Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/11/2010 2:44 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> If *you* would make a bunch of web pages to point to Actiontec
> web sites and use Actiontec addresses to point to Actiontec
> locations THAT WOULD NOT MAKE ACTIONTEC YOUR AGENT

I am not a large corporation with a business
relationship with Actiontec. I do not send
their routers to my customers. Their web site
does not contain PDF manuals which are branded
with my name, while they are branded as Verizon.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 2/11/2010 2:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Who said to you that Actiontec is Verizon's agent/not
>  > acting on its own behalf
> 
> The fact that Verizon web pages point to Actiontec
> web sites and use Actiontec addresses, as you yourself
> showed.

Take your meds Hyman. If *you* would make a bunch of web pages to point
to Actiontec web sites and use Actiontec addresses to point to Actiontec
locations THAT WOULD NOT MAKE ACTIONTEC YOUR AGENT... do you agree
Hyman?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/11/2010 2:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Who said to you that Actiontec is Verizon's agent/not

> acting on its own behalf

The fact that Verizon web pages point to Actiontec
web sites and use Actiontec addresses, as you yourself
showed.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 2/10/2010 6:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > RJack didn't wrote that actiontec.com is verizon.net
> 
> In this matter, Actiontec is acting as Verizon's agent.

Who said to you that Actiontec is Verizon's agent/not acting on its own
behalf, stypid Hyman?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/11/2010 11:36 AM, RJack wrote:

Surely you are not referring to the SFLC's attorneys?
THAT'S HERESY HYMAN `


I shouldn't be surprised that irony is lost on you too.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
Every lawsuit filed by the SFLC has ended successfully with the 
defendants coming into compliance with the GPL. I can only imagine 
how much more could accomplished by competent attorneys!


Surely you are not referring to the SFLC's attorneys?

THAT'S HERESY HYMAN 

"You shall not take the name of the LORDS your Gods in vain, for the
LORDS will not leave him unpunished who takes Their names in vain."
Exodus 20:7




"The Captain's scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)





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

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/10/2010 6:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:


Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]

All the plaintiffs need to show is that Andersen holds
copyright in a part of BusyBox, and that the defendants
are copying and distributing it without permission.


http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/02/08/copyrights-and-wrongs/

Larry Rosen correctly noted:

"Under US copyright law, only “the legal or beneficial owner of an
exclusive right is entitled ... to institute an action for any
infringement of that particular right...” 17 USC 501. So if all you have
is a non-exclusive license, or indeed if all you have is joint
ownership, you cannot enforce that copyright in court without the other
owners joining in. "


Fortunately, Erik Andersen is the legal or beneficial owner
of an exclusive right, not a non-exclusive right or a joint
ownership. He owns his exclusive right by being an author of
(some of) the content of BusyBox. BusyBox is not a joint work
because all of its authors have not declared their intention
that it be a joint work.


At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the
entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for
consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits


Every lawsuit filed by the SFLC has ended successfully with the
defendants coming into compliance with the GPL. I can only imagine
how much more could accomplished by competent attorneys!
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/10/2010 6:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

RJack didn't wrote that actiontec.com is verizon.net


In this matter, Actiontec is acting as Verizon's agent.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/10/2010 6:36 PM, RJack wrote:

How can RJack be wrong when RJack addresses Hyman and then RJack is
right when Hyman addresses Alexander?

I'm confused.


What else is new?

When did I ever say you were wrong in your explanation of "agency"?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/10/2010 5:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

actiontec.com is NOT verizon.net


"Rjack" wrote: Agency  is an area of commercial law dealing with a
contractual  or quasi-contractual tripartite, or non-contractual set
of relationships when an agent  is authorized to act on behalf of
another (called the Principal) to create a legal relationship with a
Third Party.[1] Succinctly, it may be referred to as the relationship
between a principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or
impliedly, authorizes the agent to work under his control and on his
behalf. The agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the
principal or bring him and third parties into contractual
relationship. This branch of law separates and regulates the
relationships between: * Agents and Principals; * Agents and the
Third Parties with whom they deal on their Principals' behalf; and *
Principals and the Third Parties when the Agents purport to deal on
their behalf.

For a technical legal deconstruction see the American Law Institutes'
 "Restatement of the Law (Third), Agency".


How can RJack be wrong when RJack addresses Hyman and then RJack is
right when Hyman addresses Alexander?

I'm confused.


"The Captain's scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

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

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> All the plaintiffs need to show is that Andersen holds
> copyright in a part of BusyBox, and that the defendants
> are copying and distributing it without permission.

http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/02/08/copyrights-and-wrongs/

Larry Rosen correctly noted:

"Under US copyright law, only “the legal or beneficial owner of an
exclusive right is entitled ... to institute an action for any
infringement of that particular right...” 17 USC 501. So if all you have
is a non-exclusive license, or indeed if all you have is joint
ownership, you cannot enforce that copyright in court without the other
owners joining in. "

At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the
entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for
consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ in
which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly frivolous
'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik
Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined
by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known as
busybox at http://busybox.net/.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 2/10/2010 5:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > actiontec.com is NOT verizon.net
> 
> "Rjack" wrote:

RJack didn't wrote that actiontec.com is verizon.net, YOU MORON HYMAN.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/10/2010 5:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

actiontec.com is NOT verizon.net


"Rjack" wrote:
Agency  is an area of commercial law dealing with a contractual  or
quasi-contractual tripartite, or non-contractual set of relationships
when an agent  is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the
Principal) to create a legal relationship with a Third Party.[1]
Succinctly, it may be referred to as the relationship between a
principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or impliedly,
authorizes the agent to work under his control and on his behalf. The
agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the principal or
bring him and third parties into contractual relationship. This branch
of law separates and regulates the relationships between:
 * Agents and Principals;
 * Agents and the Third Parties with whom they deal on their
Principals' behalf; and
 * Principals and the Third Parties when the Agents purport to deal
on their behalf.

For a technical legal deconstruction see the American Law Institutes'
"Restatement of the Law (Third), Agency".
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
> > Where is the complete corresponding source code regarding the complete
> > binary code above?
> >
> > Please share with us the location of the complete corresponding source
> > code (re: complete binary code at
> > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp),
> > please.
> 
> The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon 

http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp),

> is accompanied 

is it? Accompanied as in what, YOU MORON HYMAN?

> by source found at
> .

You must mean

http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/ . . .

mention at

http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/ . . . 

Well, Hyman: actiontec.com is NOT verizon.net, you retard.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Hyman Rosen]

http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
Where is the complete corresponding source code regarding the complete
binary code above?

Please share with us the location of the complete corresponding source
code (re: complete binary code at
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp),
please.


The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is
accompanied by source found at
.
Verizon also makes source available through the offer of
a physical copy for no more than distribution costs ($10)
listed on the same page.

The manufacturers of the hardware also make source
available at , and
offer physical copies for $10 as well.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> As evidence that Verizon does know about the GPL, see
>  

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/10/2010 3:57 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html


As evidence that Verizon does know about the GPL, see







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

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> settlement is reached, so that the defendants can be
> confident that the plaintiffs will not attempt to
> re-litigate the issue.

http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html

"LAS VEGAS -- I just got out of a Q&A session with Verizon
Communications President and COO Denny Strigl and being an open source
guy I asked Strigl about open source. Specifically I asked what role
does open source play at Verizon now, especially in light of the recent
SFLC lawsuit against Verizon on GPL infringement.

Strigl looked at me with a blank face and asked me to repeat my
question. He was completely clueless.

He then asked one of his PR people to answer, and they too were
clueless.

In December of 2007 the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) filed its GPL
lawsuit, whichwas settled in March of this year. The win was hailed as a
victory for open source by the SFLC and others.

Apparently though open source types (like myself) thought the Verizon
thing was a big deal, it apparently never..."

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/10/2010 3:19 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

The SFLC has sued Verizon


True.

> (the case was then quickly dismissed with prejudice against plaintiffs

The case was quickly dismissed by the plaintiffs, not
against the plaintiffs, because the sides settled. It
is common to dismiss a case with prejudice once a
settlement is reached, so that the defendants can be
confident that the plaintiffs will not attempt to
re-litigate the issue.

> and without any settlement filed to be "rolled into a court order"

)


As usual, your links demonstrate that you are wrong:
In other situations (as where the claims have been satisfied by
the payment of a certain sum of money) the plaintiff and defendant
can simply file a notice that the case has been dismissed.


and you've been bragging about all plaintiffs being scared

> out of the water

In each case filed by the SFLC, the defendants have settled and
have come into compliance with the GPL. I don't impute this to
fear. It is more likely the case that the defendants have been
careless with respect to the GPL, thinking of GPLed code as being
public domain rather than having a license which must be honored.
The lawsuit brings this to their attention forcefully, and then
they comply. Indeed they have no reason not to, since compliance
with the GPL is simple.


http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp

Where is the complete corresponding source code regarding the complete
binary code above?

Please share with us the location of the complete corresponding source
code (re: complete binary code at
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp)


The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is
accompanied by source found at
.
Verizon also makes source available through the offer of
a physical copy for no more than distribution costs ($10)
listed on the same page.

The manufacturers of the hardware also make source
available at , and
offer physical copies for $10 as well.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 2/10/2010 2:24 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > "GPL Code Requests
> > 4250 Buckingham Drive Suite #400
> > Colorado Springs, Co 80907 "
> >
> > Right?
> >
> > Now,
> >
> > http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_6f3dp
> >
> > "Actiontec Electronics, Inc (Actiontec)
> > 4250 Buckingham Dr # 400
> > Colorado Springs, CO  80907 . . .
> > Phone: (719) 884-8306
> > Website: www.actiontec.com
> >
> > http://yellowpages.gazette.com/actiontec.9.52901761p.home.html
> >
> > "Actiontec
> > (719) 955-9001
> > 4250 Buckingham Dr
> > Colorado Springs, CO 80907
> > Map and Directions
> 
> Why is this surprising? Actiontec makes the routers and the
> firmware, so they are the natural parties to fulfill the

The SFLC has sued Verizon (the case was then quickly dismissed with
prejudice against plaintiffs and without any settlement filed to be
"rolled into a court order"
) and you've been
bragging about all plaintiffs being scared out of the water, Hyman.

But to wit:

http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp

Where is the complete corresponding source code regarding the complete
binary code above YOU MORON HYMAN?

Please share with us the location of the complete corresponding source
code (re: complete binary code at
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp) YOU MORON HYMAN,
please.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/10/2010 2:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]

Notice here that he says "a copyright owner" not "the copyright
owner".


http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf
"20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer
program...

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf


Yes, the complaint is phrasing it both ways. The defendants
will routinely deny these claims in their responses, and then
the plaintiffs will have to prove their claims sufficiently
so that their charge of copyright infringement will stand.

All the plaintiffs need to show is that Andersen holds
copyright in a part of BusyBox, and that the defendants
are copying and distributing it without permission.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/10/2010 2:24 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

"GPL Code Requests
4250 Buckingham Drive Suite #400
Colorado Springs, Co 80907 "

Right?

Now,

http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_6f3dp

"Actiontec Electronics, Inc (Actiontec)
4250 Buckingham Dr # 400
Colorado Springs, CO  80907 . . .
Phone: (719) 884-8306
Website: www.actiontec.com

http://yellowpages.gazette.com/actiontec.9.52901761p.home.html

"Actiontec
(719) 955-9001
4250 Buckingham Dr
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Map and Directions


Why is this surprising? Actiontec makes the routers and the
firmware, so they are the natural parties to fulfill the
GPL source requirements. Wasn't it one of you cranks who was
trying to explain to me about "agency"?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> Notice here that he says "a copyright owner" not "the copyright
> owner". 

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf

"20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer
program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program, and the
owner of copyrights in that program, he is the author and developer of
the BusyBox computer program. BusyBox is a single computer program, it
is really a single computer program and Mr. Andersen is the author and
developer of the BusyBox computer program, and the owner of copyrights
in that computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that program,
he is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program. BusyBox
is a single computer program, it is really a single computer program.
[repeat Moglen's Bullshit rap]

20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer
program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program, and the
owner of copyrights in that program, he is the author and developer of
the BusyBox computer program. BusyBox is a single computer program, it
is really a single computer program and Mr. Andersen is the author and
developer of the BusyBox computer program, and the owner of copyrights
in that computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that program,
he is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program. BusyBox
is a single computer program, it is really a single computer program.
[repeat Moglen's Bullshit rap]"

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf

Does Mr. Andersen plan to offer an insanity defence against the request
for justice by the defendants, you MORON Hyman?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> .
> Verizon also makes source available through the offer of
> a physical copy for no more than distribution costs ($10)
> listed on the same page.

Uh MORON Hyman:

"GPL Code Requests
4250 Buckingham Drive Suite #400
Colorado Springs, Co 80907 "

Right? 

Now,

http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_6f3dp

"Actiontec Electronics, Inc (Actiontec)
4250 Buckingham Dr # 400
Colorado Springs, CO  80907 . . .
Phone: (719) 884-8306  
Website: www.actiontec.com  

Ads by Google"

http://yellowpages.gazette.com/actiontec.9.52901761p.home.html

"Actiontec
(719) 955-9001 
4250 Buckingham Dr 
Colorado Springs, CO 80907 
Map and Directions 

Own this business? Sign in to update your listing"

Take your meds, you MORON Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 2/10/2010 11:57 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > And there is absolutely no chance at all that RJack simply mistyped it
> > either inintentionally or with intent to show what a sucker you are with
> > your "difficulties with the English" reply?
> 
> Actually, I thought that it was written by you - I didn't

Take your meds, Hyman. Take your meds. And call the doctor, Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/10/2010 11:57 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

And there is absolutely no chance at all that RJack simply mistyped it
either inintentionally or with intent to show what a sucker you are with
your "difficulties with the English" reply?


Actually, I thought that it was written by you - I didn't
notice that the other resident crank had chimed in.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 2/10/2010 11:30 AM, RJack wrote:
> > The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals
> 
> The words "chose" and "involuntary" don't go together.
> You appear to have ongoing difficulties with the English

And there is absolutely no chance at all that RJack simply mistyped it
either inintentionally or with intent to show what a sucker you are with
your "difficulties with the English" reply?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov  writes:
> 
> > Take your meds, Hyman.
> 
> How would that help your running out of arguments?

Hyman just can't grok it. Or rather he is simply acting as an utter
moron just for fun, I think.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

"That would not, to repeat, matter in a case such as this in which the
registered work is a compilation. "

"That would not, to repeat, matter in a case such as this in which the
registered work is a compilation. "

"That would not, to repeat, matter in a case such as this in which the
registered work is a compilation. "

Here's more:

"Gaiman contends that he and McFarlane are joint owners of the
copyrights on the three characters by reason of their respective
contributions to joint (indivisible) work. 17 U.S.C. § 101; Seshadri v.
Kasraian, 130 F.3d 798, 803-04 (7th Cir. 1997); Erickson v. Trinity
Theatre, Inc., 13 F.3d 1061, 1067-72 (7th Cir. 1994); Thomson v. Larson,
147 F.3d 195, 199-205 (2d Cir. 1998). McFarlane concedes Gaiman’s joint
ownership of Angela, but not of the other two; . . . As a co-owner,
McFarlane was not violating the Copyright Act by unilaterally publishing
the jointly owned work, but, as in any other case of conversion or
misappropriation, he would have to account to the other joint owner for
the latter’s share of the profits. Zuill v. Shanahan, supra, 80 F.3d at
1369. When co-ownership is conceded and the only issue therefore is the
contractual, or in the absence of contract the equitable, division of
the profits from the copyrighted work, there is no issue of copyright
law and the suit for an accounting of profits therefore arises under
state rather than federal law. Goodman v. Lee, 78 F.3d 1007, 1013 (5th
Cir. 1996); Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630, 633 and n. 2 (9th Cir. 1984);
Mountain States Properties, Inc. v. Robinson, 771 P.2d 5, 6-7 (Colo.
App. 1988). It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Saturday
Evening Post Co. v. Rumbleseat Press, Inc., 816 F.2d 1191, 1194-95 (7th
Cir. 1987); T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823, 824, 828 (2d Cir.
1964) (Friendly, J.); cf. International Armor & Limousine Co. v. Moloney
Coachbuilders, Inc., 272 F.3d 912, 915-16 (7th Cir. 2001). And in that
event the applicable statute of limitations would be state rather than
federal."

Hey moron dak:

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

But the GPL is "not a contract", right dak? LMAO!!!

regards,
alexander.

--
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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> Take your meds, Hyman.

How would that help your running out of arguments?

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

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Take your meds, Hyman.

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 2/10/2010 11:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >  ownership of
> > "computer source code" (aka a "computer program" work under 17 USC 101)
> > has nothing to do with ownership "as compiler" as in 17 USC 101
> > 'compilation'. Nor has it anything to do with ownership of separate and
> > independant works such "Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" under
> > 17 USC 101
> 
> 
>  In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered
>  copyright on the issues and the books.
>  ... McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim
>  copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s
>  own contributions as compiler and illustrator, . . .
> 
> Your reading comprehension is as lacking as always.
> Registration of copyright in a work is not a claim
> against any co-authors who may exist. It is a formal
> notice by an author that he has copyright in the work.

regards,
alexander.

--
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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/10/2010 11:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

 ownership of
"computer source code" (aka a "computer program" work under 17 USC 101)
has nothing to do with ownership "as compiler" as in 17 USC 101
'compilation'. Nor has it anything to do with ownership of separate and
independant works such "Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" under
17 USC 101



In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered
copyright on the issues and the books.
... McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim
copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s
own contributions as compiler and illustrator, . . .

Your reading comprehension is as lacking as always.
Registration of copyright in a work is not a claim
against any co-authors who may exist. It is a formal
notice by an author that he has copyright in the work.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 2/10/2010 10:39 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of ownership
> 
> 
>  In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered
>  copyright on the issues and the books.
>  ... McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim
>  copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s
>  own contributions as compiler and illustrator, . . .

Uh retard Hyman.

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2&ti=1,2&Search%5FArg=busybox&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=C56aDfGGYoWR1oMK5BIoLaV4QdHU7&SEQ=20100210103005&SID=1

"Basis of Claim: New and revised computer source code by Erik Andersen.
"

Take the meds and call your doctor to explain to you that ownership of
"computer source code" (aka a "computer program" work under 17 USC 101)
has nothing to do with ownership "as compiler" as in 17 USC 101
'compilation'. Nor has it anything to do with ownership of separate and
independant works such "Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" under
17 USC 101, silly.

regards,
alexander.

--
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: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Take your meds, Hyman.

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 2/10/2010 10:08 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the
> > entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for
> > consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as
> > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ in
> > which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly frivolous
> > 'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik
> > Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined
> > by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known as
> > busybox at http://busybox.net/.
> 
> The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case
> that it has filed - all defendants have come into compliance
> with the GPL. No defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs.
> I understand how frustrating it must be for the GPL skeptics
> to see such untrammeled success, and how they must hope for
> some external force to appear and turn things their way. But
> that won't happen.
> 
> You are also quite wrong about joint works in at leats
> four separate ways.
> 
> ,
>  According to the Copyright Act, the authors of a joint
>  work jointly own the copyright in the work they create.
>  A joint work is defined in Section 101 of the Copyright
>  Act as "a work prepared by two or more authors with the
>  intention that their contributions be merged into
>  inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole."
> 
>  When the copyright in a work is jointly owned, each joint
>  owner can use or license the work in the United States
>  without the consent of the other owner, provided that the
>  use does not destroy the value of the work and the parties
>  do not have an agreement requiring the consent of each
>  owner for use or licensing. A joint owner who licenses a
>  work must share any royalties he or she receives with the
>  other owners.
> 
> First, BusyBox is a joint work only if all the authors have
> agreed to make it so. Given that one of the authors is a party
> to the suit and can insist that he did not intend to form such
> a joint work, the plaintiffs might have a difficult time showing
> otherwise.
> 
> Second, if BusyBox is a joint work, then each author has full
> rights in the work and may sue for infringement without needing
> permission from the other authors.
> 
> Third, even if BusyBox is a joint work, each contributing author
> has released his changes under the GPL, and therefore it may be
> argued that there is an agreement in place among the authors that
> the only way their work may be copied and distributed is by GPL.
> 
> Fourth, even if BusyBox is a joint work, the plaintiffs need to
> demonstrate that they have permission to copy and distribute it
> in some way other than under the GPL, granted to them by some
> author of the joint work. That one author has said after the
> suit was filed that he does not want to be a party to it does
> not mean that he has granted permission to copy and distribute
> BusyBox outside of the GPL.

regards,
alexander.

--
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