPL. This made such copying and distribution an infringing use. It's not a condition unless it involves the copying and distribution of the source code. Contract formation (licensing) is a legal operation and does not utilize source code exclusive rights. The infringing use was copying and distribution. You appear seriously confused. Ever see a copyright license written in computer source code? If you have please show me said claimed license. All GPL-covered code includes the GPL by reference to a file which accompanies the source code, for brevity. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 4:28 PM, RJack wrote: It seems that everyone in the World except a few GNUtians understand that licensing (the act of contract formation) doesn't require the copying and distribution of source code. Everyone understands that granting a license doesn't require anything except stating the terms of it. The act of granting the license does *not* involve copying and distribution of source code Correct. The unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution, exactly as specified in 17 USC 106. Bull. The unlicensed use you claim is failure to license (form a contract). In all of these cases, companies copied and distributed GPL- covered code without adhering to the conditions of the GPL. Except the claimed conditions aren't conditions at all -- they're contractual covenants. You may claim forever that a contractual covenant is a condition but it won't change the Supreme Court's holding that 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 use of licensing a work doesn't utilize any copyrighted source code in the contract formation and just because you say it does doesn't make it so. *Promising* to license to all third parties is a contractual covenant. This made such copying and distribution an infringing use. No it did not. That's your imagination speaking in a wishful manner. It's not a condition unless it involves the copying and distribution of the source code. Contract formation (licensing) is a legal operation and does not utilize source code exclusive rights. The infringing use was copying and distribution. The claimed condition that was allegedly violated was licensing. You appear seriously confused. You are obviously having difficulty grasping an abstract concept. Ever see a copyright license written in computer source code? If you have please show me said claimed license. All GPL-covered code includes the GPL by reference to a file which accompanies the source code, for brevity. So what? Show me a copyright license written in GPL'd source code. Then I'll believe copying and distribution of source code was utilized. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
