Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
On 6/15/2011 8:35 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The farce is over. http://terekhov.de/204.pdf On this page, http://insigniaproducts.com/support.html, we have Open Source Software For OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE information refer to the on-screen display on your product. If you require additional information or you wish to receive the complete corresponding GPL or LGPL licensed source code, please call the Insignia support line at 1-877-467-4289. This source code is available for a period of three (3) years from the date of the distribution of this product by Insignia. The manual for the NS-WBRDVD player says: http://insigniaproducts.com/cms/documents/NS-WBRDVD%20UM%20EN%20V4.pdf PUBLIC LICENSE This product contains software that is subject to the GNU Public License Version 2 (GPL2). You can obtain a copy of the GPL License from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html. If you require additional information or you wish to receive source code, please call the Insignia support line at 1-877-467-4289. The source code is available for a period of three (3) years from the date of the distribution of this product by Insignia. And this is then followed by the full text of the GPL2. So Insignia at least appears willing to carry out the terms of the GPL, even if it's not managing to actually accomplish that for some of its products. As in most of these cases, there's no anti-GPL prejudice going on, merely neglect and incompetence at getting it right. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
On 6/15/2011 3:17 PM, RJack wrote: The GPL license was dead the day it was stillborn. The GPL is in wide use, so you are wrong. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
On 6/16/2011 3:57 PM, RJack wrote: On 6/15/2011 3:54 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: On 6/15/2011 3:45 PM, RJack wrote: On 6/15/2011 3:32 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: On 6/15/2011 3:17 PM, RJack wrote: The GPL license was dead the day it was stillborn. The GPL is in wide use, so you are wrong. Yep. And pigs hold hands while flapping their wings ROFL. Reality will eventually bite you in the ass Hyman. LMAO. In reality, the GPL is in wide use. Even Insignia makes GPLed sources available for at least one product, here: http://insignia.chumby.com/pages/source_code Yeah -- dismissal WITH PREJUDICE and forking over $75,000 in attorneys' fees to Best Buy Inc. counsel ia a real victory Hyman. According to the document that AT posted, http://terekhov.de/204.pdf: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, plaintiffs Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Anderson and defendant BEST BUY CO.,INC hereby dismiss their claims against each other from within this action WITH PREJUDICE with respect to any past claims for certain Insignia Blu-ray products (NS-WBRDVD, NS-BRDVD3, NS-BRHTIB, NS-BRDVD3-CA, NS-WBRDVD2, NS-BRDVD4, NS-BRDVD4-CA, NS-BRDVD, NS-2BRDVD, and NS-BDLIVB01) and without costs to any party. Plaintiffs maintain this action against all other defendants. Why do you claim, in contradiction to this document, that SFLC paid any costs to Best Buy? The blithering idiots at SFC and SFLC can't even file a proper copyright registration certificate. How would they ever defend the use of an obviously unenforceable, crackpot license like the GPL? Insignia provides GPLed code for its Chumby device (http://insignia.chumby.com/pages/source_code) and indicates its intention of compliance with the GPL in its DVD manuals (e.g., http://insigniaproducts.com/cms/documents/NS-WBRDVD2-WBRDVD2-CA_10-0920_MAN_ENG_V5_Final%20press.pdf) so it does not regard the GPL as either crackpot or unenforceable. It does seem to have trouble coming into actual as opposed to claimed compliance. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
On 6/15/2011 3:45 PM, RJack wrote: On 6/15/2011 3:32 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: On 6/15/2011 3:17 PM, RJack wrote: The GPL license was dead the day it was stillborn. The GPL is in wide use, so you are wrong. Yep. And pigs hold hands while flapping their wings ROFL. Reality will eventually bite you in the ass Hyman. LMAO. In reality, the GPL is in wide use. Even Insignia makes GPLed sources available for at least one product, here: http://insignia.chumby.com/pages/source_code ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
On 6/17/2011 8:47 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The contradiction would be if the court would order not to pay attorney's fees. Do you believe that at the conclusion of a case, one party pays the attorney fees of another unless a court instructs them not to do so? How odd. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
On 6/17/2011 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 6/17/2011 9:35 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: SFLC claimed settlements without documentation and you were agreeingly happy with such claims. Why the difference now, Hyman? Because . . . [blah blah] From google: (SFLC) today announced the SFLC reveals The SFLC confirmed Stop being utter idiot, Hyman. A statement by one of the parties to a suit is different from a statement by a third party who has no inside knowledge of the case. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
On 6/17/2011 10:39 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: |N| /^^^\ |N| _|D|_ (| o |) _|D|_ _| |E| | _(_---_)_ | |E| |_ An inchoate rage-filled response is also different from a statement by a party to a suit. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 18 January 2012: Rally for Freedom of the Net, Official Name: Rally for the Future of Tech
On 1/17/2012 9:09 AM, JohnF wrote: That is, rather than just ranting about it, propose an acceptable alternative. Thank you for your concern, but in fact it is not necessary to propose an alternative law when protesting a proposed law which is both harmful and useless for its claimed purpose. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
On 12/21/2010 9:04 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: [http://www.barrysookman.com/2009/12/17/open-source-movement-gets-big-boost-from-copyright-laws-and-dmca-in-jacobsen-v-katzer/]; Why overruled? Not overruled at all, not even theoretically. As usual, your citation contradicts your thesis: Central to the Court’s ruling was the holding that “for a licensee’s violation of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the condition and the licensor’s exclusive rights of copyright.” Here, WoW players did not commit copyright infringement by using Glider in violation of the WoW’s Terms of Use. In the case of copyleft licenses, copiers who do not obey the terms of the license are still copying and distributing, so the nexus exists. Like the requirement to provide attribution as in Jacobsen case? When copying and distributing. That nexus again. suppose I simply provide a written offer regarding source code. You come to me for the source code with that offer. I [refuse]. How does that would violate the copyright act? It wouldn't. You would have correctly complied with the conditions for copying, and therefore there is no copyright violation. But I now possess a written promise from you which you are not honoring, so my course of action would be to sue for breach of contract, not of the GPL but of your written offer. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: MDY v. BLIZZARD
On 12/21/2010 8:29 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: What impact could that reasoning have on the copyleft-like licenses? Nothing, because in the case of copylefts, the disfavored conduct involves copying, which is covered by copyright law. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals
On 12/21/2010 9:48 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: that breach of a condition not to use bots doesn't violate the copyright act. Why do you think that a copyleft condition not to restrict users downstream should be treated any differently? Because the court itself said so: https://www.eff.org/files/MDY_opinion.pdf For instance, ToU § 4(D) forbids creation of derivative works based on WoW without Blizzard’s consent. A player who violates this prohibition would exceed the scope of her license and violate one of Blizzard’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. In contrast, ToU § 4(C)(ii) prohibits a player’s disruption of another player’s game experience. Id. A player might violate this prohibition while playing the game by harassing another player with unsolicited instant messages. Although this conduct may violate the contractual covenants with Blizzard, it would not violate any of Blizzard’s exclusive rights of copyright. Copyleft licenses impose conditions on how works may may be copied and distributed, which are exclusive rights of the copyright holder under the copyright act. The copyleft enforcement theory based on copyright-not-a-contract silliness is authoritatively dead under MDY precedent. As usual, you are wrong. The court decision explicitly says that copyright infringement is a possible result of license violation. It is the nature of the license violations that determine this. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals
On 12/21/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: But what does a condition to GIVE written offer has to do with rights spelled out in 17 USC 106 in the first place? Because they are conditions on how the work may be copied and distributed, and are therefore part of the exclusive right of the copyright holder under the Copyright Act. Just as the court decision said: https://www.eff.org/files/MDY_opinion.pdf For instance, ToU § 4(D) forbids creation of derivative works based on WoW without Blizzard’s consent. A player who violates this prohibition would exceed the scope of her license and violate one of Blizzard’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. In contrast, ToU § 4(C)(ii) prohibits a player’s disruption of another player’s game experience. Id. A player might violate this prohibition while playing the game by harassing another player with unsolicited instant messages. Although this conduct may violate the contractual covenants with Blizzard, it would not violate any of Blizzard’s exclusive rights of copyright. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourtof Appeals
On 12/21/2010 10:45 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Copyleft doesn't forbid creation of derivative works. You miss the point. The court has said that some violations of the terms of service are copyright violation, and some are not. The difference lies in whether the violating action is an infringement of the copyright holder's exclusive rights under the Copyright Act or not. 17 USC 109 The GPL allows copying and distribution only under its terms, and distinguishes between copies for personal use and distribution. It is a violation of copyright to distribute the former as the latter, and the first sale doctrine is not relevant to this - the infringing copy was not lawfully made under this title. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourtof Appeals
On 12/21/2010 10:56 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Essentially, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the breach of a license agreement must implicate one of the exclusive rights of copyright to give rise to a copyright infringement claim: [W]e have held that the potential for infringement exists only where the licensee's action (1) exceeds the license's scope (2) in a manner that implicates one of the licensor's exclusive statutory rights. Yes, exactly. Copying and distributing outside the permissions granted by the GPL satisfies both of these. The court gave an example itself, of creating a derivative work. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourtof Appeals
On 12/21/2010 11:16 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The US courts disagree with you Hyman. No, they do not. http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/550/550.F2d.1180.76-1141.html United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 28, 1977. ... While the copyright laws protect the right of the copyright proprietor to vend his work, that right is not absolute, but is subject to the first sale doctrine as stated in 17 U.S.C. § 27. That statute provides in pertinent part: (B)ut nothing in this title shall be deemed to forbid, prevent, or restrict the transfer of any copy of a copyrighted work the possession of which has been lawfully obtained. 17 USC 27 is no longer the law; the Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect on January 1, 1978, after the above ruling, and the first sale doctrine now reads differently. Rather than allowing resale of works lawfully obtained 17 USC 109 allows resale of works lawfully made under this title and that is an entirely different kettle of fish, as Omega vs. Costco demonstrated. A copy made for personal use but then distributed has not been lawfully made. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourtof Appeals
On 12/21/2010 11:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: How the manner of *not* providing source code could ever implicate one of the licensor's exclusive statutory rights? Manner of copying is within the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. For example, authors may sell hardcover publication rights to one publisher and paperback rights to another and eBook rights to a third. If any of these were to publish in a format other than the agreed one, they would be infringing copyright. The GPL very carefully lays out its restrictions so that they are all part of the act of copying, so that violating its terms is copyright infringement. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourtof Appeals
On 12/21/2010 11:55 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: In sum, the legislative history of Section 109(a) reveals that the phrase lawfully made under this title clarifies what constitutes a first sale for purposes of the first sale doctrine This is false, at least as held by the Ninth Circuit and upheld by the Supreme Court; lawfully made under this title means exactly that, a copy made as permitted by this law. Omega vs. Costco resulted in first sale not applying to imported items because they were made in a foreign country, and thus not made under this title. You may continue to believe that this change is immaterial to the outcome of Wells, but I already know what your opinion is worth. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourtof Appeals
On 12/21/2010 11:59 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: An act of providing the source code is part of the act of copying? It's part of the act of copying and distributing. You must either convey the source code with the binary, or convey an offer of the source code. Failing to do either infringes on the copyright; failing to honor the offer infringes on a contract. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourtof Appeals
On 12/21/2010 12:35 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Distributing a copy lawfully made under 17 USC by its owner is an act under 17 USC 109 and it doesn't require the copyright permission at all. Distributing a copy that was made under a personal use license infringes copyright because lawfully made under this title includes the restrictions on use. To realize this, imagine the clearer situation of someone setting up a bank of machines to record an over-the-air broadcast and then selling the recordings. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
On 12/21/2010 1:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: You're in denial, Hyman. No, you just fail to read and understand. http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/550/550.F2d.1180.76-1141.html defendant's sale of the comics did not constitute copyright infringement since plaintiffs had engaged in a first sale of the comics. The court so held even though there was a contract between the distributor and the wholesaler that the wholesaler would dispose of the comics for no other purpose than waste paper. Sure. The defendants didn't do any copying, and the first sale doctrine did away with restrictions on redistribution. The pivotal issue was whether the copies sold by the defendant were copies which had been the subject of a first sale, thereby terminating their statutory protection: Wells was decided before the language of lawfully made under this title was law. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
On 5/5/2010 8:11 AM, RJack wrote: Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I await with 'bated breath for your documentation. Sure, here you are: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510 PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MYSQL AB, et al., Defendants. ORDER SARIS, District Judge. ... With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. 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. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
On 5/5/2010 10:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: the case was about alleged contract breach It doesn't matter what the case was about. Your fellow crank asked for links to US federal judges who *do not* believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored, and I provided a link to a US judge who shows in her order that she does not believe that the terms of the GPL can be ignored. Of course you and your fellow cranks will disregard evidence which contradicts your cherished but incorrect beliefs even when this evidence is exactly what you asked for. That's what makes you cranks after all. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I gave him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored (I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ... source code ... didn't cure the breach.) None of your twisting and spinning can change the simple and obvious fact that here is a judge who does not believe that the terms of the GPL can be ignored. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
On 5/5/2010 10:56 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: DENIED http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510 That's because the standards required for a preliminary injunction are high. In the judge's words: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510 In any event, even if MySQL has shown a likelihood of success on these points, it has not demonstrated that it will suffer any irreparable harm during the pendency of the suit, particularly in light of the sworn statement that all source code for Gemini has been disclosed and the stipulation, given by Progress during the hearing, that the end use license for commercial users will be withdrawn. Finally, because the product line using MySQL is a significant portion of NuSphere's business, Progress has demonstrated that the balance of harms tips in its favor regarding the use of the MySQL program under the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Sufficient motivation?
As of a week or so ago, I am now the owner of a refurbished Insignia NS-WBRDVD BluRay disk player. Revised firmware for it may be downloaded here: http://insigniaproducts.com/products/dvd-players-recorders/NS-WBRDVD.html As it happens, other people and I have trouble connecting to the internet wirelessly with this player: http://community.insigniaproducts.com/t5/Blu-ray-and-DVD-Players/NS-WBRDVD-cannot-connect-to-wireless-network/td-p/2684/page/36 Once BestBuy settles with the SFLC, I may be sufficiently motivated to go and build the firmware for myself and see what I can figure out. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
On 5/5/2010 4:12 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: Significance of the GP licence.
On 5/5/2010 2:26 PM, RJack wrote: This is an identical situation to those who claim nonexistent GPL settlement victories. Yes, it is. In both situations anti-GPL cranks cannot bring themselves to believe what has long been obvious to anyone else, so they twist and spin to avoid facing the truth. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
On 5/5/2010 5:31 PM, RJack wrote: Sayeth Hyman Rosen: Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link. Sayeth Hyman Rosen: Commonly in an argument from ignorance or argument from personal incredulity, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as evidence in favor of an alternative view of his or her choice. Wishful Thinking: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wishthnk.html Form: I want P to be true. Therefore, P is true. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
On 3/9/2010 7:09 AM, RJack wrote: a) The court will immediately find the GPL unenforceable because of the preemption doctrine established by 17 USC sec. 301(a). Preemption has nothing to do with the GPL, since this is a case of normal copyright infringement brought under the federal copyright law. b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies. They may tell the court anything they like, but promissory estoppel does not apply to GPL-covered code since the license clearly spells out the conditions under which the code may be copied and distributed. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa asserts joint ownership/indispensable party defense
On 3/9/2010 7:17 AM, RJack wrote: Actually BusyBox is a thousand headed Hydra of derivative work - joint work compilations. After ten thousand patches BusyBox is a huge kettle of spaghetti code with fifty authors that is so entangled that even Humpty Dumpty's maintainers can never untangle it again. It is not a joint work because all of its authors have not declared that it it is a joint work. As a derivative work, any of its authors may file for infringement. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
On 3/9/2010 7:28 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Oh poor SFLC... You appear to have very strange beliefs about the legal system. Aside from your general misunderstanding of copyright law, you seem to believe that answers and counterclaims have some magical power merely by being stated. Proper lawyering always involves throwing up every possible defense to a suit, plausible or not. If nothing else, it makes extra work for the other side, plus any claim not asserted can't be raised later, so it's important to get everything out immediately. To an anti-GPL crank, the sun rising in the East is proof of the failure of the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/9/2010 8:35 AM, RJack wrote: If you are so smart at interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, why are you so dumb at grasping doctrines like preemption and promissory estoppel? Neither of those applies to the GPL. Preemption is irrelevant because GPL claims are filed with respect to infringement of the exclusive rights of authors as described by federal law. Promissory estoppel is irrelevant because the GPL clearly describes the conditions under which covered works may be copied and distributed. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
On 3/9/2010 8:45 AM, RJack wrote: Once the GPL is invalidated http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As the Second Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976), the unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the proprietor of the copyright. Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar- denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief. You've already lost. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
On 3/9/2010 9:11 AM, RJack wrote: Uhhh. What's abnormal copyright infringement? When there are other defenses possible under federal law, such as fair use or time shifting or reverse engineering. Normal copyright infringement is simply unauthorized copying and distribution with nothing else involved. Uhhh. Do you mean the preempted covenants that you incorrectly refer to as conditons? Preempted is preempted. What do conditions have to do with anything? GPL cases involve simple copyright infringement caused by copying and distributing without adhering to the conditions of the license. There is no preemption involved, because preemption merely states that all copyright comes from federal law, and it is federal law which disallows copying and distribution without permission. The conditions of the GPL are conditions, just as the conditions of the Artistic License are conditions: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The Artistic License states on its face that the document creates conditions: The intent of this document is to state the _conditions_ under which a Package may be copied. (Emphasis added.) The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and distribute are granted provided that the conditions are met. Under California contract law, provided that typically denotes a condition. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
On 3/9/2010 9:40 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? When a court does the calling, yes. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
On 3/9/2010 10:00 AM, RJack wrote: The case is filed in the Second Circuit. The CAFC has no precedental value anywhere in the federal system. The reasoning will apply universally, since it is correct. At the end of the day, 'statutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered' But infringing defendants will be enjoined from continuing to infringe regardless of the monetary value of damage suffered by the plaintiffs. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
On 3/9/2010 10:16 AM, RJack wrote: Since the defendants aren't infringing under Second Circuit precedental law there will be no damages at all. The defendants are infringing by copying and distributing copyrighted computer programs without permission. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Here is a story from Colorado: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/22745694/detail.html A person who borrowed a DVD from a public library and never returned it was arrested on a theft warrant which had been issued by the city. There was obviously no theft when the DVD was first borrowed, so we that something can become a crime over time even without specific action. Similarly, copying and distributing GPL-covered works without honoring the conditions of the license is copyright infringement, regardless of the circumstances under which the copier first obtained the work. (Of course the arrest caused a contretemps and the charges were subsequently dropped, but that's not relevant.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
On 3/9/2010 11:48 AM, RJack wrote: Copyleft style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law. No, that's not correct. A court has enforced an open license: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As the Second Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976), the unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the proprietor of the copyright. Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar- denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/9/2010 11:50 AM, RJack wrote: ... but that's not relevant. Neither is your analogy. You're wrong about that (naturally). The original conversation was On 3/2/2010 10:43 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft. The relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register. Uh stupid dak. You're mistaken. As usual, Terekhov was wrong, and the Colorado case is an example which demonstrates this. Borrowing a DVD from a library is a legal act. Borrowing a DVD from a library and failing to return it is theft. The status of the theft is established once sufficient time has passed and the item has not been returned. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
On 3/9/2010 12:14 PM, RJack wrote: The federal courts of the United States ignore CAFC authority in areas outside their unique patent appeals areas. Since the CAFC reasoned out the case correctly, we can expect that other courts will do the same. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/9/2010 12:20 PM, RJack wrote: Sadly Hyman, you demonstrate your inability to understand the difference between a violation of a criminal statute and a civil breach of contract. Copying GPL-covered works without honoring the conditions of the GPL is copyright infringement, not a civil breach of contract. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/9/2010 12:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO) I'm insufficiently motivated to learn German just to pick apart your undoubtedly incorrect arguments in that language. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/9/2010 3:43 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Copying GPL-covered works without honoring the conditions of the GPL is copyright infringement, not a civil breach of contract. Only in your imagination No, as articulated by the court for the Artistic License: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License are enforceable copyright conditions,... You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts and law. Yes, exactly. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/9/2010 4:31 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The Supreme Court of California. 159 Cal. 716, 115 P. 743 (1911). The term 'provided' may or may not indicate a condition . . . it is often a nice question to determine whether it is a condition or a covenant and courts always construe similar clauses in a deed as covenants rather than as conditions, if they can reasonably do so . . . http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The Artistic License states on its face that the document creates conditions: The intent of this document is to state the _conditions_ under which a Package may be copied. (Emphasis added.) The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and distribute are granted provided that the conditions are met. Under California contract law, provided that typically denotes a condition. Sounds like CAFC found the question easy to answer. And now it's answered, to the dismay of anti-GPL cranks. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/9/2010 4:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Abraham Lincoln When CAFC is reversed by a higher court, be sure to let me know. Until then, we have no Lincoln, just an internet crank. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/9/2010 5:01 PM, RJack wrote: U.S. federal district courts ignore CAFC copyright decisions There is no reason to believe that other courts would decide the matter differently, since CAFC made the correct analysis of the situation. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/9/2010 5:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: When CAFC is empowered to establish the law in copyright and/or contract matters, be sure to let me know. Similar courts should make similar decisions. Meanwhile, we have a court which has upheld an open license and no court which has not (other than the district court which CAFC reversed). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/9/2010 5:18 PM, RJack wrote: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. The only use in question is the copying and distribution of work without permission of the copyright holder, exactly as specified by the statute. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/9/2010 5:51 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The CAFC vacated, not reversed. Accordingly, on remand, the district court determined that the injunction shall be denied on other grounds as well. The District Court said: http://jmri.org/k/docket/395.pdf 2. Copyright Damages Are Available to Plaintiff. ... Although it is undisputed that Plaintiff distributed the copied work on the Internet at no cost, there is also evidence in the record attributing a monetary value for the actual work performed by the contributors to the JMRI project. (See Declaration of Victoria K. Hall in support of opposition, Ex. F (expert report of Michael A. Einhorn).)2 Because there are facts in the record which may establish a monetary damages figure, the Court finds Plaintiff has made a showing sufficient to establish the existence of a dispute of fact regarding the monetary value of Plaintiff’s work for purposes of his copyright claim. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this basis is denied. ... 2. Copyright Infringement Claim. To prevail on his claim for copyright infringement, Plaintiff must show he owns a valid copyright and that Defendants reproduced protected elements of the copyrighted work. See Feist, 499 U.S. at 361. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Plaintiff is the owner of the decoder definition files which are the subject of the copyright infringement claim. (Declaration of Robert Jacobsen in support of motion, Ex. B.) The evidence summarized by this Court with reference to Defendants’ motion establishes the originality, and therefore, the copyrightability, of the subject work. Again, the Court is unpersuaded that Plaintiff cannot prove damages. For the same reasons discussed supra, the copied files remain in the Defendants’ product as distributed and therefore constitute a basis for a claim for copyright infringement. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his copyright cause of action as to liability, but not as to damages. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/10/2010 5:14 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: That appeal was dissmissed recently. The appeal was dismissed because the parties settled. Katzer agreed to pay Jacobsen $100,000 and to never copy and distribute JMRI software again. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/10/2010 9:06 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/22/1615259/Delicious-Details-of-Open-Source-Court-Victory ... If this is victory for the little guy, I'd really hate to see what defeat is like. Spoken by someone who has no understanding of what legal processes are really like. Lawsuits are slow and arduous and expensive. That's just the nature of the legal system, and it's difficult to see how it could be otherwise, since each side needs to be able to present its case and respond to the other side, and legal papers don't write themselves, and not overnight. The outcome of Jacobsen v. Katzer is a victory for open licenses, since CAFC and the District Court on remand held that violating license conditions for copying and distribution is copyright infringement. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/10/2010 10:58 AM, RJack wrote: The truth of the matter is that there is no victory for open source licenses. Open source licenses and proprietary are interpreted using the exact same rules. Each license (contract) is individually interpreted according to the state common law of contracts. This was a victory for open licenses because a court upheld the understanding that if the conditions of the license are not met, then copying and distributing is infringement. That this victory may apply to other forms of licenses does not lessen the victory for open licenses. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/10/2010 11:01 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On which page of http://jmri.org/k/docket/395.pdf did you manage to find a word condition? 2. Copyright Infringement Claim. ...the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his copyright cause of action... ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/10/2010 11:18 AM, RJack wrote: Sigh... That's nothing new. If conditions precedent are not satisfied in a proprietary license the same thing results. The Artistic license had no conditions precedent -- only covenants. One erroneous decision by a non-precedental court is hardly a victory. The CAFC's clear error can never harm anyone other than Katzer. It's only an error when a court superior to CAFC declares it such. Until then, it stands. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/10/2010 11:33 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: the complainant sumits his complaint in ordinary English You make the same error as those who advocate writing computer programs in ordinary English. You need lawyers to handle lawsuits like you need programmers to write programs, because in each case experience and expertise are required to achieve good results. It is not possible for someone without legal training to even know what sort of complaints and defenses are even legitimate. The result would be similar to when a non-programmer specifies make it do this when that happens, namely no recognition of all the other states and corner cases which must be considered. In any case, if such a process is wanted by both sides, they can (and do) go to arbitration instead of court. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/10/2010 11:46 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/10/2010 11:01 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On which page of http://jmri.org/k/docket/395.pdf did you manage to find a word condition? 2. Copyright Infringement Claim. ...the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his copyright cause of action... And where is a word condition here Implicit in the recognition that the Artistic License did not give the defendants permission to copy and distribute because its conditions were not honored. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/10/2010 12:01 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Results should depend only on facts, not presentation. Results also depend on written law and case law. Knowing this is the job of lawyers. The rules of procedure are not hurdles meant to impede justice. They are there to make sure that both sides have a chance to properly present their point of view. There is no more reason to bemoan the requirement of expertise in law than in any other field of endeavor. An ordinary citizen should be able to depend on the expertise of the court officers. But lawyers do more than state claims. They also do research and fact discovery so that their claims have a basis. Your naive notion of how legal procedure should work cannot possibly work - anyone sued in such a manner would anyway hire a professional to lead his defense, who would do all the law and fact finding that lawyers now do. A wise complainant would do the same. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/10/2010 12:17 PM, RJack wrote: Limited strictly to one defendant in a nation of 310 million. One is greater than zero. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/10/2010 12:21 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-2.0.php doesn't even use the magic word condition! So much about CAFC's http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The Artistic License states on its face that the document creates conditions: The intent of this document is to state the _conditions_ under which a Package may be copied. (Emphasis added.) It still contains provided that, which http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Under California contract law, provided that typically denotes a condition. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/10/2010 12:51 PM, RJack wrote: ...blindly confused... You will let me know when another court reverses CAFC, or an equivalent court agrees with you on open licenses. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/10/2010 2:11 PM, RJack wrote: You will let me know when you find a court that legally defines what an open license is. Not necessary. Any one of them should do. There's a list here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/10/2010 2:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: here's typical outline notes regarding contractual (K) performance The GPL and other such licenses are licenses, not contracts. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/10/2010 2:33 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.fsf.org/news/microsoft_response We do not, however, agree with Microsoft's characterization of the situation involving GPLv3. Microsoft cannot by any act of anticipatory repudiation . . . (from typical outline notes regarding contractual (K) performance) G. Anticipatory Repudiation A party breaches before the contract is even to start Microsoft entered into a contract with Novell relating to patent indemnification. But the GPL is a license, not a contract. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/10/2010 3:03 PM, RJack wrote: The Copyright Act's pass-through permissions provision eh? No, the license's pass-through permission. The Copyright Act gives rights holders the exclusive right to authorize others to copy and distribute covered works. The license expresses how the rights holders choose to grant this authorization. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/10/2010 3:42 PM, RJack wrote: Yeah... except there's no right to authorize others to authorize. You're seeing double when you read 17 USC sec. 106. There is no need for such a right in the case of open licenses. The rights holders authorize all recipients to copy and distribute the covered work provided they adhere to the conditions of the license. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
On 3/11/2010 3:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: In the system I envisage, such wouldn't normally be necessary, except in complicated cases. Pretty much the definition of naive. There is already small-claims court for very small cases. But generally both sides in a dispute will want the most able advocates they can get, and they will continue to want that no matter what system is in place to adjudicate disputes. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Conditions
On 3/13/2010 11:13 AM, RJack wrote: the Miracle's failure to provide the agreed quid pro quo could not, on the facts of this case, invalidate the legal effect of Albion's permission to play That's why the SFLC sues; Albion gave implied permission to play by not objecting when the Miracle did so. The SFLC sues when it becomes aware of the copyright infringement. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/10/2010 11:35 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: In the meantime http://www.cortex-pro.com/hdc_3000.php?t=3 is still in breach. Not any more. On that page, we now have HDC-3000 Open Source Release http://www.cortex-pro.com/upload/march122010/hdc-3000.zip Note: This is not a required download. Built on a Linux platform to ensure high reliability and performance. Linux and related portions of this software are provided under the GNU Public Licence (GPL) and the Lesser GNU Public License (LGPL). GCI Technologies has made available the source code for those portions of the software in this source release tarfile. So easy. See? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Conditions
On 3/15/2010 3:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Suing as such doesn't invalidate the legal effect of permission Fortunately, no permission is given without compliance to the conditions of the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/15/2010 3:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Did you check the completeness of source code No. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/15/2010 4:02 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: How do you know that GCI Tech. is not in breach then Because they settled with the SFLC, demonstrated by the SFLC dismissing its case. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/15/2010 6:03 PM, RJack wrote: You may accept as gospel that at some point before general discovery begins, a Motion to Dismiss based on 17 USC 301 and federal preemption as well as a claim of misuse of copyright will be filed that challenges the GPL. That seems unlikely since federal preemption of state copyright enforcement has nothing to do with the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/16/2010 6:58 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: federal preemption of state copyright enforcement has nothing to do with the GPL. It's about http://escholarship.org/uc/item/31t5x09h (eScholarship: Copyright Preemption of Contracts) http://escholarship.org/uc/item/31t5x09h Courts now routinely reject the position that shrinkwrap and other licenses should be held invalid as a matter of contract law. Copyright scholars next turned to preemption doctrine, arguing that the Copyright Act should preempt contractual licenses that alter the Act's delicate balance of rights between owners and users. Here, too, courts have been unreceptive. ... Preemption analysis focuses on conflicts between federal law and state-imposed obligations, whereas contracts reflect private ordering. Moreover, the Copyright Act expressly allows contracts for certain purposes. Indeed, the efficacy of the Act as a whole depends on the ability of copyright owners to contract with others to make the most of their copyrights. As usual, the sources you cite contradict your thesis. Preemption is entirely irrelevant to the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/16/2010 10:05 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Read a bit more than a couple of introductory paragraphs Nothing else you quote at all supports the notion that preemption has anything to do with the GPL. That's not surprising, since preemption has nothing to do with the GPL. That is a dangerous position! http://www.technollama.co.uk/a-licence-or-a-contract this argument would seem to suggest that any user of copyright works can be taken to court, and only then they can prove that they actually had a licence to use the work. Imagine the same paragraph above being said by Bill Gates and not by Eben Moglen, and you will get why this is such a dangerous position! This makes no sense. Assuming that user of works means someone who is copying and distributing them, then he is subject to infringement claims, to which he can use a license as a defense. This is equally true for rights held by Bill Gates or Eben Moglen and is entirely unsurprising. Why would this be considered dangerous? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/16/2010 11:42 AM, RJack wrote: GPLv2: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Supreme Court: [I]t goes without saying that a contract cannot bind a non-party. The GPL sets conditions for acquiring permission to copy and distribute a covered work. No non-parties are bound by the GPL unless they choose to acquire the permissions offered by the GPL. This is consistent with the quotes. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/16/2010 12:03 PM, RJack wrote: That's a really brilliant tautology. If I never use the GPL then the Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply! Clever. Really clever. If you choose not to avail yourself of the permissions granted by the GPL, then you are not bound by it. The Supreme Court says that a contract cannot bind a non-party. Both of these things are simultaneously true. You seem very confused. Certainly if you choose to accept the permissions of the GPL then you license the covered work at no charge to all third parties under the GPL, but that does not bind the third parties to anything unless they too choose to accept the permissions of the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/16/2010 12:27 PM, RJack wrote: A plaintiff must point to some type of cognizable harm, whether such harm is physical, economic, reputational, contractual, or even aesthetic. . . But the injury in fact test requires more than an injury to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be himself among the injured.” http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As the Second Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976), the unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the proprietor of the copyright. Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/16/2010 12:40 PM, RJack wrote: If you choose not to avail yourself of the permissions granted by the GPL, then you are not bound by it. The Supreme Court says that a contract cannot bind a non-party. Both of these things are simultaneously true. You seem very confused. Certainly if you choose to accept the permissions of the GPL then you license the covered work at no charge to all third parties under the GPL, In defiance of the Supreme Court ruling. No, in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling. If you choose to accept the permissions offered by the GPL, then you become a party to it, and must obey its conditions. but that does not bind the third parties to anything unless they too choose to accept the permissions of the GPL. If they are not bound then you haven't *caused* all third parties to be licensed (which is impossible anyway) and thus have not satisfied the GPL requirements. You have, by copying and distributing the covered work along with the GPL, which specifies that you are granting this license to all third parties. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/16/2010 12:46 PM, RJack wrote: Plaintiffs Humax, Western Digital, JVC, Versa and Best BUy correctly asserted that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the GPL claims. No, they are incorrect in their claim. The GPL attempts to grant benefits to all third parties (hence the name Public License). Nowhere in the GPL is either actual party (i.e. non-third party) to the contract named as a benificiary. Thus the plaintiffs have no Article III standing since they are not conract beneficiaries. This argument is backwards. The plaintiffs are not beneficiaries of the GPL, they are copyright holders of the covered work. A plaintiff must point to some type of cognizable harm, whether such harm is physical, economic, reputational, contractual, or even aesthetic. . . But the injury in fact test requires more than an injury to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be himself among the injured.” http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As the Second Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976), the unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the proprietor of the copyright. Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/16/2010 11:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: To quote IBM: The ownership interests contributors to software licensed under the GPL might have in their modifications are seriously limited, given that any distribution of those modifications must be done under the terms of the GPL. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As the Second Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976), the unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the proprietor of the copyright. Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief. 92. It can be argued that this might change if, in effect, no third party can avoid being bound by the contract terms in order to use the information. Yes. Preemption would apply when state law attempted to restrict what is otherwise permitted in terms similar to copyright. But the GPL does not restrict any behavior permitted by unadorned copyright law, and therefore preemption is irrelevant to the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Software Freedom
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/03/15/Joining-Google The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet’s future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what. It’s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord’s pleasure and fear his anger. I hate it. I hate it even though the iPhone hardware and software are great, because freedom’s not just another word for anything, nor is it an optional ingredient. Many decades later we see just how prescient Richard Stallman was in how he foresaw the result of accepting non-free software. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/16/2010 1:00 PM, RJack wrote: Even the distribution of derivative works? Really? Hop on over to your copy of the Copyright Act and show us. Who am I supposed to believe? You or my lyin' eyes? 17 USC 106, of course. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_0106000-.html (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; Copyright in a derivative work is held by both the original author and by the author of the derivative work, and therefore distribution of a derivative work is the exclusive right of both of the authors of the work. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/16/2010 12:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Copyright in a derivative work is held by both the original author and by the author of the derivative work, and therefore Read 17 USC 103. And think of derivative works based on public domain material. A derivative work based on public domain material would have only the author of the derivative work as the rights holder. What of it? The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. Yes, of course. You quote this as if it has some significance to a point you are trying to make, but it does not. The author of a derivative work holds sole copyright in the derivative portion, and the original author holds sole copyright in the original portion. The derivative work as a whole contains both portions, and may only be copied and distributed with permission from both authors. For example, an author may have someone prepare a translation of his work into a different language, and the translator then owns copyright in the translation, but may not copy and distribute the translation without permission from the original author because the translated work contains the original elements created by the original author. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/16/2010 12:45 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The ownership interests translators to works licensed under the GPL might have in their translations are seriously limited, given that any distribution of those translations must be done under the terms of the GPL. Yes, choosing to create a work based on GPL-covered work limits how that work may be copied or distributed. That is a choice the author makes. The same choices apply to the use of any other work - the conditions placed upon those works by their rights holders must be obeyed if the work is to be used. 92. It can be argued that this might change if, in effect, no third party can avoid being bound by the contract terms in order to use the information. Yes. Preemption would apply when state law attempted to restrict what is otherwise permitted in terms similar to copyright. But the GPL does not restrict any behavior permitted by unadorned copyright law, and therefore preemption is irrelevant to the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/16/2010 1:54 PM, RJack wrote: There exist two mutually exclusive copyrights in a derivative work (17 USC § 103). Nothing but a claim of *contract* will legally secure the two mutually exclusive permissions required to distribute a derivative work as a whole. (Assuming two authors). The two permissions are secured, for GPL-covered works, by both authors releasing their work under the GPL. No contract is needed, the license is sufficient. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
On 3/16/2010 12:45 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The ownership interests translators to works licensed under the GPL might have in their translations are seriously limited, given that any distribution of those translations must be done under the terms of the GPL. Yes, choosing to create a work based on GPL-covered work limits how that work may be copied or distributed. That is a choice the author makes. The same choices apply to the use of any other work - the conditions placed upon those works by their rights holders must be obeyed if the work is to be used. 92. It can be argued that this might change if, in effect, no third party can avoid being bound by the contract terms in order to use the information. Yes. Preemption would apply when state law attempted to restrict what is otherwise permitted in terms similar to copyright. But the GPL does not restrict any behavior permitted by unadorned copyright law, and therefore preemption is irrelevant to the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Mining the Blogosphere
On 3/18/2010 10:28 AM, RJack wrote: It is amazing to watch the communication strategy that Free Software advocates utilize in promoting their socialist goals. The fanfare and sheer volume of internet posts surrounding the announcement that the SFLC had filed suit against Best Buy and thirteen other corporations was impressive. So apparently the socialist goals of the FSF are suspect but copying and distributing GPL-covered code against the wishes and exclusive rights of its creators is fine and not socialist. This is about the level of reasoning I would expect from anti-GPL cranks, so I can't say I'm surprised to see this, but the stupidity is truly astonishing. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
On 3/22/2010 7:20 PM, RJack wrote: U.S. copyright law doesn't recognize moral rights. Exactly. That's the point. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/22/2010 8:01 PM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: 2. Mac OS X is BSD Unix. It has existed for half the time that linux has, and has more than 5 times the web client share of linux, so yes, BSD is on its way to eclipsing linux as a client OS. It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for normal definitions of is. Look at http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-105/. The mix of licenses is broad, but many of Apple's own OS components are licensed under the APPLE PUBLIC SOURCE LICENSE, found at http://www.opensource.apple.com/license/apsl/. It has these key provisions: If You Externally Deploy Your Modifications, You must make Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed Modifications either available to those to whom You have Externally Deployed Your Modifications, or publicly available. Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications must be released under the terms set forth in this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site). ... In consideration of, and as a condition to, the licenses granted to You under this License, You hereby grant to any person or entity receiving or distributing Covered Code under this License a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable license, under Your Applicable Patent Rights and other intellectual property rights (other than patent) owned or controlled by You, to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, sublicense, distribute and Externally Deploy Your Modifications of the same scope and extent as Apple's licenses under Sections 2.1 and 2.2 above. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/23/2010 9:33 AM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: The license under which Apple releases its open source doesn't change Mac OS X's BSD heritage, and it doesn't invalidate Mac OS X's UNIX certification. However, the license under which Apple releases its OS components does affect how those components may be used by others. BSD-licensed code does not require publication of changes, for example, while the Apple license does. Since much of the discussion in this newsgroup focuses on license features and requirements, saying that Mac OS X is BSD needlessly confuses that issue. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: CSRG archives
On 3/23/2010 10:49 AM, RJack wrote: Before anyone starts filing copyright infringement claims concerning the vast quntity of unix and posix-like source code modules out there in cyberspace they should run a utility like Eric Raymond's code comparator against the CSRG code. It may open some eyes concerning the true original creators of source modules in things unix-like. BusyBox code included. If the original creators licensed the code such that others could make derivative works and did not restrict the license under which those derivative works could be distributed then it does not matter how those works got their start. Creators of derivative works may file copyright infringement claims if their license is not being honored. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: CSRG archives
On 3/23/2010 11:29 AM, RJack wrote: If creators can prove they have authored some original code and properly register their that original code with the Copyright Office and can prove they released their own code under a legally enforceable copyright license So far, so good. and can demonstrate substantial similarity in copying protectable code without permission I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean that they can show that someone has copied and distributed copyrighted code without permission? it is their right to sue for copyright infringement of their own code. That sounds like great copyright law to me. That is copyright law as currently constituted. What's your point? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/23/2010 11:40 AM, RJack wrote: On 2010-03-23 09:11:03 -0400, Hyman Rosen said: It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for normal definitions of is. That depends on what the definition of 'is' is. --- William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President of the United States. Well, duh. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: CSRG archives
On 3/23/2010 12:29 PM, RJack wrote: Copyrighting isn't enough to protect a computer program. The source code must be protectable e.g. pass the AFC test. This is a matter settled by expert witness testimony. http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise24.html Did you read that article? For most alleged copyright infringements, this filtering makes little difference. It is important to recognize that, with today’s large, complex programs, most copyright infringement consists of the verbatim copying or unauthorized distribution of a computer program, and no question over whether any similarities are protected expression or unprotected function need be considered. The AFC test comes into play when one party argues infringement and the other argues independent creation, with similarities forced by the nature of the implementation. Copyright is enough to protect a computer program when it's copied! Once again, you demonstrate how little you know. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: CSRG archives
On 3/23/2010 1:15 PM, RJack wrote: An utterly false staement. The elements of the AFC test are applicable to any computer program. What's that they say? Ignorance of the law is no excuse? Mitel Inc. v. Iqtel Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit September 22, 1997 124 F.3d 1366, 44 USPQ2d 1172 http://digital-law-online.info/cases/44PQ2D1172.htm Notwithstanding our endorsement of abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis, we emphasize that the approach is valuable only insofar as it aids the court in distinguishing protectable elements of a work from those that are unprotectable. Not every case requires an extensive abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis. Rather, “the appropriate test to be applied and the order in which its various components are to be applied . . . may vary depending upon the claims involved, the procedural posture of the suit, and the nature of the [works] at issue.” Gates Rubber Co., 9 F.3d at 834 n.12. 124 F.3d 1373 Where, as here, the alleged infringement constitutes the admitted literal copying of a discrete, easily-conceptualized portion of a work, we need not perform complete abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis. BusyBox is not a large complex program owned by someone. It is a virtually untraceable amalgam of patches to source code modules by a hundred or more authors that stretches over a span of more than ten years and millions of source code bytes under different licenses. It's origins are irrelevant, as long as some antecedent version permitted the creation of derivative works and of combined works without restricting the license under which such derivative and combined works could be distributed. Let me repeat this fact. Let me repeat this fact. Let me repeat this fact. Let me repeat this fact: Erik Andersen is not the owner of any version of BusyBox as you imply. Erik Andersen is the owner of a derivative and combined work starting with the version of BusyBox which contains his changes. That is the nature of copyright law with respect to the creation of derivative and combined works. You are free to dislike that law, but you are not free to ignore it. 17 USC 103 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_0103000-.html The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends ... to the material contributed by the author of such work ... The copyright in such work is independent of ... any copyright protection in the preexisting material. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: CSRG archives
On 3/23/2010 2:40 PM, RJack wrote: Originality is a *requirement* before copyright is granted. They say that ignorance of the law is no excuse. But I guess stupidity explains a lot. SimplexGrinnell v. Integerated Systems Power United Staes District Court Southern District of New York http://www.scribd.com/doc/14760460/Simplexgrinnell-v-Integrated-040809 Although the parties presented this issue in terms of SimplexGrinnell's copyright in the various revisions of the Programmer, each new version constitutes a separate derivative work Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch v. Otsar Sifrei Lubavitch United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit http://openjurist.org/312/f3d/94 We have explained that `[o]riginality' in [the copyright] context `means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.' You will never be able to separate ownership claims to establish what is derivative and what is joint in BusyBox. There is nothing joint in BusyBox because there is no stated intent by all of its authors to create a joint work. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: CSRG archives
On 3/23/2010 3:08 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The intent is stated clear, 100% clear, by their collaborative actions via busybox.net You mean where they say we use the GPL boilerplate now? And where they say Please use your own copyright notice? I don't think so. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: CSRG archives
On 3/23/2010 3:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: I mean if we go to enforce copyrights on a joint work it would SUCK for the other side to be able to point out examples showing that who owns what is unclear. But since the copyrights on a joint work are held by all the copyright holders jointly, the fact that the writer said Please use your own copyright notice? shows that he does not mean to create a joint work as defined by copyright law. I doubt that many people who are not knowledgeable in copyright law know what the meaning of a joint work is, so the writer is most likely using that word in its English, not legal, meaning. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: CSRG archives
On 3/23/2010 3:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2006-September/058360.html GPLv2 is not going away. There's no reason for it to. So what exactly is the purpose of GPLv3? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html The improvements to freedom that come with GPLv3 include making it more difficult to prevent installation of modified versions on dedicated equipment, allowing people to remove digital restrictions management from GPLed code which might otherwise fall under anti-circumvention laws, and preventing the use of patents from limiting redistribution to only certain parties. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
