date:20100504


On 4/21/2010 9:28 AM, RJack wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

Where do you see any distribution to "all third parties"? You are just
amazingly confused.


"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..."

If your reading comprehension is that limited, I'm afraid I can't help
you Hyman.


Again, where do you see that any distribution to "all
third parties" is required? When you distribute your
work under the GPL, you grant a license to all third
parties under the terms of the GPL. In any case, all
copying and distribution must be done under the terms
of the GPL, otherwise it is copyright infringement.
Naturally anti-GPL cranks hate that, but it is true
nonetheless.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

NYC LOCAL: Tuesday 27 April 2010 NYLUG: Squeak Hack Fest

2010-05-04 Thread secretary

 From: NYLUG Announcements 
 To: NYLUG Announcements 
 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:20:01 -0400 (EDT)
 Subject: [nylug-announce] NYLUG Workshop / Hacking Society, (Smalltalk, C++, 
Python) TOMORROW April 27 6:00PM-8:00PM
 Reply-To: Announcements from NYLUG 

 This is a reminder for the event detailed below.

 WORKSHOP / HACKFEST
 Date: Tuesday, April 27, 2010
 Time: 6:00pm
 Duration: 2 hours
 Location: NY Public Library Hudson Park Branch, 66 Leroy St., NY NY 10014

 Topics:
   This week, we're going to continue looking at Smalltalk via Squeak.
   There may also be some discussion related to the C++ online workshop
   taking place on nylug-talk, and general discussion about Python.
   We'll be working through example code.

   Bring something to discuss! There's a blackboard, chalk, and Internet
   access.  Notebook computers are helpful but not required.
   All levels of Python experience from totally new to experienced welcome!

 Resources:
   *  Squeak Smalltalk environment
  http://www.squeak.org/

   *  NYLUG-Talk list
  http://nylug.org/listinfo/nylug-talk/

 Map & Directions:
   http://nylug.org/hackcalendar

   We meet in the basement. Enter the library and head to the back. If the
   door is closed when you arrive you can ask the manager of the library for
   the keys to the room if you're comfortable opening up the basement, or
   you can wait for some of the others to arrive.

 Description:
   We will continue meeting on a bi-weekly basis at the Hudson Library at
   66 Leroy St New York, NY 10014.

   It is helpful, but not necessary to have a notebook computer.  
   The WiFi at the library works now.   

 Mailing List:
   We have a mailing list!  Join it here:
   http://nylug.org/mailman/listinfo/hack

   or send mail to: hack-requ...@nylug.org
   with a Subject: subscribe

   There is also an RSS feed for the workshop mailing list at:
   http://nylug.org/mlist/hack.rss

 IRC Channel:
   On Freenode, in #nylug-python .  Stop by #nylug also.

 The Next Meeting After This Meeting:
   The following Workshop will be held on: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 at 6:00 PM
 __
 Hire expert Linux talent by posting jobs here :: http://jobs.nylug.org
 nylug-announce mailing list nylug-annou...@nylug.org
 http://nylug.org/mailman/listinfo/nylug-announce

Distributed poC TINC:

Jay Sulzberger 
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

Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida

Hyman Rosen  writes:

> On 4/21/2010 9:28 AM, RJack wrote:
>> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>> Where do you see any distribution to "all third parties"? You are just
>>> amazingly confused.
>>
>> "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..."
>>
>> If your reading comprehension is that limited, I'm afraid I can't help
>> you Hyman.
>
> Again, where do you see that any distribution to "all
> third parties" is required? When you distribute your
> work under the GPL, you grant a license to all third
> parties under the terms of the GPL.

No, you have to _cause_ the work to be licensed under the GPL.  That
means that if you give it to others to redistribute, you have to hold
them responsible for redistributing licensed under the GPL, regardless
to who they distribute.

This is a GPLv2 clause.  GPLv3 does not use similar wording.

For whatever it is worth.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/20/2010 10:41 PM, RJack wrote:
And the rights holders are excluded as beneficiaries of the GPL 
contract. The distribution is to other "all third parties".


What in the world are you talking about?

"23. Under the License, Mr. Andersen grants certain permissions to 
other parties to copy, modify and redistribute BusyBox so long as 
those parties satisfy certain conditions. In particular, Section 
2(b) of the License, addressing each Licensee, states:


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..."


Where do you see any distribution to "all third parties"? You are 
just amazingly confused.


"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..."

If your reading comprehension is that limited, I'm afraid I can't help
you Hyman.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida


On 4/20/2010 10:41 PM, RJack wrote:

And the rights holders are excluded as beneficiaries of the GPL
contract. The distribution is to other "all third parties".


What in the world are you talking about?


"23. Under the License, Mr. Andersen grants certain permissions to other
parties to copy, modify and redistribute BusyBox so long as those
parties satisfy certain conditions. In particular, Section 2(b) of the
License, addressing each Licensee, states:

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..."


Where do you see any distribution to "all third parties"?
You are just amazingly confused.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/20/2010 4:55 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
"Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract [1] Elements and Case 
Citations (1)   Defendant and a third-party entered a valid 
contract; (2)   Plaintiff is not a party to the contract; (3)   The
 parties to the contract intended that the contract primarily or 
directly benefit plaintiff or a class of parties of which plaintiff
 is a member; (4)  The contract is breached; (5)  Plaintiff 
suffered damages as a result of the breach.


Why are you describing this? In the U.S., there have been no such 
suits with respect to the GPL or other open licenses. The GPL itself 
is not such a license, but even if it were, the only lawsuits have 
been brought by rights holders.


And the rights holders are excluded as beneficiaries of the GPL
contract. The distribution is to other "all third parties".

"23. Under the License, Mr. Andersen grants certain permissions to other
parties to copy, modify and redistribute BusyBox so long as those
parties satisfy certain conditions. In particular, Section 2(b) of the
License, addressing each Licensee, states:

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..."

ROFL:

"to all third parties" "to all third parties"
"to all third parties" "to all third parties"
"to all third parties" "to all third parties"
"to all third parties" "to all third parties"
"to all third parties" "to all third parties"
"to all third parties" "to all third parties"
"to all third parties" "to all third parties"
"to all third parties" "to all third parties"
"to all third parties" "to all third parties"
"to all third parties" "to all third parties"
"to all third parties" "to all third parties"
"to all third parties" "to all third parties"

Every complaint filed by the SFLC is about making source code available
to "all third parties". People who distribute GPL code are *parties* to
the GPL contract and are specifically *excluded* from the class of
beneficiaries designated as "all third parties".

Only members of the class "all third parties" may suffer loss of
benefits (injury) from non-compliance with the GPL terms. That's why
*no* person distributing code under the GPL has Article III standing to
enforce the GPL.

The very *first* thing a contract lawyer is trained to look for in a
contract dispute is "who benefits"? If no benefit is directed to a party
then that party can suffer no injury from a contract breach.


Samsung Answer:
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
   (Lack of Standing)
50. As a further, separate and distinct Fifteenth Affirmative Defense to
the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant
alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue Defendant for copyright
infringement.


Best Answer:
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
37. Plaintiffs lack standing.


Humax Answer:
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack Of Standing)
37. Either or both Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the claims alleged
in the Complaint.


JVC Answer:
As And For A Second Defense
37. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because
Plaintiffs lack standing to assert them.


Western Digital Answer:
TENTH DEFENSE (STANDING)
46. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs lack standing.


There certainly are a lot of GPL crank lawyers who don't think the
plaintiffs have standing.

Sincerely,
RJack :)



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida

2010-05-04 Thread John Hasler

Hyman Rosen writes:
> You are very confused.

I don't think he is confused at all.  It's all quite deliberate.  He's
trolling.
-- 
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: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen  writes:

> On 4/20/2010 3:27 PM, RJack wrote:
>> Open your eyes. Your dream is over.
>
> When a court tells me so, then I'll worry.
> When a crank does, not so much.
>
> So far, courts seem to like open licenses just fine.

It is not a matter of liking them or not liking them.  They deal with
them, generally in the manner that the creator of the license would have
thought.  At least for licenses with significant adoption rates.  There
may be a lot of one-shot open licenses by individuals where the legal
consequences are not quite as the creator would have wished.  Probably
fewer than proprietary licenses of that kind, though.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/20/2010 5:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Because that's the right way to enforce third-party beneficiary
> > contracts
> 
> But the GPL is not a third-party beneficiary contract,
> it's a simple copyright license. You are very confused.

I'm not confused, you're simply a retard Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida


On 4/20/2010 5:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Because that's the right way to enforce third-party beneficiary
contracts


But the GPL is not a third-party beneficiary contract,
it's a simple copyright license. You are very confused.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida


Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/20/2010 4:55 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > "Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract
> > [1] Elements and Case Citations
> > (1)   Defendant and a third-party entered a valid contract;
> > (2)   Plaintiff is not a party to the contract;
> > (3)   The parties to the contract intended that the contract primarily
> > or directly benefit plaintiff or a class of parties of which plaintiff
> > is a member;
> > (4)  The contract is breached;
> > (5)  Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach.
> 
> Why are you describing this? 

Because that's the right way to enforce third-party beneficiary
contracts, silly Hyman.

> no such suits with respect to the GPL or other open licenses.

And thus no enforcement and hence no compliance, you retard.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/10/1540242/SFLC-Finds-One-New-GPL-Violation-Per-Day

"News: SFLC Finds One New GPL Violation Per Day"

LOL.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida


On 4/20/2010 4:55 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

"Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract
[1] Elements and Case Citations
(1)   Defendant and a third-party entered a valid contract;
(2)   Plaintiff is not a party to the contract;
(3)   The parties to the contract intended that the contract primarily
or directly benefit plaintiff or a class of parties of which plaintiff
is a member;
(4)  The contract is breached;
(5)  Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach.


Why are you describing this? In the U.S., there have been
no such suits with respect to the GPL or other open licenses.
The GPL itself is not such a license, but even if it were,
the only lawsuits have been brought by rights holders.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

[For Hyman The Retard] Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida

"Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract

[1] Elements and Case Citations

(1)   Defendant and a third-party entered a valid contract;

(2)   Plaintiff is not a party to the contract;

(3)   The parties to the contract intended that the contract primarily
or directly benefit plaintiff or a class of parties of which plaintiff
is a member;

(4)  The contract is breached;

(5)  Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach. 

___ 

 
Florida State Courts  

Supreme Court: Thompson v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. of N.Y., 250
So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla. 1971).

First District: Clark and Co., Inc. v. Dept. of Insurance, 436 So. 2d
1013, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)

Second District: Hunt Ridge at Tall Pines, Inc. v. Hall, 766 So. 2d 399,
400 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)

Third District: Networkip, LLC v. Spread Enters., Inc., 922 So. 2d 355,
358 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2006)

Fourth District:  Jenne v. Church & Tower, Inc., 814 So. 2d 522, 524
(Fla. 4th DCA 2002);Carretta Trucking, Inc. v. Cheoy Lee Shipyards,
Ltd., 647 So. 2d 1028, 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

Fifth District: Taylor Woodrow Homes Florida, Inc. v. 4/46-A Corp., 850
So. 2d 536, 543 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), rev. denied 860 So. 2d 977 (Fla.
2003)


Florida Federal Courts  

Eleventh Circuit: Blu-J, Inc. v. Kemper CPA Group, 916 F. 2d. 637, 640
(11th Cir. 1990)

[2]   Defenses to Claim for Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other
standard defenses See § 60.  

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (five years); but
see §95.11(5)(a)(one-year statute of limitation for action for specific
performance of a contract).  

(3) The contract does not evidence any intent to benefit a third party.
Hollywood Lakes Country Club, Inc. v. Community Assn Serv., Inc., 770
So. 2d 716, 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Canal Ins. Co. v. Hartford Ins.
Co., 415 So. 2d 1295, 1299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

(4) Defendants obligation to perform under the contract may be excused
under the doctrine of commercial frustration when the purposes of the
contract, or those which defendant bargained for, have become
``frustrated because of the failure of consideration, or impossibility
of performance by the other party. See Home  Design Center Joint
Venture v. County Appliances of Naples, Inc., 563 So. 2d 767, 770 (Fla.
2d DCA 1990).  

(5) Duress requires severe pressure or other influence that destroys the
defendants free will, and forces the defendant to do an act or enter
into a contract. See Franklin v. Wallack, 576 So. 2d 1371, 1373 (Fla.
5th DCA 1991) (J. Sharp, dissenting); see also Restatement (Second) of
Contracts §§ 174-177 (1981).  

(6) Statute of Frauds: Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d); see also §§ 672.201,
672.206 (Florida U.C.C.), 678.319 (sale of securities), 680.201
(leasing), 725.201 (payment of anothers debt), Fla. Stat; Restatement
(Second) of Contracts §§ 110, 130 (1981).  

(7) The implied covenant of good faith  and fair dealing requires that
each party act consistently with, and take no actions to frustrate, the
contracts purpose, with the exception that Florida courts will not
employ the covenant to negate a contracts express terms. Restatement
(Second) of Contracts § 205 (1981).  

(8) Impossibility of performance is a defense to breach of contract when
the factual situation renders one partys performance under the contract
impossible. See Home  Design Center Joint Venture v. County Appliances
of Naples, Inc., 563 So. 2d 767, 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).  

(9) Contract enforcement is unconscionable when the contractual term was
unreasonable and unfair (substantive unconscionability) at the time the
parties entered the contract (procedural unconscionability). See Kohl v.
Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc., 398 So. 2d 865, 868 (Fla. 4th DCA
1981), rev. denied, 408 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1981); see also § 672.302,
Fla. Stat.; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 208 (1981).  

(10) Mistake:  

(a) Mutual mistake, which renders a contract voidable when both parties,
at the time of making a contract, were mistaken as to a basic assumption
of the contract that has a material effect on the parties performances
under the contract. Continental Assur. Co. v. Carroll, 485 So. 2d 406,
409 n.2 (Fla. 1986); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 152
(1981); and  

(b) Unilateral mistake, which allows a party to void a contract when the
party, at the time of making a contract, was mistaken as to a basic
assumption of the contract that has a material effect of the parties
performances which is adverse to the mistaken party. Orkin Exterminating
Co., Inc. v. Palm Beach Hotel Condominium Assoc., Inc., 454 So. 2d 697,
699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts §
153 (1981).  

(11) Repudiation: An obligee sued for breach of contract may assert the
defense of repudiation when the obligor first repudiated his or her duty
of performance. See Southern Crane Rentals, Inc.

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/20/2010 4:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Think of not free
> 
> As in beer, or as in speech? 

As in third-party beneficiary contract, you retard.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Compliance detection tool


On 4/20/2010 4:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Think of not free


As in beer, or as in speech? If the former, there must
be communication between the licensee and licensor, in
order for money to be paid. Open licenses do not require
contact.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/20/2010 3:46 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Given that many proprietary licenses are offered to anyone with or
> > without a copy of the covered work, the proprietary licenses are
> > actually more open
> 
> What is a proprietary license?

Think of not free, you retard.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Compliance detection tool


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/20/2010 3:03 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

Open licenses authorize actions otherwise prohibited by copyright
 law provided that persons using this authorization comply with 
provisions specified by the license. The licenses are open in the




Do you really think that proprietary licenses authorize actions 
prohibited by copyright law provided that persons using this 
authorization NOT comply with provisions specified by the license


The licenses are open in the sense that they are generally offered to
anyone who has a copy of the covered work, they require no
communication from the person using the authorization to the rights
holder, and they allow for further recipients to avail themselves of
the same permissions.

They differ in obvious ways from normal copyright licenses which are
two-party agreements where the rights holder authorizes copying and
distribution in exchange for some consideration and both parties sign
off on the deal.


At least that's your crackpot, make believe theory. You obviously
are too ignorant of common contract law to recognize a bilateral.
third party beneficiary contract when you see one. Keep makin' it
up as you go Hyman.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


On 4/20/2010 3:46 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Given that many proprietary licenses are offered to anyone with or
without a copy of the covered work, the proprietary licenses are
actually more open


What is a proprietary license?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote:

[... open ...]

> sense that they are generally offered to anyone who has a copy of
> the covered work, . . .

Given that many proprietary licenses are offered to anyone with or
without a copy of the covered work, the proprietary licenses are
actually more open, right you idiot?

What was your next assertion, you retard?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Compliance detection tool


On 4/20/2010 3:27 PM, RJack wrote:

Open your eyes. Your dream is over.


When a court tells me so, then I'll worry.
When a crank does, not so much.

So far, courts seem to like open licenses just fine.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


On 4/20/2010 3:03 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

Open licenses authorize actions otherwise prohibited by copyright
law provided that persons using this authorization comply with
provisions specified by the license. The licenses are open in the


Do you really think that proprietary licenses authorize actions
prohibited by copyright law provided that persons using this
authorization NOT comply with provisions specified by the license


The licenses are open in the
sense that they are generally offered to anyone who has a copy of
the covered work, they require no communication from the person
using the authorization to the rights holder, and they allow for
further recipients to avail themselves of the same permissions.

They differ in obvious ways from normal copyright licenses which
are two-party agreements where the rights holder authorizes copying
and distribution in exchange for some consideration and both parties
sign off on the deal.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/20/2010 1:25 PM, RJack wrote:

There is *no* legal definition of what an "open" license is


Open licenses authorize actions otherwise prohibited by copyright law
 provided that persons using this authorization comply with 
provisions specified by the license.


At least that's your imagined theory.


The licenses are open in the sense that they are generally offered to
 anyone who has a copy of the covered work, they require no 
communication from the person using the authorization to the rights 
holder, and they allow for further recipients to avail themselves of 
the same permissions.


They differ in obvious ways from normal copyright licenses which are
 two-party agreements where the rights holder authorizes copying and
 distribution in exchange for some consideration and both parties
sign off on the deal.


I have witnessed children in kindergarten make up stories more
believable than your fantasies. Open your eyes. Your dream is over.



What you fail to realize, in your hatred of the principles for which 
the GPL stands, is that courts will find, and have found, that open 
licenses make sense, and are a legitimate expression of the exclusive
rights granted by copyright law. You can bring out your law 
dictionary definitions all you like, but when something makes 
powerful sense, it will be accepted. It's not unlike the Supreme 
Court allowing recording of broadcast television for time-shifting. 
It appeared to many to be a slam-dunk case of infringement, and 
indeed, four of the justices thought so, and yet it was declared 
legal.


The CAFC decision points the way.


Let me know when the GPL becomes "legislative expression". ROFL. Until
that occurs, current Supreme Court rulings are still the precedential
law. Your Marxist dreams of the courts upending Article I, Section 8,
Clause 8 of the United States Constitution and the will of Congress is
wishful socialist musing. Sometimes reality bites, but then you're just
going to have to adjust to it.

Sincerely,
RJack :)


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/20/2010 1:25 PM, RJack wrote:
> > There is *no* legal definition of what an "open" license is
> 
> Open licenses authorize actions otherwise prohibited by copyright
> law provided that persons using this authorization comply with
> provisions specified by the license. The licenses are open in the

Do you really think that proprietary licenses authorize actions
prohibited by copyright law provided that persons using this
authorization NOT comply with provisions specified by the license, you
idiot Hyman? 

What was your next assertion, you retard?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Compliance detection tool


On 4/20/2010 1:25 PM, RJack wrote:

There is *no* legal definition of what an "open" license is


Open licenses authorize actions otherwise prohibited by copyright
law provided that persons using this authorization comply with
provisions specified by the license. The licenses are open in the
sense that they are generally offered to anyone who has a copy of
the covered work, they require no communication from the person
using the authorization to the rights holder, and they allow for
further recipients to avail themselves of the same permissions.

They differ in obvious ways from normal copyright licenses which
are two-party agreements where the rights holder authorizes copying
and distribution in exchange for some consideration and both parties
sign off on the deal.

What you fail to realize, in your hatred of the principles for which
the GPL stands, is that courts will find, and have found, that open
licenses make sense, and are a legitimate expression of the exclusive
rights granted by copyright law. You can bring out your law dictionary
definitions all you like, but when something makes powerful sense, it
will be accepted. It's not unlike the Supreme Court allowing recording
of broadcast television for time-shifting. It appeared to many to be a
slam-dunk case of infringement, and indeed, four of the justices thought
so, and yet it was declared legal.

The CAFC decision points the way.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


On 4/20/2010 1:37 PM, RJack wrote:

Publishing "copyright notices" and "tracking of modifications"
do not require use of the rights in 17 USC sec. 106 and therefore no
sec. 106 rights are violated by not doing so.


Copying and distributing a work without adhering to the
requirements in the grant of permission is infringement.


A CAFC decision will NEVER overrule a Supreme Court decision


You will first have to wait for the CAFC decision to be
actually overruled, not just blather on about your crank
theories that the CAFC decision contradicts a Supreme
Court ruling, which it does not.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/20/2010 1:10 PM, RJack wrote:

This finding directly contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling that
to infringe, an action must violate one of the "specific exclusive
rights conferred by the copyright statute".


No, it's consistent with it - the violation was of the exclusive
right to copy and distribute a work.


Publishing "copyright notices" and "tracking of modifications"
do not require use of the rights in 17 USC sec. 106 and therefore no
sec. 106 rights are violated by not doing so.



And you sidestep the actual question, which was about how many court
decisions have supported the crank point of view while addressing
open licenses.


How many times must I explain to you that there are no legal
distinctions concerning so called "open" licenses.



The answer seems to be none, since the only decisions you quote are
old ones that are not specifically addressing open licenses.


A CAFC decision will NEVER overrule a Supreme Court decision, no
matter how old the Supreme Court decision is, no matter how many times 
you falsely claim the CAFC is empowered to do so.


"[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).

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/20/2010 9:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

With one court


And how many court decisions have supported the crank point of view 
while addressing open licenses?


Absolutely none. Nada. Zip. Nicht.

There is *no* legal definition of what an "open" license is, other than
the legal certainty that *all* copyright licenses are contracts to be
interpreted under the state law of contracts.

There is absolutely no legal difference between "open" and "proprietary"
copyright licenses. The same rules of contract construction apply
uniformly to both.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


On 4/20/2010 1:10 PM, RJack wrote:

This finding directly contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling that to
infringe, an action must violate one of the "specific exclusive rights
conferred by the copyright statute".


No, it's consistent with it - the violation was of
the exclusive right to copy and distribute a work.

And you sidestep the actual question, which was about
how many court decisions have supported the crank point
of view while addressing open licenses. The answer seems
to be none, since the only decisions you quote are old
ones that are not specifically addressing open licenses.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/20/2010 9:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

With one court


And how many court decisions have supported the crank point of view 
while addressing open licenses?


In 1984 the Supreme Court held:

"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 Federal Circuit found:

"It is outside the scope of the Artistic License to modify and
distribute the copyrighted materials without copyright notices and a
tracking of modifications from the original computer files."

This finding directly contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling that to
infringe, an action must violate one of the "specific exclusive rights
conferred by the copyright statute".

"[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).

Which court's ruling do you think is binding precedent?

"ARTICLE 224
Condition Defined:
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.
http://openjurist.org/661/f2d/479/fantastic-fakes-inc-v-pickwick-international-inc

precendent -- adj. (pr-sdnt, prs-dnt)
Preceding.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin praecdns, praecdent-,
present participle of praecdere, to go before; see precede.]


"As a general rule, it must clearly appear from the agreement itself
that the parties intended a provision to operate as a condition
precedent (see, 22 N.Y. Jur 2d, Contracts 234; Lui v Park Ridge at
Terryville Assn., 196 A.D.2d 579, 601 N.Y.S.2d 496). If the language is
in any way ambiguous, the law does not favor a construction which
creates a condition precedent (see, Lui v Park Ridge at Terryville
Assn., supra, at 582; Manning v Michaels
9 A.D.2d 897, 540 N.Y.S.2d 583)."; KASS V KASS, SUPREME COURT OF NEW
YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT Cause No. 19970908_0054.NY

"Plaintiffs bring claims for "Contract Failure of Condition" against
each defendent. The Court is not familiar with this term. I assume
"Contract Failure of Condition" is a claim for breach of a condition
precedent." Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co.,
et al., 1:2008cv07508, SDNY, (2008). Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, Diasrict
Court judge presiding over Best Buy et. al.

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/AbuDhabi.pd

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool

John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> I think that you would find that most lawyers would never cite an
> overruled decision.

Except in the case of the appellate court being the CAFC and the subject
matter being NOT patents and NOT something claimed against the United
States government you retard... especially regarding utterly silly
opinion produced by a District Court Judge sitting by designation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Federal_Circuit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Claims

NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 21 April 2010 NYLUG: Richard Kreuter on NoSQL in general and MongoDB in particular

2010-05-04 Thread secretary

 From: NYLUG Announcements 
 To: NYLUG Announcements 
 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:45:01 -0400 (EDT)
 Subject: [nylug-announce] NYLUG Presents: 4/21 @ 6:30PM Richard Kreuter on 
NoSQL and MongoDB, Relating to Non-Relational Databases

 Wednesday, April 21, 2010
 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM
 IBM
 590 Madison Ave, 12th Floor
 corner of 57th Street

 *** RSVP Closes at 4:30 PM the day of the meeting (sharp!) ***
 Please RSVP for EVERY meeting at this time.
 Register at http://rsvp.nylug.org/
 Check in with photo ID at the lobby for badge.

Richard Kreuter
- on -
  NoSQL and MongoDB, Relating
  to Non-Relational Databases

 This talk will introduce the whats and wherefores of the non-relational
 database world (often called "NoSQL" databases), followed by a detailed
 look at MongoDB, a dynamic, schema-free, document-oriented database. 
 Topics will include key-value stores, dynamo- and bigtable-descendants,
 document-oriented databases, scaling strategies.  Databases to be discussed
 include Memcached, Tokyo Cabinet, CouchDB, SimpleDB, Cassandra, Riak,
 Voldemort, and MongoDB.  

 More information

   * MongoDB
 http://www.mongodb.org

   * Tokyo Cabinet
 http://1978th.net/tokyocabinet/

   * CouchDB
 http://couchdb.apache.org/

   * Memcached
 http://memcached.org/

   * Cassandra
 http://cassandra.apache.org/

   * Riak
 http://riak.basho.com/

   * Voldemort
 http://project-voldemort.com/

   * SimpleDB
 http://aws.amazon.com/simpledb/

 About Richard Kreutzer
 Bio: Richard Kreuter is a software engineer at 10gen, the sponsor of the
 open source project MongoDB.  He has wrangled code in bioinformatics,
 websites, compilers, airfare search, among other randoms.

 Meeting Location:
   Please note that this meeting will be held at IBM, 590 Madison Ave,
   12th floor, corner of 57th Street, and not at Google.  This is
   the building with the IBM logo on the front of the building.

 Map:
   http://nylug.org/mapofibm

 Swag (Give Away):
   During/after the meeting... unusually terrific swag may be given
   away.

 Stammtisch:
   After the meeting ... You may wish to join up with other NYLUGgers
   for drinks and pub food.  This month we'll be over at TGI Friday's
   (677 Lexington and 56th Street, Second floor, Northeast corner),
   but we are also evaluating other options for the future and welcome
   your suggestions.

   http://nylug.org/tgifridays

 < block of text removed />

 Please see our home page at http://www.nylug.org for the HTMLized
 version of this announcement, our archives, and a lot of other good
 stuff.
 __
 Hire expert Linux talent by posting jobs here :: http://jobs.nylug.org
 nylug-announce mailing list nylug-annou...@nylug.org
 http://nylug.org/mailman/listinfo/nylug-announce

Distributed poC TINC:

Jay Sulzberger 
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

Re: Compliance detection tool

2010-05-04 Thread John Hasler

David Kastrup writes:
> Let's be fair.  An overruled court decision (even if it does not
> change the consequences, namely the necessity to comply) is better
> than nothing.

No, it's worse than nothing.  With nothing you are only arguing against
your opponent.  With a overruled decision you are arguing against an
appellate court.  The latter is far more authoritative even if the
precedent is not binding.

I think that you would find that most lawyers would never cite an
overruled decision.
-- 
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: Compliance detection tool

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Hyman Rosen  writes:
>> 
>> > On 4/20/2010 10:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> >> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> >>> And how many court decisions have supported the crank
>> >>> point of view while addressing open licenses?
>> >>
>> >> The district court in that same case
>> >
>> > Which was overruled.
>> 
>> Let's be fair.  
>
> You should simply stop being utter morons.

Rest assured that nobody is taking your place here.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Hyman Rosen  writes:
> 
> > On 4/20/2010 10:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >>> And how many court decisions have supported the crank
> >>> point of view while addressing open licenses?
> >>
> >> The district court in that same case
> >
> > Which was overruled.
> 
> Let's be fair.  

You should simply stop being utter morons.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Compliance detection tool


Hyman Rosen wrote:

[... progress%20software.pdf ...]

> As usual, your references undermine your case. This order

You're simply too stupid to grasp the fact that the judge in MySQL case
is applying the contract breach standard of review against which she
evaluates the GPL claim, NOT copyright infringement, you retard.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen  writes:

> On 4/20/2010 10:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>> And how many court decisions have supported the crank
>>> point of view while addressing open licenses?
>>
>> The district court in that same case
>
> Which was overruled.

Let's be fair.  An overruled court decision (even if it does not change
the consequences, namely the necessity to comply) is better than
nothing.  The usual crank theories here are so wacky that no court would
dare sanctify them even once in an angle irrelevant to the outcome of
the case.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


On 4/20/2010 10:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

And how many court decisions have supported the crank
point of view while addressing open licenses?


The district court in that same case


Which was overruled.


and MySQL court in
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf
(alleged breach of the GPL is just a contract breach/not copyright
infringement).



Affidavits submitted by the parties’ experts raise a
factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini program
is a derivative or an independent and separate work
under GPL ¶ 2. After hearing, MySQL seems to have the
better argument here, but the matter is one of fair
dispute. Moreover, I am not persuaded based on this
record that the release of the Gemini source code in
July 2001 didn’t cure the breach.

As usual, your references undermine your case. This order
shows that the judge understands the GPL and believes that
it is a valid copyright license which operates as it says
it does. Notice the reference to release of source code
curing the breach.


In Wallace v. FSF the court also established that "open

> licenses" such as the GPL are contracts.

But has any court found that open licenses, contract or no,
do not function as their authors intended? CAFC thinks that
they do, and so does the MA District Court.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/20/2010 9:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > With one court
> 
> And how many court decisions have supported the crank
> point of view while addressing open licenses?

The district court in that same case you retard and MySQL court in

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf
(alleged breach of the GPL is just a contract breach/not copyright
infringement).

In Wallace v. FSF the court also established that "open licenses" such
as the GPL are contracts. 

Is that enough "courts" for you silly Hyman?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Compliance detection tool


On 4/20/2010 9:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

With one court


And how many court decisions have supported the crank
point of view while addressing open licenses?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/20/2010 5:37 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Only silly freetards would tolerate utter nonsense
> 
> And courts. Don't forget courts.

With one court being in a freetard blackout and spouting 

"Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both
covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the scope of the
license and are governed by copyright law."

nonsense doesn't make it "courts" silly Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Compliance detection tool


On 4/20/2010 5:37 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Only silly freetards would tolerate utter nonsense


And courts. Don't forget courts.
When it's court vs. crank, court wins.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov  writes:
> 
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4/19/2010 5:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> > Just curious, in what sense is it "instructive"?
> >>
> >> One might otherwise believe that the anti-GPL crank position
> >> is simply a different interpretation of law and circumstance
> >> in an "agree to disagree" sort of way.
> >
> > Only silly freetards would tolerate utter nonsense such as
> >
> > "Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both
> > covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the scope of the
> > license and are governed by copyright law."
> 
> That would make the defendants of this case silly freetards since they
> heeded the verdict.

The district court was mandated to treat the contract breach as
copyright infringement. Even so the district court refused to grant the
injunction and Plaintiffs appealed the second time you idiot. The second
appeal was dropped due to *settlement* which included *contractually*
stipulated injunction ... "expressly forbidding Katzer from further
misuse of the software that JMRI has created, and forbidding him to
register any domain names that should rightly belong to us. "

http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/Recent.shtml#2010-02-17

The actual text of *contractually* stipulated injunction is here:

http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/403.pdf

And it says nothing about copyright law, silly dak.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Compliance detection tool

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> 
>> On 4/19/2010 5:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> > Just curious, in what sense is it "instructive"?
>> 
>> One might otherwise believe that the anti-GPL crank position
>> is simply a different interpretation of law and circumstance
>> in an "agree to disagree" sort of way.
>
> Only silly freetards would tolerate utter nonsense such as
>
> "Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both
> covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the scope of the
> license and are governed by copyright law."

That would make the defendants of this case silly freetards since they
heeded the verdict.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/19/2010 5:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> > Just curious, in what sense is it "instructive"?
> 
> One might otherwise believe that the anti-GPL crank position
> is simply a different interpretation of law and circumstance
> in an "agree to disagree" sort of way.

Only silly freetards would tolerate utter nonsense such as

"Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both
covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the scope of the
license and are governed by copyright law."

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Compliance detection tool


On 4/19/2010 5:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

Just curious, in what sense is it "instructive"?


One might otherwise believe that the anti-GPL crank position
is simply a different interpretation of law and circumstance
in an "agree to disagree" sort of way.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool

2010-05-04 Thread Keith Thompson

Hyman Rosen  writes:
> On 4/17/2010 6:03 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > shall be impeached
> 
> Be sure to get back to me when that happens.
> 
> Meanwhile, it's instructive to see you spewing your
> hateful bile.

Just curious, in what sense is it "instructive"?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org  
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool

2010-05-04 Thread John Hasler

RJack wrote:
> The erroneous non-precedential Jacobsen decision is strictly limited
> to the one past defendant in a nation of 310 million people. So...
> what's your point?

While it is not a binding precedent it is still a precedent which can
and will be cited.  Non-binding precedents are routinely cited in US
courts.  It is not "erroneous" unless a higher court says so.
-- 
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: Compliance detection tool


On 4/19/2010 5:19 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

is utter nonsense.


In the battle of 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: Compliance detection tool


On 4/18/2010 9:23 AM, RJack wrote:

The erroneous non-precedential Jacobsen decision is strictly limited
to the one past defendant in a nation of 310 million people. So...
what's your point?


That since the CAFC JMRI decision is correct and correctly
reasoned, other courts in like circumstances will adopt the
same reasoning and reach the same conclusions.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/17/2010 6:03 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > shall be impeached
> 
> Be sure to get back to me when that happens.
> 
> Meanwhile, it's instructive to see you spewing your
> hateful bile.

It is instructive to see you failing to grasp that 

"Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both
covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the scope of the
license and are governed by copyright law."

is utter nonsense. 

Or does the GNUtian version of copyright law has a section or two
governing scope limitations which are both covenants and conditions in a
copyright license under California contract law, LOL?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Compliance detection tool


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/17/2010 4:58 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The US Court of Appeals, the US Court of Appeals... c'mon Hyman, 
face the truth: the silly opinion that you so much love is a 
product of a district court level judge from New Jersey who managed
 to deliberately misread and misapply California contract law 
(Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911). BTW, she is a well known

 unreasonable bitch:


"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.

   You don't.

If you have the law on your side, pound the law.

   You don't.

If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

   Is is your hand sore yet Hyman?


How sad for you, when bitter and hateful name-calling is all you have
 left.


The erroneous non-precedential Jacobsen decision is strictly limited
to the one past defendant in a nation of 310 million people. So...
what's your point? That legal errors propagate like rabbits?


"In Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 903, at 909
(Fed.Cir.1984), this court said:

Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters in
the light of the problems faced by the district court from which each
count originated, including the law there applicable. In this manner, we
desire to avoid exacerbating  the problem of intercircuit conflicts in
non-patent areas. A district court judge should not be expected to look
over his shoulder to the law in this circuit, save as to those claims
over which our subject matter jurisdiction is exclusive.

The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their
particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned
exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions and in
this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ
1074  (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc).

As the Supreme Court reiterated:

"[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).



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


On 4/17/2010 6:03 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

shall be impeached


Be sure to get back to me when that happens.

Meanwhile, it's instructive to see you spewing your
hateful bile.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


On 4/17/2010 4:58 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

The US Court of Appeals, the US Court of Appeals... c'mon Hyman, face
the truth: the silly opinion that you so much love is a product of a
district court level judge from New Jersey who managed to deliberately
misread and misapply California contract law (Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159
Cal. 716 (1911). BTW, she is a well known unreasonable bitch:


"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
 If you have the law on your side, pound the law.
 If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

How sad for you, when bitter and hateful name-calling
is all you have left.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court


Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov  wrote:


David Kastrup wrote:

How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak?

I should think a lot more comfortably than you make friends.

I should think that you are jobless, right?

I'd think you're friendless, too, eh?


I'm not friendless and I'm pretty sure that dak is jobless.


Better than Hyman who is hopeless.



regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Compliance detection tool

RJack wrote:
> 
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > On 4/16/2010 2:50 PM, RJack wrote:
> >> The erroneous
> >
> > It will be "erroneous" when another court says it is. Right now, it's
> > a valid decision of a court.
> 
> The Supreme Court has already said it's erroneous.

New Jersey district judge HOCHBERG shall be impeached for producing
nonsense such as "Thus, ..." below.

"The heart of the argument on appeal concerns whether the terms of the
Artistic License are conditions of, or merely covenants to, the
copyright license. Generally, a "copyright owner who grants a
nonexclusive license to use his copyrighted material waives his right to
sue the licensee for copyright infringement and can sue only for breach
of contract. Sun Microsystems, Inc., v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115,
1121 (9th Cir. 1999); Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229, 236 (2d Cir. 1998).
If, however, a license is limited in scope and the licensee acts outside
the scope, the licensor can bring an action for copyright infringement.
See S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir.1989);
Nimmer on Copyright, ' 1015[A] (1999).

Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both
covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the scope of the
license and are governed by copyright law."

She is deliberately mixing three different contract law concepts of
conditions, covenants, and scope limitations which have nothing to do
with being governed by copyright law. (She probably copy & pasted it
from moronic Jacobsen's brief).

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."

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/16/2010 3:40 PM, amicus_curious wrote:
> > "Hyman Rosen"  wrote in message
> >> Unfortunately for you, a Supreme Court decision of 1992
> >> does not overrule a US Court of Appeals decision of 2008.
> >
> > Does too.
> 
> Not until a higher court than the US Court of Appeals

The US Court of Appeals, the US Court of Appeals... c'mon Hyman, face
the truth: the silly opinion that you so much love is a product of a
district court level judge from New Jersey who managed to deliberately
misread and misapply California contract law (Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159
Cal. 716 (1911). BTW, she is a well known unreasonable bitch:

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."

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
> In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov  wrote:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> >> > How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak?
> 
> >> I should think a lot more comfortably than you make friends.
> 
> > I should think that you are jobless, right?
> 
> I'd think you're friendless, too, eh?

I'm not friendless and I'm pretty sure that dak is jobless.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Alan Mackenzie

In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov  wrote:

> David Kastrup wrote:

>> > How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak?

>> I should think a lot more comfortably than you make friends.

> I should think that you are jobless, right?

I'd think you're friendless, too, eh?

> regards,
> alexander.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nurmberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


On 4/16/2010 3:40 PM, amicus_curious wrote:

"Hyman Rosen"  wrote in message

Unfortunately for you, a Supreme Court decision of 1992
does not overrule a US Court of Appeals decision of 2008.


Does too.


Not until a higher court than the US Court of Appeals
says so. Be sure to get back to me when that happens.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool

2010-05-04 Thread amicus_curious




"Hyman Rosen"  wrote in message 
news:603yn.153497$ye4.99...@newsfe11.iad...

On 4/16/2010 3:34 PM, RJack wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

It will be "erroneous" when another court says it is.

>> Right now, it's a valid decision of a court.


The Supreme Court has already said it's erroneous.


Unfortunately for you, a Supreme Court decision of 1992
does not overrule a US Court of Appeals decision of 2008.


Does too. 


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


On 4/16/2010 3:34 PM, RJack wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

It will be "erroneous" when another court says it is.

>> Right now, it's a valid decision of a court.


The Supreme Court has already said it's erroneous.


Unfortunately for you, a Supreme Court decision of 1992
does not overrule a US Court of Appeals decision of 2008.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/16/2010 2:50 PM, RJack wrote:

The erroneous


It will be "erroneous" when another court says it is. Right now, it's
a valid decision of a court.


The Supreme Court has already said it's erroneous.

"In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992), we
held that, to satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a plaintiff
must show (1) it has suffered an "injury in fact" that is (a concrete
and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged
action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely
speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision."

"[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).




strictly limited to the one past defendant in a nation of 310
million people


And how many decided cases are there that reflect your erroneous view
of open licenses?


My views are always correct and error free, therefore a case
reflecting my "erroneous view" is a logical impossibility.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court


On 4/16/2010 3:24 PM, RJack wrote:

What is exactly your goal?


To correct your incorrect statements. 
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/16/2010 2:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize the
value of moral rights.


http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html

"Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a
"work of visual art." For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes
paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing
in a single copy or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered
copies or fewer. In order to be protected, a photograph must have
been taken for exhibition purposes only. VARA only protects works
of "recognized stature;" posters, maps, globes, motion pictures,
electronic publications, and applied art are among the categories
of visual works explicitly excluded from VARA protection.

The language of the Copyright Act excludes works-for-hire from the 
definition of "works of visual art," thereby excluding such works

from VARA protection. "


Thank you for providing a confirming link that US law does recognize
the value of moral rights.


Computer programs are not works of visual art. What is exactly your
goal? To deflect attention from the fact that the SFLC BusyBox lawsuits
are abject failures? That a copyright license is a contract? To confuse
folks concerning the fact that the GPL is unenforceable dure to lack of
article III standing?

Sincerely,
RJack :)

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court


On 4/16/2010 3:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

"a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer."


It is a bit more like moral rights of art than moral
rights of artists. They're trying to keep people from
buying the Mona Lisa and drawing a mustache on it,
but it's hard to write a law that expresses that but
doesn't stop you from using a newspaper to wrap fish.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/16/2010 2:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >> You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize
> >> the value of moral rights.
> >
> > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html
> >
> > "Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a "work of
> > visual art." For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes paintings,
> > drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing in a single copy
> > or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer. In
> > order to be protected, a photograph must have been taken for exhibition
> > purposes only. VARA only protects works of "recognized stature;"
> > posters, maps, globes, motion pictures, electronic publications, and
> > applied art are among the categories of visual works explicitly excluded
> > from VARA protection.
> >
> > The language of the Copyright Act excludes works-for-hire from the
> > definition of "works of visual art," thereby excluding such works from
> > VARA protection. "
> 
> Thank you for providing a confirming link that US law
> does recognize the value of moral rights.

"a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer."

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~csundt/copyweb/CunardCAA2002.htm

"As a threshold matter, only certain art is protected by VARA: works
that fit a definition of Works of Visual Art in § 101 of the Act.
Works in traditional media such as painting and drawing are covered, but
multiples such as sculpture and prints are only protected if the work is
a unique print or if it is in signed and numbered editions of 200 or
less. Similarly, still photographs produced for exhibition purposes are
protected only if they are unique or are in signed, numbered editions of
200 or less. Specifically excluded are numerous items listed in the
statute, such as posters, maps, models, applied art, motion pictures, or
other audiovisual works, periodicals, databases, and art produced for
primarily commercial purposes, such as advertising, packaging, or
promotional material. Also excluded is any portion of a mixed-media work
of art incorporating one of the specifically excluded items. "

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court


On 4/16/2010 2:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize
the value of moral rights.


http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html

"Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a "work of
visual art." For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes paintings,
drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing in a single copy
or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer. In
order to be protected, a photograph must have been taken for exhibition
purposes only. VARA only protects works of "recognized stature;"
posters, maps, globes, motion pictures, electronic publications, and
applied art are among the categories of visual works explicitly excluded
from VARA protection.

The language of the Copyright Act excludes works-for-hire from the
definition of "works of visual art," thereby excluding such works from
VARA protection. "


Thank you for providing a confirming link that US law
does recognize the value of moral rights.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


On 4/16/2010 2:50 PM, RJack wrote:

The erroneous


It will be "erroneous" when another court says it is.
Right now, it's a valid decision of a court.


strictly limited to the one past defendant in a nation

> of 310 million people

And how many decided cases are there that reflect your
erroneous view of open licenses?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/16/2010 2:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
An invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL) is always an 
invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL).


The GPL is not a contract but a copyright license, and it is
copyright infringement to copy and distribute GPL-covered works
without complying with the GPL.





-- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed
by ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v.
Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) --

-- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.  101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) --

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/16/2010 2:30 PM, RJack wrote:
> > Yup. "Only the author of a work of visual art...".
> 
> You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize
> the value of moral rights.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html

"Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a "work of
visual art." For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes paintings,
drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing in a single copy
or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer. In
order to be protected, a photograph must have been taken for exhibition
purposes only. VARA only protects works of "recognized stature;"
posters, maps, globes, motion pictures, electronic publications, and
applied art are among the categories of visual works explicitly excluded
from VARA protection. 

The language of the Copyright Act excludes works-for-hire from the
definition of "works of visual art," thereby excluding such works from
VARA protection. "

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Compliance detection tool


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/16/2010 2:36 PM, RJack wrote:

Virtually all open source licenses are unenforceable due to lack of
Article III standing. Open source licenses in general are only
useful for defenses against copyright infringement suits.


That's false, as we can see from this court decision:

Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License
are enforceable copyright conditions, we remand to enable
the District Court to determine whether Jacobsen has
demonstrated (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and
either a presumption of irreparable harm or a demonstration
of irreparable harm; or (2) a fair chance of success on the
merits and a clear disparity in the relative hardships and
tipping in his favor.


The erroneous non-precedental Jacobsen decision is strictly limited
to the one past defendant in a nation of 310 million people. So...
what's your point? That legal errors propagate like rabbits?

"In Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 903, at 909
(Fed.Cir.1984), this court said:

Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters in
the light of the problems faced by the district court from which each
count originated, including the law there applicable. In this manner, we
desire to avoid exacerbating  the problem of intercircuit conflicts in
non-patent areas. A district court judge should not be expected to look
over his shoulder to the law in this circuit, save as to those claims
over which our subject matter jurisdiction is exclusive.

The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their
particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned
exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions and in
this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ
1074  (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc).

"[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).

Sincerely,
RJack :)

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/16/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz




Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link.


Sometimes a GNUtian is a moron. Other times he is just a fool.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/16/2010 1:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards.


Since they have so far gained compliance from every defendant whose
case has ended, one can only imagine how much more good for the GPL
could be accomplished by competent lawyers of average intelligence.
Perhaps you should count your blessings.


One can only imagine that if it is found that a frog has wings then the
frog won't bump his ass when he jumps.
ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!


Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...]

These are lawyers.





SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards.


I'll second that motion. All in favor say aye.

aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye
aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye
aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye
aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye
aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye
aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye

The ayes have it the motion is approved.



regards, alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds 
the originality standards required by copyright law."


Hyman Rosen  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  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: Time to put up or shut up!


On 4/16/2010 2:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

An invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL) is always an
invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL).


The GPL is not a contract but a copyright license,
and it is copyright infringement to copy and distribute
GPL-covered works without complying with the GPL.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


On 4/16/2010 2:36 PM, RJack wrote:

Virtually all open source licenses are unenforceable due to lack of
Article III standing. Open source licenses in general are only
useful for defenses against copyright infringement suits.


That's false, as we can see from this court decision:

Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License
are enforceable copyright conditions, we remand to enable
the District Court to determine whether Jacobsen has
demonstrated (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and
either a presumption of irreparable harm or a demonstration
of irreparable harm; or (2) a fair chance of success on the
merits and a clear disparity in the relative hardships and
tipping in his favor.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/16/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

And what would such hallucination-motion say to the court to

 > justify the request to amend the complaint silly Hyman?

Well, they could say "we forgot".


Or they could say that because the infringers are distributing
a binary version of BusyBox, it's difficult to determine the
exact version being infringed. Or they could say that they feel
it's enough to register one version, but since the court doesn't
agree, they'll register all of them. These are lawyers. As we
know from the defendants' responses you've posted, they can be
endlessly creative when coming up with supporting reasons.



And if it is found that a frog has wings then the frog won't bump his
ass when he jumps.
ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court


On 4/16/2010 2:30 PM, RJack wrote:

Yup. "Only the author of a work of visual art...".


You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize
the value of moral rights.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/16/2010 12:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

http://www.oblon.com/files/news/514.pdf

"under the “Registration Approach,” only after the Register of 
Copyrights actually approves the application and issues a

registration, or notifies the copyright applicant that the
application is rejected, is the prerequisite for a federal
copyright infringement action satisfied. The courts of the
Second,15 Tenth16 and Eleventh17 Circuits follow this approach."


If the court requires that each specific version of a work be
registered, then it is possible that this suit will be found
defective and be dismissed. The plaintiffs can then register the
specific version involved and refile the suit. The court may also
give them the option of registering and then amending the complaint.


And if it is found that a frog has wings then the frog won't bump his
ass when he jumps.
ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool


Hyman Rosen wrote:




Software development company Loohuis Consulting and process
management consultancy OpenDawn have released a new binary analysis
tool that is designed to detect Linux and BusyBox in binary firmware.
The program, which is freely available for download, is intended to
aid open source license compliance efforts.


Virtually all open source licenses are unenforceable due to lack of
Article III standing. Open source licenses in general are only
useful for defenses against copyright infringement suits.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/16/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz
> 
> Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link.

An invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL) is always an
invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL).

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Time to put up or shut up!


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/16/2010 10:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

"A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is
defective and subject to dismissal."; Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592
F.Supp. 1195, 1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).


If the court requires that each specific version of a work be
registered, then it is possible that this suit will be found
defective and be dismissed. The plaintiffs can then register the
specific version involved and refile the suit. The court may also
give them the option of registering and then amending the complaint


And if it is found that a frog has wings then the frog won't bump his
ass when he jumps.
ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/15/2010 6:34 PM, RJack wrote:

The value of a nonexclusive copyright license like the GPL

 > is called its "contractual interest".

Something like this:

SANTA CLARA, CA January 16, 2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: JAVA)
today announced it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire
MySQL AB, an open source icon and developer of one of the world's
fastest growing open source databases for approximately $1 billion in
total consideration.

 > What US law does not recognize is the value of "moral rights".

You have apparently failed to notice 17 USC 106A.

§ 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
... (a bunch of stuff) ...
(b) Scope and Exercise of Rights.—
Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by
subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright
owner.

Yup. "Only the author of a work of visual art...".
ROFL

Sincerely,
RJack :)

of a work of visual art

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!


On 4/16/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz


Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!



Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/16/2010 1:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards.
> 
> Since they have so far gained . . . 

http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Time to put up or shut up!


On 4/16/2010 1:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards.


Since they have so far gained compliance from every
defendant whose case has ended, one can only imagine
how much more good for the GPL could be accomplished
by competent lawyers of average intelligence. Perhaps
you should count your blessings.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!


Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> These are lawyers. 

SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Time to put up or shut up!


On 4/16/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

And what would such hallucination-motion say to the court to

> justify the request to amend the complaint silly Hyman?

Well, they could say "we forgot".


Or they could say that because the infringers are distributing
a binary version of BusyBox, it's difficult to determine the
exact version being infringed. Or they could say that they feel
it's enough to register one version, but since the court doesn't
agree, they'll register all of them. These are lawyers. As we
know from the defendants' responses you've posted, they can be
endlessly creative when coming up with supporting reasons.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/16/2010 12:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >> The court may also give them the option of registering and
> >> then amending the complaint.
> >
> > Sez who?
> 
> The Supreme Court:
> 
>  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) declares that leave
>  to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires,"
>  and denial of the motion without any apparent justifying

And what would such hallucination-motion say to the court to justify the
request to amend the complaint silly Hyman?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Time to put up or shut up!


On 4/16/2010 12:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

The court may also give them the option of registering and
then amending the complaint.


Sez who?


The Supreme Court:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) declares that leave
to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires,"
and denial of the motion without any apparent justifying
reason was an abuse of discretion.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> The court may also give them the option of registering and
> then amending the complaint.

Sez who?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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: Time to put up or shut up!


On 4/16/2010 12:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

http://www.oblon.com/files/news/514.pdf

"under the “Registration Approach,” only after the Register of
Copyrights actually approves the application and issues a registration,
or notifies the copyright applicant that the application is rejected, is
the prerequisite for a federal copyright infringement action satisfied.
The courts of the Second,15 Tenth16 and Eleventh17 Circuits follow this
approach."


If the court requires that each specific version of a work
be registered, then it is possible that this suit will be
found defective and be dismissed. The plaintiffs can then
register the specific version involved and refile the suit.
The court may also give them the option of registering and
then amending the complaint.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/16/2010 10:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > "A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective
> > and subject to dismissal."; Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195,
> > 1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
> 
> If . . . 

http://www.oblon.com/files/news/514.pdf

"under the Registration Approach, only after the Register of
Copyrights actually approves the application and issues a registration,
or notifies the copyright applicant that the application is rejected, is
the prerequisite for a federal copyright infringement action satisfied.
The courts of the Second,15 Tenth16 and Eleventh17 Circuits follow this
approach."

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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

The birth of a virus scanner against the GPL virus

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> 

"Developed with funding from the Linux Foundation and the NLnet
Foundation, the binary analysis tool is distributed under the permissive
Apache license. "

LOL.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  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

Compliance detection tool



Software development company Loohuis Consulting
and process management consultancy OpenDawn have
released a new binary analysis tool that is
designed to detect Linux and BusyBox in binary
firmware. The program, which is freely available
for download, is intended to aid open source
license compliance efforts.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!


On 4/16/2010 10:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

"A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective
and subject to dismissal."; Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195,
1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).


If the court requires that each specific version of a work
be registered, then it is possible that this suit will be
found defective and be dismissed. The plaintiffs can then
register the specific version involved and refile the suit.
The court may also give them the option of registering and
then amending the complaint.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!


Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/15/2010 6:26 PM, RJack wrote:
> > To institute the Best Buy et al suit, the plaintiff was required by
> > statute to identify the allegedly infringed work's registration:
> >
> > "§ 411 · Registration and civil infringement actions
> > (a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the
> > author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of
> > subsection (b), no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any
> > United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or
> > registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance
> > with this title."
> 
> It's amazing that you can quote the statute and still misread it
> so badly! The statute requires that the work be registered, not
> that the suit identify the registration.

"A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective
and subject to dismissal."; Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195,
1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  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  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

On 4/15/2010 6:34 PM, RJack wrote:

The value of a nonexclusive copyright license like the GPL

> is called its "contractual interest".

Something like this:

SANTA CLARA, CA January 16, 2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: JAVA)
today announced it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire
MySQL AB, an open source icon and developer of one of the world's
fastest growing open source databases for approximately $1 billion in
total consideration.

> What US law does not recognize is the value of "moral rights".

You have apparently failed to notice 17 USC 106A.

§ 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
... (a bunch of stuff) ...
(b) Scope and Exercise of Rights.—
Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by
subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright
owner.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!


On 4/15/2010 6:26 PM, RJack wrote:

To institute the Best Buy et al suit, the plaintiff was required by
statute to identify the allegedly infringed work's registration:

"§ 411 · Registration and civil infringement actions
(a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the
author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of
subsection (b), no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any
United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or
registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance
with this title."


It's amazing that you can quote the statute and still misread it
so badly! The statute requires that the work be registered, not
that the suit identify the registration.


The plaintiffs identified the registered work in the Best Buy et al
complaint:

"31. Mr. Andersen is, and at all relevant times has been, a copyright
owner under United States copyright law in the FOSS software program
known as BusyBox. See, e.g., “BusyBox, v.0.60.3.”, Copyright Reg. No.
TX0006869051 (10/2/2008)."


All versions of BusyBox made after Erik Anderson began modifying it
are derivative works of Erik Anderson's work, and he therefore owns
copyright on all of them. It is possible that this court requires
that every version of a work be registered separately, in which case
the court will observe that the suit is about an unregistered version
and may dismiss it. In that case, the plaintiffs can register the
specific versions in question and refile the case. The court may also
just give the plaintiffs time to register and then amend the complaint.


To claim even a *hypothetical* compliance due to the SFLC filed lawsuit,
you must demonstrate a working link to the source code to the GPL
covered work that was registered and allegedly infringed.



This is simply, and even stupidly, false. The lawsuit claims
infringement of BusyBox in general, not of the specific version
that Erik Anderson has registered. The compliance demanded by
the SFLC is with the GPL, which requires distribution of source
code for the binary version the defendants copied and distributed.

It is possible that the court will find that the suit is deficient
in one way or another, possibly including the registration issue,
but there is no point in willfully misreading what the suit demands,
since it is easy to read the suit and see what it says.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!