Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

the CAFC error


Crank vs. court. There is no "error" in the CAFC ruling
unless and until another court says so.

> a waste of SCOTUS time

The decision would need to be appealed to them, and since
the case is settled, that won't happen. Not that they would
grant cert in something like this anyway.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov  writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> John Hasler  writes:
> >>
> >> > RJack writes:
> >> >> Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't
> >> >> exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding.
> >> >
> >> > If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court
> >> > precedents why has it not been appealed thereto?
> >>
> >> This likely should be considered addressed comprehensively with the
> >> "scared them out of the water.  LOL LOL LOL" babble.
> >
> > The appeal to CAFC was an interlocutory appeal (no final judgement) from
> > an order regarding PI. For the purposes of granting or not granting PI,
> > the CAFC error regarding confusion of conditions precedent v. scope
> > restrictions v. covenants was made moot by later Winter v. NRDC decision
> > of SCOTUS. Did you notice that judge White refused to grant the PI on
> > remand as well? Correcting an utterly obvious error by a district judge
> > from New Jersey sitting by designation on CAFC panel in a moot PI case
> > would be quite a waste of SCOTUS time, don't you think so silly dak?
> 
> Not interested in trying to figure out what you believe you are on this
> time.  After a few dozen of rotten fish from the same barrel, there's
> not much incentive in dissecting another one.

You're incapable of dissecting anything that doesn't align with your GNU
cult religion, silly dak.

Only utter GNU retards like you could not dissect simple facts akin to
"IP licenses are contracts" because the GNU cult says that "licenses are
not contracts".

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> John Hasler  writes:
>> 
>> > RJack writes:
>> >> Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't
>> >> exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding.
>> >
>> > If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court
>> > precedents why has it not been appealed thereto?
>> 
>> This likely should be considered addressed comprehensively with the
>> "scared them out of the water.  LOL LOL LOL" babble.
>
> The appeal to CAFC was an interlocutory appeal (no final judgement) from
> an order regarding PI. For the purposes of granting or not granting PI,
> the CAFC error regarding confusion of conditions precedent v. scope
> restrictions v. covenants was made moot by later Winter v. NRDC decision
> of SCOTUS. Did you notice that judge White refused to grant the PI on
> remand as well? Correcting an utterly obvious error by a district judge
> from New Jersey sitting by designation on CAFC panel in a moot PI case
> would be quite a waste of SCOTUS time, don't you think so silly dak?

Not interested in trying to figure out what you believe you are on this
time.  After a few dozen of rotten fish from the same barrel, there's
not much incentive in dissecting another one.

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> John Hasler  writes:
> 
> > RJack writes:
> >> Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't
> >> exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding.
> >
> > If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court
> > precedents why has it not been appealed thereto?
> 
> This likely should be considered addressed comprehensively with the
> "scared them out of the water.  LOL LOL LOL" babble.

The appeal to CAFC was an interlocutory appeal (no final judgement) from
an order regarding PI. For the purposes of granting or not granting PI,
the CAFC error regarding confusion of conditions precedent v. scope
restrictions v. covenants was made moot by later Winter v. NRDC decision
of SCOTUS. Did you notice that judge White refused to grant the PI on
remand as well? Correcting an utterly obvious error by a district judge
from New Jersey sitting by designation on CAFC panel in a moot PI case
would be quite a waste of SCOTUS time, don't you think so silly dak?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[David Kastrup]

John Hasler  writes:

> RJack writes:
>> Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't
>> exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding.
>
> If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court
> precedents why has it not been appealed thereto?

This likely should be considered addressed comprehensively with the
"scared them out of the water.  LOL LOL LOL" babble.

Why it is apparently this simple to scare sharks is another question.

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[John Hasler]

RJack writes:
> Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't
> exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding.

If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court
precedents why has it not been appealed thereto?
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/23/2010 12:00 PM, RJack wrote:

Give it up Alexander. It's Hyman Rosen vs. the United States Supreme
Court. Hyman will just indulge in his denial ad infinitum. There is no
logical way to counter a retreat into solipsistic denial. It is just as
futile as attempting to prove a negative. Hyman will just ignore the
Supreme Court decision as if it didn't exist and continue to quote the
Federal Circuit's erroneous finding.

Save your ink for conscious entities.


There is no conflict with the Supreme Court. The infringing
use was copying and distribution, infringing because it was
done contrary to the conditions demanded by the rights holders.

No court's findings are erroneous until another court makes
them so. Until then, there is a valid decision and no amount
of complaining by people who don't like it will make it any
less so.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/23/2010 2:13 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in the
absence of any license agreement at all.


Providing or not providing attribution is not copying you moron,
it's providing or not providing attribution. Take your meds, Hyman.



The license grants permission to copy and distribute provided certain
conditions are met while doing so. Copying and distributing while not
meeting those conditions is copyright infringement. Those conditions
can be anything - attribution, paperback format, blue covers. If the
copier does not want to meet the conditions, he has no right to copy.


Give it up Alexander. It's Hyman Rosen vs. the United States Supreme
Court. Hyman will just indulge in his denial ad infinitum. There is no
logical way to counter a retreat into solipsistic denial. It is just as
futile as attempting to prove a negative. Hyman will just ignore the
Supreme Court decision as if it didn't exist and continue to quote the
Federal Circuit's erroneous finding.

Save your ink for conscious entities.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

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

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/23/2010 11:25 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Forget apartments for a moment silly Hyman. If you rent a car on a
monthly fee basis and don't pay on time while using it, that DOESN'T
make you liable in tort (for theft).


That's because the contract specifies consequences for
default (and there are special vehicle laws too). If
someone were to enter such an agreement with the intention
of never paying, he would be liable for fraud and theft.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> That is because there are special laws that pertain to
> apartment rentals and evictions, not because of any
> general principle.

Forget apartments for a moment silly Hyman. If you rent a car on a
monthly fee basis and don't pay on time while using it, that DOESN'T
make you liable in tort (for theft). Surprised, silly Hyman?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen  writes:

> On 2/23/2010 4:50 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> If you rent me an apartment "depending on proper" monthly payment, my
>> failure to pay doesn't automatically nullify the permission to occupy
>> your apartment and somehow making me liable for
>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausfriedensbruch etc.
>
> That is because there are special laws that pertain to
> apartment rentals and evictions, not because of any
> general principle.

Actually, it is because we have a contract signed by two parties rather
than a conditional license which one party can choose to make use of or
not at its will.

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/23/2010 11:06 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman you retardedly confuse conditions precedent with scope
restrictions and covenants to do (or not do) something "while doing so".


The CAFC appears to agree with me:

The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions
to protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a
public license. These conditions govern the rights to modify
and distribute the computer programs and files included in the
downloadable software package.

So I can believe a court, or I can believe you. I choose court.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/23/2010 9:48 AM, RJack wrote:

What you say *could* be true in a license. The critical word is
"precedent" which means "to precede". Unfortunately for the
Artistic License, you can't attribute a work you haven't yet received
permission to create. The very thing that is supposedly being
conditioned (the copyright permissions) is required to satisfy the
condition (attribution in the created work) -- which is impossible.

The same thing happens with respect to sec. 2 of the GPL.


Unfortunately for you, the court believed otherwise.

The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions
to protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a
public license. These conditions govern the rights to modify
and distribute the computer programs and files included in the
downloadable software package.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/23/2010 4:50 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

If you rent me an apartment "depending on proper" monthly payment, my
failure to pay doesn't automatically nullify the permission to occupy
your apartment and somehow making me liable for
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausfriedensbruch etc.


That is because there are special laws that pertain to
apartment rentals and evictions, not because of any
general principle.


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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 2/23/2010 2:13 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >> The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes
> >> in the absence of any license agreement at all.
> >
> > Providing or not providing attribution is not copying you moron, it's
> > providing or not providing attribution. Take your meds, Hyman.
> 
> The license grants permission to copy and distribute provided
> certain conditions are met while doing so. Copying and distributing
> while not meeting those conditions is copyright infringement. Those
> conditions can be anything - attribution, paperback format, blue
> covers. If the copier does not want to meet the conditions, he has
> no right to copy.

Hyman you retardedly confuse conditions precedent with scope
restrictions and covenants to do (or not do) something "while doing so".

Take your meds Hyman. Take your meds.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/23/2010 2:13 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes
in the absence of any license agreement at all.


Providing or not providing attribution is not copying you moron, it's
providing or not providing attribution. Take your meds, Hyman.


The license grants permission to copy and distribute provided
certain conditions are met while doing so. Copying and distributing
while not meeting those conditions is copyright infringement. Those
conditions can be anything - attribution, paperback format, blue
covers. If the copier does not want to meet the conditions, he has
no right to copy.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/22/2010 6:48 PM, RJack wrote:

The Artistic License broadly *permits* copying and distribution just as
Judge White originally found when he applied the correct Supreme Court
precedents. Contractual covenants aren't grant conditioners. No end runs
around the Supreme Court Hyman.


The Artistic License permits copying and distribution as long
as certain conditions are met when doing so. The appeals court
properly found that failing to abide by these conditions is
copyright infringement.

As I said a long time ago when Judge White made his original
decision and before he was overruled by CAFC, get back to me
once the Supreme Court overturns this.

Meanwhile, it's court vs. crank. And court wins.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/22/2010 6:39 PM, RJack wrote:

An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
copyright statute. >


The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes
in the absence of any license agreement at all.

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

David Kastrup wrote:

Alexander Terekhov  writes:


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote:
"An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement 
unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights 
conferred by the copyright statute.
The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in the 
absence of any license agreement at all.
Providing or not providing attribution is not copying you moron, 
it's providing or not providing attribution. Take your meds, Hyman.





In this case, permission to copy was given depending on proper 
attribution.  Proper attribution was not made, so no permission to 
copy was available.




You're trying to force a condition precedent which is a term of contract
construction.

What you say *could* be true in a license. The critical word is
"precedent" which means "to precede". Unfortunately for the
Artistic License, you can't attribute a work you haven't yet received
permission to create. The very thing that is supposedly being
conditioned (the copyright permissions) is required to satisfy the
condition (attribution in the created work) -- which is impossible.

The same thing happens with respect to sec. 2 of the GPL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)





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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov  writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> You are confusing a _contract_ with a _license_.
> >
> > You're really a crackpot, dak.
> >
> > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizenz
> >
> > "Im Privatrecht regeln Kaufverträge, Leihverträge und spezielle
> > Lizenzverträge die Rechte des Erwerbers und seine Pflichten gegenüber
> > dem Lizenzgeber.
> 
> Since you can't argue my detailed point, you try reverting to context
> free word games?  Anyway, wrong terminology.  "License" in German would
> be something like "Genehmigung" or "Berechtigung".

Uh crackpot dak.

"In den Gesetzen zum Schutz des Geistigen Eigentums lassen sich
insgesamt drei verschiedene Möglichkeiten feststellen, wie eine Lizenz
begründet werden kann: erstens kraft staatlichen Hoheitsakts, zweitens
kraft Gesetzes und drittens durch Vertrag."

http://books.google.de/books?id=q2lkquXoZwEC
(Lizenz und Lizenzvertrag im Recht des Geistigen Eigentums By Louis
Pahlow)

Hth, silly dak.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> You are confusing a _contract_ with a _license_.  
>
> You're really a crackpot, dak.
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizenz
>
> "Im Privatrecht regeln Kaufverträge, Leihverträge und spezielle
> Lizenzverträge die Rechte des Erwerbers und seine Pflichten gegenüber
> dem Lizenzgeber.

Since you can't argue my detailed point, you try reverting to context
free word games?  Anyway, wrong terminology.  "License" in German would
be something like "Genehmigung" or "Berechtigung".

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> You are confusing a _contract_ with a _license_.  

You're really a crackpot, dak.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizenz

"Im Privatrecht regeln Kaufverträge, Leihverträge und spezielle
Lizenzverträge die Rechte des Erwerbers und seine Pflichten gegenüber
dem Lizenzgeber.

[...]

Ein Lizenzvertrag ist ein im Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (BGB) nicht eigens
geregelter Vertragstyp. Er wird deshalb auch als Vertrag eigener Art
(Vertrag sui generis) klassifiziert. Durch den Vertrag erteilt der
Inhaber eines geschützten Rechts dem Lizenznehmer ein definiertes
Nutzungsrecht.

Lizenzen werden vor allem für die Nutzung von Patenten,
Gebrauchsmustern, Marken, Know-how oder Software erteilt.

Durch Lizenzverträge können einfache oder exklusive (= ausschließliche)
Rechte eingeräumt werden. Kernpunkte eines Lizenzvertrags sind die
Beschreibung des Lizenzgegenstands, die Festlegung des zur Nutzung
freigegebenen Marktsegments bzw. der Marktregion, die Laufzeit, das
Entgelt und gegebenenfalls auch Vertragsstrafen. Das Entgelt wird häufig
in Form eines Down payments am Anfang und einer laufenden Gebühr in
Abhängigkeit vom wirtschaftlichen Erfolg bzw. Nutzen geregelt.

Ein Beispiel sind Lizenzbauten beim Auto- und Flugzeugbau. Dabei werden
dem Lizenznehmer Kopien der Konstruktionspläne überlassen und der
Lizenzgeber hilft oft dem Lizenznehmer bei der Produktionsaufnahme.

Im Verlagsbereich regeln Lizenzverträge die Nutzung von Urheberrechten.
Solche Lizenzverträge werden üblicherweise zwischen dem selbständigen
Urheber und einem Verlag oder zwischen zwei Verlagen (z. B. für
Übersetzungsversionen) geschlossen.

Dass Privatleuten Rechte mittels Lizenzvertrag eingeräumt werden, ist
eher unüblich. Eine Ausnahme stellen die Lizenzen dar, die bei freier
Software zur Verwendung kommen. Bei diesen wird pauschal jedermann eine
Lizenz angeboten.

Die Lizenzen von freier Software und lizenzpflichtiger Software haben
gemeinsam, dass sie im Sinne des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches Allgemeine
Geschäftsbedingungen (AGB) darstellen. AGB müssen zur Erlangung von
Rechtskraft wirksam in den Vertrag zwischen dem Lizenznehmer und dem
Lizenzgeber aufgenommen werden, sofern es sich nicht um individuell
hergestellte Software handelt.

Dem Lizenzvertrag ähnlich ist der Franchisevertrag, basiert aber auf
anderen rechtlichen Grundlagen.

Der Urheber kann auch mehrere Lizenzen zur Auswahl anbieten. Man spricht
dann von einer Mehrfachlizenzierung, siehe Duales Lizenzsystem."

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> In this case, permission to copy was given depending on proper
>> attribution.  Proper attribution was not made, so no permission to copy
>> was available.
>
> If you rent me an apartment "depending on proper" monthly payment, my
> failure to pay doesn't automatically nullify the permission to occupy
> your apartment and somehow making me liable for
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausfriedensbruch etc. See the light now,
> silly dak?

You are confusing a _contract_ with a _license_.  In the case of the
appartment, both parties stipulate their willingness to fulfill the
contractual relationship they have agreed on.  The contract is first
established, later breached.  If the landlord can establish that the
tenant never intended to fulfill his contractual duties, he might be
able to get the contract annulled, in which case continued residence
might indeed become a case of Hausfriedensbruch.  Similarly, if he gets
the contract terminated and an eviction order given, the tenant will
have to pay the rent up to the time of termination, and may be liable to
the equivalent to Hausfriedensbruch eventually if he does not obey the
eviction order.

Anyway, the important point is that we are talking about a contract
signed by two parties, not a unilateral license grant under conditions.

If we have no stipulation of willingness of the licensee to accept the
license terms, the license may as well be non-existent with regard to
the relationship of the parties.

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> In this case, permission to copy was given depending on proper
> attribution.  Proper attribution was not made, so no permission to copy
> was available.

If you rent me an apartment "depending on proper" monthly payment, my
failure to pay doesn't automatically nullify the permission to occupy
your apartment and somehow making me liable for
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausfriedensbruch etc. See the light now,
silly dak?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> 
>> On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote:
>> > "An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
>> > conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
>> > copyright statute.
>> 
>> The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes
>> in the absence of any license agreement at all.
>
> Providing or not providing attribution is not copying you moron, it's
> providing or not providing attribution. Take your meds, Hyman.

In this case, permission to copy was given depending on proper
attribution.  Proper attribution was not made, so no permission to copy
was available.

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[David Kastrup]

RJack  writes:

> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Rjack, by definition the opinion of that appeals court is the
>> valid one.
>>
>
> Sorry Alan, some of you foreigners are utterly ignorant of that fact
> that under U.S. law no appeals court can overrule the Supreme Court of
> the United States:

So the appeals court did not overrule the Supreme Court.  And nobody
except you claimed that it did, while at the same not being able to do
so.  It did overrule a lower court.  The lower court not being the
Supreme Court.

Perhaps you need to think about it a bit more.

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alan Mackenzie]

RJack  wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> RJack  wrote:
>>> Hyman Rosen wrote:

>>> I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel
>>>  violated CAFC rules.

>> If you were correct, a single time would suffice.

> With Hyman listening? ROFL.

Maybe you've got a point there.

>> Sorry, Rjack, by definition the opinion of that appeals court is the 
>> valid one.

> Sorry Alan, some of you foreigners are utterly ignorant of that fact
> that under U.S. law no appeals court can overrule the Supreme Court of
> the United States:

No, I grok that.  Perhaps it is the case that this appeals court didn't
actually overrule the Supreme Court.  USA law is a complicated beast, you
know.

> "An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
> conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
> copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at
> 154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464
> U.S.  417 (1984).

Katzer's behaviour violated such exclusive rights, namely by distribution
and adaptation.

>> Why can't you simply admit you've been mistaken on this issue for 
>> quite a long time?  No shame in that, even the lower court got it 
>> wrong to begin with.

> Because I'm not legally mistaken and *I* have the Supreme Court of the
> United States on *my* side.

Don't tell me - the chief judge there is your uncle, or something, and he
consults you before each judgement is reached.

> Sincerely,
> RJack :)

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[David Kastrup]

Alan Mackenzie  writes:

> Hyman Rosen  wrote:
>> On 2/22/2010 1:42 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> What matters is that the terms and conditions in the GPL are legally
>>> valid, and have now been tested in an appeals court in the United States
>>> of America.
>
>> That was the Artistic License, not the GPL, but good enough.
>
> Ah, thanks!  I thought there was something a little wrong.  Still, if
> the artistic license holds up, the GPL'll be a doddle.

I don't see how that follows.  They are licenses with a somewhat similar
basic legal mechanism (based on copyright, granting additional
permissions), but the actual license is quite different.  So I see no
base for the "AFPL holds -> GPL doddle" claim.  I see no qualitative
difference discussed that would support such a gradation.

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
>  report of Michael A. Einhorn).)2 Because there are facts

Oh yeah, report from Michael A. Einhorn. 

http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/369-6.pdf
(Case3:06-cv-01905-JSW Document369-6 Filed 11/13/09 Page 5 of 146)

"SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

1. Open source software is a highly practical institution for creating
computer programs with written code that incorporates the coincident
insights of a worldwide base of voluntary contributors.

2. Open source software presents a wide range of economic benefits
related to efficiency and innovativeness.

3. It is used by many high-tech companies, including Sun, IBM, and Red
Hat, which monetize investments in open source with other creative
tactics in their business models.

4. Open source software has the apparent potential of resolving
difficult scientific and mathematical problems through trial-and-error,
feedback, and increasing complexity.

5. The defendant in this case has wrongfully benefited by taking and
reusing copyrighted code from an open source project without proper
license. As damage compensation, plaintiff may recover a sum equal to
the defendant’s value of use of the taking. The value of use would be
the hours that would have been spent but for the infringements at issue.

6. There are three ways to impute the number of hours in the defendant’s
taking – . survey estimate of total work hours by plaintiff’s
programmers, classification of files times work hours per file type, and
line count and translation into hours needed to produce it.

7. I have reviewed a survey of programmers that counted the amount of
time that each donated to the project. Estimated programmer hours total
to 1530 hours.

8. In as second compendium, program files were categorizing the files in
three groups. Multiplying by the expected number of hours needed to
program files in each, the estimated hourly total using the second
method is 1576 hours.

9. In a third diagnostic, I counted the number of lines in the
infringing files and estimated the subtotal that implicated some minutes
of new input. Multiplying the line total by an estimated programming
time of five minutes per line gives a total hours count of 1548.

10. Assuming an hourly rate for freelance programmers of $100 per hour,
I find that the three independent approaches present a converging
consensus to similar results that justify an award between $153,000 to
$157,600."

LOL!

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote:
> > "An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
> > conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
> > copyright statute.
> 
> The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes
> in the absence of any license agreement at all.

Providing or not providing attribution is not copying you moron, it's
providing or not providing attribution. Take your meds, Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/22/2010 6:15 PM, RJack wrote:

Show me the exclusive right to attribution in the Copyright Act


There is no exclusive right to attribution. There is the exclusive 
right to authorize copying and distribution. Such authorization may 
be conditional on the copier performing certain actions, and if the 
copier copies and distributes without doing those actions, he is 
infringing the exclusive rights of the holders.


Only if those "conditions" or "certain actions" limit the *specific*
exclusive rights of copying or distribution of the author.

"An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at
154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S.
417 (1984).

The Artistic License broadly *permits* copying and distribution just as
Judge White originally found when he applied the correct Supreme Court
precedents. Contractual covenants aren't grant conditioners. No end runs
around the Supreme Court Hyman.

"Captain Moglen 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote:

An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
 conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by 
the copyright statute.


Here is what Judge White said, in his decision post CAFC: 
 Under the Copyright Act, a 
copyright owner is entitled to recover compensatory damages in the 
amount of actual damages suffered or the disgorgement of profits by 
the infringer attributable to the infringement. See 17 U.S.C. § 
504(b). 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.

So even though Judge White is still fixated on monetary damage 
despite what his appeals court told him, he nevertheless finds that 
distributing a work for free on the internet does not free infringers

 from copyright infringement claims.



1) "... in his decision post CAFC:" Huh? Of course Judge White said that
"post CAFC" -- he didn't have any choice -- the appeals court decision
was binding on him in this specific action. What a surprise!

2) Look at your citation again. "Because there are facts in the record
which MAY establish a monetary damages figure ... just MAYBE. "...
showing sufficient to establish the existence of a DISPUTE of fact".
So MAYBE there's a DISPUTE -- after the appeals court told him to say that.

You're attempting to put the words of the appeals court ruling
concerning "conditions" into Jugde White's mouth. So what? You can't
make an end run around the Supreme Court:

"An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at
154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S.
417 (1984).

There wasn't any infringement in Katzer's distribution and that's
exactly what Judge White found *prior* to the CAFC summarily overruling
SCOTUS. ROFL!


"Captain Moglen 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/22/2010 6:15 PM, RJack wrote:

Show me the exclusive right to attribution in the Copyright Act


There is no exclusive right to attribution. There is the
exclusive right to authorize copying and distribution. Such
authorization may be conditional on the copier performing
certain actions, and if the copier copies and distributes
without doing those actions, he is infringing the exclusive
rights of the holders.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote:

"An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless
it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by
the copyright statute.


The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in the
absence of any license agreement at all.


And you're full of beans Hyman:

"In exchange and in consideration for this collaborative work, the
copyright holder permits users to copy, modify and distribute the
software code subject to conditions that serve to protect downstream
users and to keep the code accessible.2 By requiring that users copy and
restate the license and attribution information, a copyright holder can
ensure that recipients of the redistributed computer code know the
identity of the owner as well as the scope of the license granted by the
original owner. The Artistic License in this case also requires that
changes to the computer code be tracked so that downstream users know
what part of the computer code is the original code created by the
copyright holder and what part has been newly added or altered by
another collaborator." -- CAFC

Show me the exclusive right to attribution in the Copyright Act and
I'll kiss your ass on the public square. Likewise show me where in the
Copyright Act that *failure* to copy something gives rise to infringement.

"An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at
154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S.
417 (1984).

Sincerely,
RJack :)

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

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote:

An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
copyright statute.


Here is what Judge White said, in his decision post CAFC:

Under the Copyright Act, a copyright owner is entitled
to recover compensatory damages in the amount of actual
damages suffered or the disgorgement of profits by the
infringer attributable to the infringement. See 17 U.S.C.
§ 504(b). 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.

So even though Judge White is still fixated on monetary damage
despite what his appeals court told him, he nevertheless finds
that distributing a work for free on the internet does not free
infringers from copyright infringement claims.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote:

"An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
copyright statute.


The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes
in the absence of any license agreement at all.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

RJack  wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:



I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel
 violated CAFC rules.


If you were correct, a single time would suffice.


With Hyman listening? ROFL.



Here's the *valid* opinion:

[  ]

Sorry, Rjack, by definition the opinion of that appeals court is the 
valid one.




Sorry Alan, some of you foreigners are utterly ignorant of that fact
that under U.S. law no appeals court can overrule the Supreme Court of
the United States:

"An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at
154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S.
417 (1984).

"[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial
system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower
federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts
may think it to be."; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982).

Why can't you simply admit you've been mistaken on this issue for 
quite a long time?  No shame in that, even the lower court got it 
wrong to begin with.


Because I'm not legally mistaken and *I* have the Supreme Court of the
United States on *my* side. You have Hyman Rosen on yours... (sounds of
chortling and mirth).

Sincerely,
RJack :)

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/22/2010 5:30 PM, RJack wrote:

1) The erroneous Jacobsen decision, having been voluntarily settled,
can't be overturned.


The original decision was overturned and remanded.
That's the one you're quoting.


2) The erroneous Jacobsen decision can never be used as precedent in any
federal court of the United States.


The reasoning of the court can and will be duplicated,
and will be brought to the attention of other courts
which consider similar matters, regardless of whether
the decision itself is binding on other courts.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/22/2010 5:06 PM, RJack wrote:

I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel
 violated CAFC rules.


Court vs. crank. You can tell me a hundred times more, but nothing
you tell me changes the fact that the so-called "valid" opinion is
overturned.


1) The erroneous Jacobsen decision, having been voluntarily settled,
can't be overturned.

2) The erroneous Jacobsen decision can never be used as precedent in any
federal court of the United States.

3) I know you will deny these facts but then you feel free to deny any
fact and just make up your own. Solipsism is unfalsifiable and
unassailable through rational argument.


"Captain Moglen 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alan Mackenzie]

RJack  wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:

> I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel
> violated CAFC rules.

If you were correct, a single time would suffice.

Here's the *valid* opinion:

[  ]

Sorry, Rjack, by definition the opinion of that appeals court is the
valid one.

Why can't you simply admit you've been mistaken on this issue for quite a
long time?  No shame in that, even the lower court got it wrong to begin
with.

> Sincerely,
> RJack :)

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/22/2010 5:06 PM, RJack wrote:

I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel
violated CAFC rules.


Court vs. crank. You can tell me a hundred times more, but
nothing you tell me changes the fact that the so-called
"valid" opinion is overturned.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/22/2010 4:33 PM, RJack wrote:
the entirely unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a 
license agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those

 uses would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all



Yes. And the use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in
 the absence of any license agreement at all.


(ND CA)


Of what use is it to quote a district court ruling that was 
overturned on appeal?


Of what use is it to quote an appeals court opinion that can't overrule
a prior precedent Hyman?

I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel
violated CAFC rules. Here's the *valid* opinion:


"Not only did the court not state that “uses” that fall outside the
scope of the license would necessarily constitute a copyright violation,
but the allegedly unlawful “use” in that case was the copying of
architectural plans. Id. at 32; see Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys.
Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1167 (1st Cir. 1994). In light of their
facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely unremarkable principle
that “uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright
infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any
license agreement at all.";Storage Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware
Eng'g & Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

READ IT HYMAN.

Rule 35. En Banc Determination
(a) General.
(1) Arguing to a Panel to Overrule a Precedent. Although
only the court en banc may overrule a binding
precedent, a party may argue, in its brief and oral
argument, to overrule a binding precedent without
petitioning for hearing en banc. The panel will decide
whether to ask the regular active judges to consider
hearing the case en banc.
(2) Frivolous Petition. A petition for hearing or rehearing
en banc that does not meet the standards of Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) may be deemed
frivolous and subject to sanctions.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/pdf/rules.pdf

The Jacobsen decision isn't even valid among CAFC decisions. See for
instance:

"With at least one notable exception, most every federal appellate court
takes the position that where two of its own rulings conflict on a point
of law, the ruling that issued first controls in the absence of
rehearing en banc."
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=95556507


"Captain Moglen 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alan Mackenzie]

RJack  wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov  wrote:

> Alan is a poet and using poetic license...

I have a good sense of rhythm, balance, and flow, yes.  :-)

> Sincerely,
> RJack

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/22/2010 4:36 PM, RJack wrote:

“uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright
infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any
license agreement at all." -- {CAFC)


The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes
in the absence of any license agreement at all.

> (ND CA)

This is the ruling which CAFC overturned.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/22/2010 4:33 PM, RJack wrote:

the entirely unremarkable principle
that “uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright
infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any
license agreement at all


Yes. And the use here is copying and distribution, which
infringes in the absence of any license agreement at all.


(ND CA)


Of what use is it to quote a district court ruling that
was overturned on appeal?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Alexander Terekhov  wrote:


Hyman Rosen wrote:



On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman, please formulate what is "enforceable copyright
condition", ...



Copying and distributing without permission from the rights
holders, with such permission expressed in the license they may
offer.



Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing
the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction
conundrum, why?


Perhaps because that's such an arcane, fine distinction that he's no
more interested in it than the judges were who judged Jacobsen vs.
Katzer. What matters is that the terms and conditions in the GPL are
legally valid, and have now been tested in an appeals court in the
United States of America.


Ummm... The Artistic license is now abbreviated "GPL". Hmm...

Alan is a poet and using poetic license...

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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/22/2010 1:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the
analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum, why?



Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License
are enforceable copyright conditions, ...




"Not only did the court not state that “uses” that fall outside the
scope of the license would necessarily constitute a copyright violation,
but the allegedly unlawful “use” in that case was the copying of
architectural plans. Id. at 32; see Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys.
Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1167 (1st Cir. 1994). In light of their
facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely unremarkable principle
that “uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright
infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any
license agreement at all." -- {CAFC)

"The scope of the nonexclusive license is, therefore, intentionally
broad. The condition that the user insert a prominent notice of
attribution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather, Defendants’
alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have
constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create
liability for copyright infringement where it would not otherwise exist.
Therefore, based on the current record before the Court, the Court finds
that Plaintiff’s claim properly sounds in contract and therefore
Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating likelihood of success
on the merit of his copyright claim and is therefore not entitled to a
presumption of irreparable harm" -- (ND CA)

"Captain Moglen 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/22/2010 12:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright 
infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as 
violation of a renting license constitutes a trespass, you retard 
Hyman.


 Copyright holders
 who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the 
modification and distribution of copyrighted material. ... 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.

Court vs. crank. Court wins.


Nope courts (plural) vs. moron. Courts (plural) win.

"Not only did the court not state that “uses” that fall outside the
scope of the license would necessarily constitute a copyright violation,
but the allegedly unlawful “use” in that case was the copying of
architectural plans. Id. at 32; see Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys.
Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1167 (1st Cir. 1994). In light of their
facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely unremarkable principle
that “uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright
infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any
license agreement at all." -- {CAFC)

"The scope of the nonexclusive license is, therefore, intentionally
broad. The condition that the user insert a prominent notice of
attribution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather, Defendants’
alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have
constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create
liability for copyright infringement where it would not otherwise exist.
Therefore, based on the current record before the Court, the Court finds
that Plaintiff’s claim properly sounds in contract and therefore
Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating likelihood of success
on the merit of his copyright claim and is therefore not entitled to a
presumption of irreparable harm" -- (ND CA)

"Captain Moglen 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hyman Rosen  wrote:
> On 2/22/2010 1:42 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> What matters is that the terms and conditions in the GPL are legally
>> valid, and have now been tested in an appeals court in the United States
>> of America.

> That was the Artistic License, not the GPL, but good enough.

Ah, thanks!  I thought there was something a little wrong.  Still, if the
artistic license holds up, the GPL'll be a doddle.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/22/2010 1:42 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

What matters is that the terms and conditions in the GPL are legally
valid, and have now been tested in an appeals court in the United States
of America.


That was the Artistic License, not the GPL, but good enough.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alan Mackenzie]

Alexander Terekhov  wrote:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:

>> On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> > Hyman, please formulate what is "enforceable copyright condition",
>> > ...

>> Copying and distributing without permission from the rights holders,
>> with such permission expressed in the license they may offer.

> Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the
> analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum, why?

Perhaps because that's such an arcane, fine distinction that he's no more
interested in it than the judges were who judged Jacobsen vs. Katzer.
What matters is that the terms and conditions in the GPL are legally
valid, and have now been tested in an appeals court in the United States
of America.

> regards,
> alexander.

[ snip spam ]

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/22/2010 1:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the
analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum, why?



Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License
are enforceable copyright conditions, ...
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Hyman, please formulate what is "enforceable copyright condition", you
> > retard.
> 
> Copying and distributing without permission from the rights
> holders, with such permission expressed in the license they
> may offer.

Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the
analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum, why?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman, please formulate what is "enforceable copyright condition", you
retard.


Copying and distributing without permission from the rights
holders, with such permission expressed in the license they
may offer.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

[... "enforceable copyright condition" ...]

Hyman, please formulate what is "enforceable copyright condition", you
retard.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/22/2010 12:54 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

That's contract law claim, not tort. WHY ARE YOU BEING SUCH AN IDIOT
HYMAN?



Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License
are enforceable copyright conditions, ...
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

[... choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance ...]

That's contract law claim, not tort. WHY ARE YOU BEING SUCH AN IDIOT
HYMAN?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> [...]
>> cranks who want to convince people that violation of a license
>> does not constitute copyright infringement. The only person I
>
> Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright
> infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as
> violation of a renting license constitutes a trespass, you retard
> Hyman.

If there is a toll box for access, and you choose to climb in through
the backyard instead...

It depends on whether you want to claim that you wanted to pay (and it
did not register or whatever) or that you did not even think about
trying.

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/22/2010 12:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright
infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as
violation of a renting license constitutes a trespass, you retard Hyman.



Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have
the right to control the modification and distribution of
copyrighted material. ... 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.

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> cranks who want to convince people that violation of a license
> does not constitute copyright infringement. The only person I

Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright
infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as
violation of a renting license constitutes a trespass, you retard Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/22/2010 12:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman, why you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the
analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum?


There is no conundrum, just twisting and spinning by anti-GPL
cranks who want to convince people that violation of a license
does not constitute copyright infringement. The only person I
know of who was trying to fight that fight has just given up
and agreed to pay a $100,000 penalty for that point of view.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> work without adhering to its license, violating the exclusive rights
> of the author under 17 USC 106.

Hyman, why you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the
analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/19/2010 5:02 PM, RJack wrote:

No, no Hyman, it's Judge vs. Judge:

"The condition that the user insert a promin,ent notice of
attr noibution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather,
Defendants’ alleged violation of the conditions of the license
may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license,
but does not create liability for copyright infringement
where it would not otherwise exist." Judge White in
Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 (N.D. CA 2007)


This was the decision overturned by the appeals court,
so your judge loses.


and Appeals Panel vs. Appeals Panel:

"In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
unremarkable principle that "uses" that violate a license
agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those
uses would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all."
Storage Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering
& Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)


There is no "vs." here, since the entirely unremarkable principle
is intact. The infringing use is the copying and distribution of a
work without adhering to its license, violating the exclusive rights
of the author under 17 USC 106.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

The comedy continues to unroll. Uh retarded crackpot free softies.
LOL!

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=1294

"A big legal victory for open source

Date: February 21st, 2010 Author: Jack Wallen Category: General Tags:
Software, GPL, Victory, Open Source, Tools & Techniques, Management,
Jack Wallen

Many of you may not realize, but a large victory for open source 
software was won February 19, 2010. The case, at first blush, seemed 
very simple (and cut and dry). A software developer (and member of

the Java Model Railroad Interface Project), Robert Jacobson, had
created a piece of software released under the GPL that the defendant
(Matthew Katzer - owner of a proprietary model train controlling
software KAMIND) ripped off. Not only did the defendant rip off the
code, he removed all mention of authorship for the original code and
stripped away the copyright notice. Of course the removal of the
copyright was a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act...so legal president was present.

The original patent claim Katzer made against Jacobson was in 2004.
The case dragged on quite some time (for all the details you can
visit the Wikipedia entry for Jacobson v. Katzer). And although this
was a big win for Jacboson, the long-term effects for F/OSS could be
bigger. Why? Precedent.

Our court system runs on precedent. A precedent is a prior legal case
 that a court uses as a reference when deciding on a current case.
One of the biggest issues facing open source software was that there
was no precedent to fall back on. Now there is. Now the open source
licensing model stands up in a court of law and is legally entitled
to copyright protection.

What this does, IMHO, is that it gives businesses and developers a 
security they didn’t have prior to the verdict. And because this case

 eventually went to U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the ruling
was binding in all district courts underneath the US FCCA.

What started as a small victory for a model railroad aficionado and 
developer became a huge victory for an entire community of

developers. How? The GPL is valid in a court of law. You can develop
your software now, release it under the GPL and know the US Federal
Court has your back. This small victory will ensure big companies no
longer pilfer various GPL codes, place them into their own code, and
get away with the crime. Now they will pay.

Is the open source development community better protected because of 
this ruling?


Yes No Remains to be seen Do not have enough information


View Results Loading ...

Although I hope this doesn’t turn into a coup, with open source 
developers scrambling through other codes to try to find violations,

I am thrilled the open source community can now continue their work
with actual legal protection waiting for them in the wings. This
ruling has been a long time coming. This victory is deserving. Thank
you Robert Jacobson for fighting for your rights and for the rights
of open source developers across the globe.

Jack Wallen was a key player in the introduction of Linux to the 
original Techrepublic. Beginning with Red Hat 4.2 and a mighty soap

box, Jack had found his escape from Windows. It was around Red Hat
6.0 that Jack landed in the hallowed halls of Techrepublic. Read his
full bio and profile."

ROFL!!!


I'll bet Jacobsen will be as surprised as the rest of us that his model
train software is now GPL.

I'll also bet the CAFC will be surprised to find that all those district
courts under them (exactly zero) are bound by their copyright precedent.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> The comedy continues to unroll. Uh retarded crackpot free softies. LOL! 

http://www.pvponline.com/2008/06/30/interlude-the-adventures-of-lolbat/>

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

The comedy continues to unroll. Uh retarded crackpot free softies. LOL! 

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=1294

"A big legal victory for open source

Date: February 21st, 2010
Author: Jack Wallen 
Category: General
Tags: Software, GPL, Victory, Open Source, Tools & Techniques,
Management, Jack Wallen

Many of you may not realize, but a large victory for open source
software was won February 19, 2010. The case, at first blush, seemed
very simple (and cut and dry). A software developer (and member of the
Java Model Railroad Interface Project), Robert Jacobson, had created a
piece of software released under the GPL that the defendant (Matthew
Katzer - owner of a proprietary model train controlling software KAMIND)
ripped off. Not only did the defendant rip off the code, he removed all
mention of authorship for the original code and stripped away the
copyright notice. Of course the removal of the copyright was a violation
of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act...so legal president was
present.

The original patent claim Katzer made against Jacobson was in 2004. The
case dragged on quite some time (for all the details you can visit the
Wikipedia entry for Jacobson v. Katzer). And although this was a big 
win for Jacboson, the long-term effects for F/OSS could be bigger. Why?
Precedent.

Our court system runs on precedent. A precedent is a prior legal case
that a court uses as a reference when deciding on a current case. One of
the biggest issues facing open source software was that there was no
precedent to fall back on. Now there is. Now the open source licensing
model stands up in a court of law and is legally entitled to copyright
protection.

What this does, IMHO, is that it gives businesses and developers a
security they didn’t have prior to the verdict. And because this case
eventually went to U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the ruling was
binding in all district courts underneath the US FCCA.

What started as a small victory for a model railroad aficionado and
developer became a huge victory for an entire community of developers.
How? The GPL is valid in a court of law. You can develop your software
now, release it under the GPL and know the US Federal Court has your
back. This small victory will ensure big companies no longer pilfer
various GPL codes, place them into their own code, and get away with the
crime. Now they will pay.

Is the open source development community better protected because of
this ruling?

 Yes
 No
 Remains to be seen
 Do not have enough information


View Results
 Loading ...

Although I hope this doesn’t turn into a coup, with open source
developers scrambling through other codes to try to find violations, I
am thrilled the open source community can now continue their work with
actual legal protection waiting for them in the wings. This ruling has
been a long time coming. This victory is deserving. Thank you Robert
Jacobson for fighting for your rights and for the rights of open source
developers across the globe.

Jack Wallen was a key player in the introduction of Linux to the
original Techrepublic. Beginning with Red Hat 4.2 and a mighty soap box,
Jack had found his escape from Windows. It was around Red Hat 6.0 that
Jack landed in the hallowed halls of Techrepublic. Read his full bio and
profile."

ROFL!!!

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:


http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=201002190850472
 ("A Big Victory for F/OSS: Jacobsen v. Katzer is Settled")

"With the case now settled, there can be no further appeals - meaning
 that the rulings of the District and Appeals courts are now binding
in their circuit.  Although federal courts in other circuits will not
be bound this court's decision, the California circuit is well
respected, and other federal judges nationwide will be influenced by
its legal conclusions.


We must be vigilant concerning blogs that haven't the *slightest* idea
what they are talking about.

What fucking "California circuit"?

Judge White who, *opposed* the Jacobsen decision by the *Federal
Circuit* resides in the Northern District of California for the *Ninth
Circuit* Court of Appeals. Since the Federal Circuit has *no*
jurisdiction over copyright matters unless there is an ancillary patent
issue, they will probably never hear another case of this type. This
CAFC three member panel violated their own Federal Circuit rules by
overuling a prior 2005 CAFC three judge panel's decision:

"In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
unremarkable principle that "uses" that violate a license
agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those
uses would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all."
Storage Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering
& Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

District Judge White noted this conflict.


As a result, the results of the Jacobsen v. Katzer could evenutally
become the law of the land. "


I thought the "law of the land" was enshrined in the Constitution.
ROFL

Sincerely,
Rjack




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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> RJack wrote:
> >
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > >
> > > So, it's a complete victory for Jacobsen, including a payment of
> > > $100,000 from Katzer.
> >
> > For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:
> >
> > "The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their
> > particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned
> > exclusively to this court [patents] is recognized in the foregoing
> > opinions and in this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747
> > F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc)
> 
> Man oh man, look at this:
> 
> http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/cafc-pi-2/CaseDetailsScreen.html
> 
> "Entry 44 :  9/11/2009 :  Letter sent to Victoria K. Hall in response to
> letter requesting assignment of this case to same merits panel that
> decided the case when it was first here on appeal. This court's usual
> case assignment procedure is set forth in IOP 3(1). By: Clerk.  .
> SERVICE : by Court on 9/11/2009"
> 
> No wonder Katzer decided to pay shitty Victoria 100K just to keep her
> away from him.
> 
> In the meantime, freetrads are celebrating in the blogosphere:
> 
> http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=201002190850472
> ("A Big Victory for F/OSS: Jacobsen v. Katzer is Settled")
> 
> "With the case now settled, there can be no further appeals - meaning
> that the rulings of the District and Appeals courts are now binding in
> their circuit.  Although federal courts in other circuits will not be
> bound this court's decision, the California circuit is well respected,
> and other federal judges nationwide will be influenced by its legal
> conclusions.  As a result, the results of the Jacobsen v. Katzer could
> evenutally become the law of the land. "
> 
> http://lawandlifesiliconvalley.com/blog/?p=405
> ("Jacobsen and FOSS Community Win Big in Jacobsen v. Katzer Settlement")
> 
> http://ostatic.com/blog/the-model-train-software-brouhaha-ends-open-source-wins
> ("The Model Train Software Brouhaha Ends: Open Source Wins")
> 
> "with the settlement between Jacobsen and Katzer, the final shoe has
> dropped, with a precedent set that will help defend open source licenses
> in the future."

It's unbelievable: now it's not a settlement but rather FINAL JUDGEMENT
in A COURT OF LAST RESORT! 

http://futurezone.orf.at/stories/1639811/
("US-Gericht stärkt Position Freier Software")

"Wie der US-Patentanwalt und Open-Source-Unterstützer Andy Updegrove am
Freitag berichtete, wurde vor einem US-Gericht ein Urteil im Fall
Jacobson vs. Katzer gefällt, womit die Rechte von Entwicklern Freier und
Offener Software (FOSS) gestärkt werden."

ROFL!!!

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov  writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >
> > [... "willful fraud" ... ]
> >
> > You're really a crackpot, dak.
> 
> And you've run out of arguments again.  Really, it is a good thing
> nobody is paying you for the sad spectacle you make of yourself.

me: 'A' doesn't imply 'B'

dak: sure it does, otherwise it is willful fraud!

Uh crackpot retard dak.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
> [... "willful fraud" ... ]
>
> You're really a crackpot, dak.

And you've run out of arguments again.  Really, it is a good thing
nobody is paying you for the sad spectacle you make of yourself.

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:

[... "willful fraud" ... ]

You're really a crackpot, dak.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Well, if the GPLed source is made available in the aftermath, it stands
>
> How do you know that, silly dak?
>
> Because "the version numbers on the links match," right you retard?

I answered that already.  There is nothing to be gained by fraudulently
claiming to provide the correct source when this isn't the case: willful
fraud is punished harder than accidental(?) non-adherence to license
terms.  If somebody needs the source for some purpose, he'll notice when
it doesn't work, and it is unlikely that a court would find that funny.
And if nobody needs the source, providing it can't do the business any
harm.  So there just is no point to fraud.

Now while you delight in fantasizing about people just pretending to
heed the GPL, that certainly is your prerequisite, but it certainly does
not make you look smarter or saner than what you choose to call people.

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Well, if the GPLed source is made available in the aftermath, it stands

How do you know that, silly dak?

Because "the version numbers on the links match," right you retard?

Given that comrade Hyman is "insufficiently motivated to go set up a
GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds." LOL why don't YOU dak go
and try make a test trying to create
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp binary from the
source tarball available on the actiontec's site dak?

Please report back to us your results and evidence that the said source
code is "complete corresponding source code under the GPL."

TIA.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Alexander Terekhov]

RJack wrote:
> 
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >
> > So, it's a complete victory for Jacobsen, including a payment of
> > $100,000 from Katzer.
> 
> For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:
> 
> "The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their
> particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned
> exclusively to this court [patents] is recognized in the foregoing
> opinions and in this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747
> F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc)

Man oh man, look at this:

http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/cafc-pi-2/CaseDetailsScreen.html

"Entry 44 :  9/11/2009 :  Letter sent to Victoria K. Hall in response to
letter requesting assignment of this case to same merits panel that
decided the case when it was first here on appeal. This court's usual
case assignment procedure is set forth in IOP 3(1). By: Clerk.  . 
SERVICE : by Court on 9/11/2009"

No wonder Katzer decided to pay shitty Victoria 100K just to keep her
away from him.

In the meantime, freetrads are celebrating in the blogosphere:

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=201002190850472
("A Big Victory for F/OSS: Jacobsen v. Katzer is Settled")

"With the case now settled, there can be no further appeals - meaning
that the rulings of the District and Appeals courts are now binding in
their circuit.  Although federal courts in other circuits will not be
bound this court's decision, the California circuit is well respected,
and other federal judges nationwide will be influenced by its legal
conclusions.  As a result, the results of the Jacobsen v. Katzer could
evenutally become the law of the land. "

http://lawandlifesiliconvalley.com/blog/?p=405
("Jacobsen and FOSS Community Win Big in Jacobsen v. Katzer Settlement")

http://ostatic.com/blog/the-model-train-software-brouhaha-ends-open-source-wins
("The Model Train Software Brouhaha Ends: Open Source Wins")

"with the settlement between Jacobsen and Katzer, the final shoe has
dropped, with a precedent set that will help defend open source licenses
in the future."

LOL!

ROFL!!!

Uh retards.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/19/2010 3:26 PM, RJack wrote:

For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:


Court vs. crank again.


No, no Hyman, it's  Judge vs. Judge:

"The condition that the user insert a promin,ent notice of
attr noibution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather,
Defendants’ alleged violation of the conditions of the license
may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license,
but does not create liability for copyright infringement
where it would not otherwise exist." Judge White in
Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 (N.D. CA 2007)

and Appeals Panel vs. Appeals Panel:

"In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
unremarkable principle that "uses" that violate a license
agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those
uses would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all."
Storage Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering
& Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

17 U.S.C. § 501(a). "Use" other than reproduction, adaptation,
distribution, performance, and display does not amount to "copying"
under the Copyright Act, and is not, therefore, actionable under federal
law. 2 Nimmer, supra , § 8.01[A], at 8-13, 14. See, e.g. , G.S.
Rasmussen & Assocs., Inc. v. Kalitta Flying Serv., Inc. , 958 F.2d 896,
904 (9th Cir. 1992)(implicitly holding that the interest for which
plaintiff sought protection under state law -- the "use" of its
Supplemental Type Certificate as a basis for obtaining an airworthiness
certificate from the FAA -- fell outside the scope of the exclusive
rights granted under federal copyright law, and plaintiff's state claim
was not, therefore, preempted)."; DSC Communications Corp. v. DGI
Technologies, Inc. 81 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 1996).


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

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)





















How many times have you been told that unverifiable settlement 
agreements are imaginary?


 The 
settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements of the parties, 
and is often put in force by an order of the court after a joint 
stipulation  by the parties. In other situations (as where the claims
 have been satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of money) the 
plaintiff and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has 
been dismissed.

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/19/2010 3:40 PM, RJack wrote:

Unverifiable settlement agreements are illusory.


After each case brought by the SFLC ended, the defendants
came into compliance with the GPL. This is verifiable, by
going to their websites and observing that the GPLed sources
are available.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[David Kastrup]

RJack  writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> On 2/19/2010 3:26 PM, RJack wrote:
>>> For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:
>>
>> Court vs. crank again.
>>
>>> How many times have you been told that unverifiable settlement
>>> agreements are imaginary?
>>
>>  The
>> settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements of the parties,
>> and is often put in force by an order of the court after a joint
>> stipulation  by the parties. In other situations (as where the
>> claims
>>  have been satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of money) the
>> plaintiff and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has
>> been dismissed
>
>
> Sorry Hyman. Unverifiable settlement agreements are illusory.
> Claim all the unverifiable agreements you wish Hyman.

Well, if the GPLed source is made available in the aftermath, it stands
to reason that it would have been part of the settlement.  Why go to the
trouble otherwise?

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/19/2010 3:26 PM, RJack wrote:

For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:


Court vs. crank again.

How many times have you been told that unverifiable settlement 
agreements are imaginary?


 The 
settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements of the parties, 
and is often put in force by an order of the court after a joint 
stipulation  by the parties. In other situations (as where the claims
 have been satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of money) the 
plaintiff and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has 
been dismissed



Sorry Hyman. Unverifiable settlement agreements are illusory.
Claim all the unverifiable agreements you wish Hyman. People
are not foolish enough to prove a negative. If you claim a settlement
agreement then you produce it. Bullshit walks and money talks.


"Captain Moglen 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: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/19/2010 3:26 PM, RJack wrote:

For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:


Court vs. crank again.


How many times have you been told
that unverifiable settlement agreements are imaginary?



The settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements
of the parties, and is often put in force by an order of
the court after a joint stipulation  by the parties. In
other situations (as where the claims have been satisfied
by the payment of a certain sum of money) the plaintiff
and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has
been dismissed.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:


So, it's a complete victory for Jacobsen, including a payment of 
$100,000 from Katzer.


For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:

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


Note, as is typical for settlements, the case has been dismissed with
 prejudice, so that Jacobsen cannot re-file a suit on the same 
claims. Note that this does not mean that he lost - quite the 
contrary.


You finally got the idea Hyman! When there's a stipulated party
settlement agreement it is verifiable. How many times have you been told
that unverifiable settlement agreements are imaginary? That's been the
thrust of the discussion concerning the GPL. Until the man in the black
robes rules, unverifiable claims or arguments not grounded on
established legal precedent are illusory.


"Captain Moglen 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

Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

A. Defendants and any and all persons or entities acting at
their direction or in concert with them, including, without
limitation, their agents, employees, independent contractors,
successors, or assignees, are permanently enjoined from: (1)
Reproducing, by download or otherwise, JMRI Material, except
that legal counsel representing Defendants may download such
Material for purposes of such representation only; (2)
modifying JMRI Material; or (3) distributing JMRI Material.
...
C. Upon entry of the injuction, the parties agree that the
Court will enter an Order of Dismissal, dismissing all claims
with prejudice and without fees or costs to any party.
6. Payment by Defendants to Plaintiff
Defendants will pay Plaintiff $100,000 as follows...

So, it's a complete victory for Jacobsen, including a payment
of $100,000 from Katzer. Note, as is typical for settlements,
the case has been dismissed with prejudice, so that Jacobsen
cannot re-file a suit on the same claims. Note that this does
not mean that he lost - quite the contrary.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss