Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Here's the SFLC's GPL litigation track record: 1. Dismissal Without Prejudice. 2. Dismissal Without Prejudice. 3. Dismissal Without Prejudice. 4. Dismissal With Prejudice. 5. Dismissal Without Prejudice. 6. Dismissal Without Prejudice. 7. Dismissal Without Prejudice. 8. Dismissal With Prejudice. Uhmm. Sort of a pattern... LOL! regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Here's the SFLC's GPL litigation track record: 1. Dismissal Without Prejudice. 2. Dismissal Without Prejudice. 3. Dismissal Without Prejudice. 4. Dismissal With Prejudice. 5. Dismissal Without Prejudice. 6. Dismissal Without Prejudice. 7. Dismissal Without Prejudice. 8. Dismissal With Prejudice. Uhmm. Sort of a pattern... Yes, your idiotic trolling with that same BS, after it's been explained to you countless times. LOL! *plonk* ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Jet another latter from Dan Ravicher asking for delay of the pretrial conference. (from PACER) - 01/30/2009 6 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Paul G. Gardephe from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 1/30/09 re: Counsel requests an adjournment of the pretrial conference currently scheduled for February 11, 2009, at 11:30 AM, to March 18, 2009, at 11:00 AM, or to any other date not prior to March 16, 2009. ENDORSEMENT: The application is granted. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 1/31/09) (mme) (Entered: 01/30/2009) - Here's the entire docket: - Date Filed # Docket Text 12/11/2008 1 COMPLAINT against Cisco Systems, Inc. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 672148)Document filed by Free Software Foundation, Inc.(ama) (Entered: 12/16/2008) 12/11/2008 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Cisco Systems, Inc. (ama) (Entered: 12/16/2008) 12/11/2008 Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis is so designated. (ama) (Entered: 12/16/2008) 12/11/2008 Case Designated ECF. (ama) (Entered: 12/16/2008) 12/11/2008 2 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Free Software Foundation, Inc.(ama) (Entered: 12/16/2008) 12/11/2008 Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this action. (ama) (Entered: 12/16/2008) 01/06/2009 3 NOTICE OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 2/11/2009 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 14C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul G. Gardephe. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 1/6/09) (ae) (Entered: 01/06/2009) 01/06/2009 4 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER: Defendant, Cisco Systems, Inc, has until 2/6/2009, to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint filed on 12/11/08, by Plaintiff Free Software Foundation. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 1/6/09) (ae) Modified on 1/20/2009 (ae). (Entered: 01/06/2009) 01/09/2009 5 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint. Cisco Systems, Inc. served on 12/15/2008, answer due 2/6/2009. Service was accepted by Lorri Wall, Legal Program Manager. Document filed by Free Software Foundation, Inc.. (Williamson, Aaron) (Entered: 01/09/2009) 01/30/2009 6 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Paul G. Gardephe from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 1/30/09 re: Counsel requests an adjournment of the pretrial conference currently scheduled for February 11, 2009, at 11:30 AM, to March 18, 2009, at 11:00 AM, or to any other date not prior to March 16, 2009. ENDORSEMENT: The application is granted. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 1/31/09) (mme) (Entered: 01/30/2009) 01/30/2009 7 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER It is hereby ordered that Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc., has until March 13, 2009, to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint filed on December 11, 2008, by Plaintiff Free Software Foundation. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 1/30/09) (mme) (Entered: 01/30/2009) - regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://web-sniffer.net/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.verizon.net%2Fwebdownload%2Ffirmware%2Fupgrades%2Factiontec%2520gateway%2F4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmtsubmit=Submithttp=1.1gzip=yestype=GETuak=0 Verizon's web server may itself be connecting to Actiontec to send the file to you. You cannot tell what the server is doing from any external evidence, because all you have is the connection to it. The copyright holders appear to have decided that they are satisfied with having Actiontec make the GPLed sources available. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: How do you explain continued 'litigation' by the SFLC for many month after availability of the source code from Hammer Storage site, Hyman? The same way I always do. Legal processes are slow. They work through exchanges of papers filed with courts, with negotiations between lawyers, and with meetings before judges. Even a simple exchange of views can take weeks. So when a company decides to come into compliance with the GPL, they can do that relatively quickly, more quickly than all of the legal machinery can be deactivated. Also, having the source code available before the case ends means that the SFLC can verify that the defendants are in fact properly compliant with the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: You seem to confuse real litigation with SFLC's way of litigation. I said that legal processes are slow. Your dislike of the SFLC does not change that, so there is nothing for me to reanswer. Real litigation, where the parties are unable to settle, would take even longer. Here's the SFLC's GPL litigation track record The only important part of the track record is that after each case, the GPLed sources are available. Note that all cases should have been automatically dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Funny then how they haven't been, isn't it? So many drunken judges... ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] The only important part of the track record is that after each case, the GPLed sources are available. You seem to not grasp the situation, Hyman: the SFLC has sued (filing utterly defective copyright complaints warranting automatic dismissal) a bunch of companies distributing hardware boxes allegedly containing the GPL'd software without referring to the GPL and/or source code while distributing (note: consider 17 USC 109 -- see the first ever answer to the GPL complaint in court by Bell Microproducts, Inc. (Marvin, Lynn) http://www.terekhov.de/14.pdf ) said boxes. (The boxes are all made where the firmware is installed -- in China/Taiwan.) The said companies also offer the firmware (allegedly containing the GPL'd software) from their respective web sites. In the complaints, the SFLC was talking about reinstantiation of the (copyright) rights that (allegedly) had been automatically terminated by virtue of the GPL. According to the SFLC's former press releases, some of those companies have joined the SFLC in issuing a press release announcing a settlement with commitments going beyond the GPL (e.g. Monsoon Multimedia has agreed to appoint an Open Source Compliance Officer within its organization to monitor and ensure GPL compliance, to publish the source code for the version of BusyBox it previously distributed on its Web site, and to undertake substantial efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox from Monsoon Multimedia of their rights to the software under the GPL. The settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of financial consideration paid by Monsoon Multimedia to the plaintiffs http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/oct/30/busybox-monsoon-settlement/ ). Note that Verizon managed to dismiss the case *with prejudice* against plaintiffs and without any press release telling anything about Verizon's commitments. All GPL cases were voluntarily terminated by the SFLC without any judicial saying (the default judgment against BELL MICROPRODUCTS, INC. D.B.A. HAMMER STORAGE was put aside by the court). The last four cases (out of seven) were voluntarily terminated by the SFLC without any joint press release. The first case of such kind was against Verizon. What say you now, Hyman? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: What say you now, Hyman? I say that companies which distribute software licensed under the GPL must comply with the terms of the GPL where copyright would not otherwise permit them to do this. The SFLC acts on behalf of clients who claim that their software is being distributed improperly. After each case brought by the SFLC has ended, the source code of the GPLed software has been made available (in the Verizon case, by the manufacturer of the routers). In some cases, the companies involved have agreed to take some additional steps to help them stay in compliance. In some cases, money may have changed hands. The amounts are not public knowledge, nor should they be. I have no idea what you think you're getting at by these repetitions. I have no idea what situation it is you feel that I have failed to grasp. I know that in my cursory research of the Verizon/Actiontec case I saw that Actiontec was distributing GPLed software for a long time before they began distributing the sources. I assume the same was true for the other companies. The companies are asked to comply with the GPL and eventually they do and the cases end. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Actiontec is a reseller, now see 17 USC 109. I'm not privy to the details of how the firmware gets on to the routers that Actiontec delivers, so I'm not in a position to say whether the First Sale doctrine applies. But they do distribute software from their web site, and that must be done in compliance with the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] applies. But they do distribute software from their web site, and that must be done in compliance with the GPL. http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp http://www2.verizon.net regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp http://download.verizon.net/webdownload/firmware/upgrades/actiontec%20gateway/4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt actiontec gateway ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp http://download.verizon.net/webdownload/firmware/upgrades/actiontec%20gateway/4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt http://web-sniffer.net/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.verizon.net%2Fwebdownload%2Ffirmware%2Fupgrades%2Factiontec%2520gateway%2F4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmtsubmit=Submithttp=1.1gzip=yestype=GETuak=0 - HTTP Request Header Connect to 206.46.230.69 on port 80 ... ok GET /webdownload/firmware/upgrades/actiontec%20gateway/4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt HTTP/1.1[CRLF] Host: download.verizon.net[CRLF] ^^ - regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Ha ha. Yet another GPL 'victory' in court: 10/17/2008 16 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff(s) and or their counsel(s), hereby give notice that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice and without costs against the defendant(s) Bell Microproducts, Inc., D.B.A. Hammer Storage. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk is instructed to close the case and remove it from my docket. (Signed by Judge Harold Baer on 10/17/08) (tro) (Entered: 10/17/2008) Where is the press release? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
(Update.) Wah wah, yet another delay, letter from Dan Ravicher. Alexander Terekhov wrote: (Update.) Yet another delay... Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) WOW! Am I blind or is the court's clerk got concerned regarding (missing) Registration of busybox copyright(s)? U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-06426-PKC Anderson et al v. Extreme Networks, Inc. Assigned to: Judge P. Kevin Castel Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement Date Filed: 07/17/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintiff Erik Anderson an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson Software Freedom Law Center, Inc 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl. New York, NY 10023 212 580 0800 Fax: (212)-580-0898 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Daniel Ben Ravicher Software Freedom Law Center, Inc 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl. New York, NY 10023 (212)-580-0800 Fax: (212)-580-0898 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Rob Landley an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Daniel Ben Ravicher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Defendant Extreme Networks, Inc. a California Corporation Date Filed # Docket Text 07/17/2008 1 COMPLAINT against Extreme Networks, Inc.. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 657053)Document filed by Erik Anderson, Rob Landley.(rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/17/2008 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Extreme Networks, Inc.. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/17/2008 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck is so designated. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/17/2008 Case Designated ECF. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/21/2008 Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/23/2008 2 ORDER SCHEDULING INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 9/12/2008 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge P. Kevin Castel. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 7/23/08) (tro) (Entered: 07/23/2008) 07/31/2008 3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Extreme Networks, Inc. served on 7/22/2008, answer due 8/11/2008. Service was accepted by Perla Ibarra, Receptionist. Document filed by Erik Anderson; Rob Landley. (Williamson, Aaron) (Entered: 07/31/2008) 08/08/2008 4 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER, defendant Extreme Networks has until 9/5/08 to answer the complaint. Extreme Networks, Inc. answer due 7/17/2008. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 8/7/08) (cd) (Entered: 08/08/2008) 08/25/2008 5 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 8/21/08 re: Counsel requests an adjournment of the pretrial conference currently scheduled for September 12, 2008, to another date at the courts earliest convenience. ENDORSEMENT: The initial pretrial conference is adjourned to October 3, 2008 at 12:45 p.m., ( Initial Conference set for 10/3/2008 at 12:45 PM before Judge P. Kevin Castel.) (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 8/25/08) (mme) (Entered: 08/25/2008) 09/04/2008 6 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER, Extreme Networks, Inc. answer due 9/19/2008. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 9/4/08) (cd) (Entered: 09/04/2008) 09/18/2008 7 ORDER TO EXTEND TIE FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Extreme Networks, Inc. has until October 3, 2008 to answer the complaint filed on July 17, 2006 by Plaintiffs Erik Anderson and Rob Landley.Extreme Networks, Inc. answer due 10/3/2008. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 9/18/08) (mme) (Entered: 09/18/2008) 09/26/2008 8 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel from Daniel Ravicher dated 9/25/08 re: Request for an adjournment of the pretrial conference set for 10/3/08. ENDORSEMENT: Conference adjourned from 10/3/08 to 11/7/08 at 2:45 pm. ( Pretrial Conference reset for 11/7/2008 at 02:45 PM before Judge P. Kevin Castel.) (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 9/26/08) (cd) (Entered: 09/26/2008) regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
(Update.) Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] 1. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. 2. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. 3. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. 4. Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice. 5. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. 6. DEFAULT JUDGMENT (defendants must send all their busybox-based boxes including the model MyShare HN1200 to SFLC for destruction). Eben Moglen triumphant. I gather that judge Harold Baer must have been reading Eben's Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of Copyright and decided not so fast... if only he really had jurisdiction. LOL. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
(Update.) Yet another delay... Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) WOW! Am I blind or is the court's clerk got concerned regarding (missing) Registration of busybox copyright(s)? U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-06426-PKC Anderson et al v. Extreme Networks, Inc. Assigned to: Judge P. Kevin Castel Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement Date Filed: 07/17/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintiff Erik Anderson an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson Software Freedom Law Center, Inc 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl. New York, NY 10023 212 580 0800 Fax: (212)-580-0898 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Daniel Ben Ravicher Software Freedom Law Center, Inc 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl. New York, NY 10023 (212)-580-0800 Fax: (212)-580-0898 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Rob Landley an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Daniel Ben Ravicher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Defendant Extreme Networks, Inc. a California Corporation Date Filed # Docket Text 07/17/2008 1 COMPLAINT against Extreme Networks, Inc.. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 657053)Document filed by Erik Anderson, Rob Landley.(rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/17/2008 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Extreme Networks, Inc.. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/17/2008 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck is so designated. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/17/2008 Case Designated ECF. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/21/2008 Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/23/2008 2 ORDER SCHEDULING INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 9/12/2008 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge P. Kevin Castel. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 7/23/08) (tro) (Entered: 07/23/2008) 07/31/2008 3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Extreme Networks, Inc. served on 7/22/2008, answer due 8/11/2008. Service was accepted by Perla Ibarra, Receptionist. Document filed by Erik Anderson; Rob Landley. (Williamson, Aaron) (Entered: 07/31/2008) 08/08/2008 4 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER, defendant Extreme Networks has until 9/5/08 to answer the complaint. Extreme Networks, Inc. answer due 7/17/2008. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 8/7/08) (cd) (Entered: 08/08/2008) 08/25/2008 5 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 8/21/08 re: Counsel requests an adjournment of the pretrial conference currently scheduled for September 12, 2008, to another date at the courts earliest convenience. ENDORSEMENT: The initial pretrial conference is adjourned to October 3, 2008 at 12:45 p.m., ( Initial Conference set for 10/3/2008 at 12:45 PM before Judge P. Kevin Castel.) (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 8/25/08) (mme) (Entered: 08/25/2008) 09/04/2008 6 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER, Extreme Networks, Inc. answer due 9/19/2008. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 9/4/08) (cd) (Entered: 09/04/2008) 09/18/2008 7 ORDER TO EXTEND TIE FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Extreme Networks, Inc. has until October 3, 2008 to answer the complaint filed on July 17, 2006 by Plaintiffs Erik Anderson and Rob Landley.Extreme Networks, Inc. answer due 10/3/2008. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 9/18/08) (mme) (Entered: 09/18/2008) regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
David Kastrup wrote: Depends on what a program is and how much it is structured to depend on that library... ...it will be rather hard to declare the whole as independent. I don't think you understand. It has nothing to do with a work being independent. For one thing, copyright law doesn't care if a program works or not. If I create a program attached to a fingerprint scanner which works only with your thumbprint, that does not make the program a derivative work of you. You need to read the statute (for U.S. law, anyway), http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. That's why I quoted from the Harry Potter decision. Although the Lexicon actually contained reams of text copied directly from other books, the judge found it not to be a derivative work based on the definition above. It is a grey area, certainly not sufficient for you to dish out abuse like GPL uber-advocates who favor the FSF view that just looking at GPL code funny makes something a derivative work. It's not gray at all, nor was my statement terribly abusive. The law is what it is. For a work to be derivative, it must be a transformation of an existing work into a different form but preserving the character of the original. A program which dynamically links to a library does not fit this definition - the program does not contain a transformed version of the library at all, especially while it is being distributed. For the FSF to continue maintaining otherwise (as they do in various places on their web sites) is at best disingenuous. If what you call the FSF views are solidly renounced in court It is quite possible to be wrong for a very long time without being challenged about it in court. That doesn't make it any less wrong. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen wrote: David Kastrup wrote: Depends on what a program is and how much it is structured to depend on that library... ...it will be rather hard to declare the whole as independent. I don't think you understand. It has nothing to do with a work being independent. For one thing, copyright law doesn't care if a program works or not. If I create a program attached to a fingerprint scanner which works only with your thumbprint, that does not make the program a derivative work of you. If you wish to speak of a derivative work of a computer program outside the context of the Abstraction Filtration Comparison test it won't make any legal sense. See Gates Rubber v. Bando Chemical, 9 F.3d 823, 28 USPQ2d 1503 (10th Cir. 1993). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Who is we, Hyman? You're a speaker for ... I just thought I couldn't possibly be the only one. Let's see if anyone else chimes in. Oh, by the way, the J.K. Rowling decision should be interesting (and dismaying) reading for GPL uber- advocates who favor the FSF view that just looking at GPL code funny makes something a derivative work. You got a bad case of slandries. Perhaps you should cut down on the Alexander dosage you are exhibiting yourself to. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
David Kastrup wrote: You got a bad case of slandries. From http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080909014304275, quoting from the decision: By condensing, synthesizing, and reorganizing the preexisting material in an A-to-Z reference guide, the Lexicon does not recast the material in another medium to retell the story of Harry Potter, but instead gives the copyrighted material another purpose. That purpose is to give the reader a ready understanding of individual elements in the elaborate world of Harry Potter that appear in voluminous and diverse sources. As a result, the Lexicon no longer represents [the] original work[s] of authorship. 17 U.S.C. § 101. Under these circumstances, and because the Lexicon does not fall under any example of derivative works listed in the statute, Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Lexicon is a derivative work. Look at this, and then tell me that a court will find that a program which dynamically links to a library is a derivative work of that library. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Kastrup wrote: You got a bad case of slandries. From http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080909014304275, quoting from the decision: By condensing, synthesizing, and reorganizing the preexisting material in an A-to-Z reference guide, the Lexicon does not recast the material in another medium to retell the story of Harry Potter, but instead gives the copyrighted material another purpose. That purpose is to give the reader a ready understanding of individual elements in the elaborate world of Harry Potter that appear in voluminous and diverse sources. As a result, the Lexicon no longer represents [the] original work[s] of authorship. 17 U.S.C. § 101. Under these circumstances, and because the Lexicon does not fall under any example of derivative works listed in the statute, Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Lexicon is a derivative work. Look at this, and then tell me that a court will find that a program which dynamically links to a library is a derivative work of that library. Or look at the unauthorized game cartridge cases. Those are directly on point for the linking makes a derivative work argument, and the courts have pretty uniformly decided that they are not derivative works. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: You got a bad case of slandries. From http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080909014304275, quoting from the decision: By condensing, synthesizing, and reorganizing the preexisting material in an A-to-Z reference guide, the Lexicon does not recast the material in another medium to retell the story of Harry Potter, but instead gives the copyrighted material another purpose. That purpose is to give the reader a ready understanding of individual elements in the elaborate world of Harry Potter that appear in voluminous and diverse sources. As a result, the Lexicon no longer represents [the] original work[s] of authorship. 17 U.S.C. § 101. Under these circumstances, and because the Lexicon does not fall under any example of derivative works listed in the statute, Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Lexicon is a derivative work. Look at this, and then tell me that a court will find that a program which dynamically links to a library is a derivative work of that library. Depends on what a program is (source code or the running executable assembled in memory as part of the regular operation), and how much it is structured to depend on that library. If you have, say, a language interpreter dynamically loaded where your program modifies its memory allocation and parsing semantics, it will be rather hard to declare the whole as independent. It is a grey area, certainly not sufficient for you to dish out abuse like GPL uber-advocates who favor the FSF view that just looking at GPL code funny makes something a derivative work. If what you call the FSF views are solidly renounced in court with precedental cases, nobody but the FSF will be more glad. The purpose of the GPL is to create a code syllabus where most of copyright's strongholds are abolished, because you have to agree not to use their power before entering. If the GPL, and consequently copyright, can be proven not to have this power in the first place, so much the better. A world where the GPL has almost no power due to copyright licenses having almost no power, is certainly one that the FSF would embrace. Yes, there would the drawback of obfuscation/source secrecy. But it would probably be worth the price of being able to copy everything legally. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Oh dear dak, [... copyright's strongholds are abolished ...] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html - AM4: The problem with this change in the copyright laws for three would be that you wouldn't get the sources. RMS: Right. There would have also to be a condition, a law that to sell copies of the software to the public the source code must be deposited somewhere so that three years later it can be released. So it could be deposited say, with the library of congress in the US, and I think other countries have similar institutions where copies of published books get placed, and they could also received the source code and after three years, publish it. And of course, if the source code didn't correspond to the executable that would be fraud, and in fact if it really corresponds then they ought to be able to check that very easily when the work is published initially so you're publishing the source code and somebody there says alright dot slash configure dot slash make and sees if produces the same executables and uh. So you're right, just eliminating copyright would not make software free. AM5: Um libre RMS: Right. - LOL. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh dear dak, [... copyright's strongholds are abolished ...] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html - AM4: The problem with this change in the copyright laws for three would be that you wouldn't get the sources. RMS: Right. There would have also to be a condition, a law that to sell copies of the software to the public the source code must be deposited somewhere so that three years later it can be released. So it could be deposited say, with the library of congress in the US, and I think other countries have similar institutions where copies of published books get placed, and they could also received the source code and after three years, publish it. And of course, if the source code didn't correspond to the executable that would be fraud, and in fact if it really corresponds then they ought to be able to check that very easily when the work is published initially so you're publishing the source code and somebody there says alright “dot slash configure dot slash make” and sees if produces the same executables and uh. So you're right, just eliminating copyright would not make software free. AM5: Um libre RMS: Right. - LOL. Do you think the FSF would refuse to get a better world if it can't get a perfect world? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Do you think the FSF would refuse to get a better world if it can't get It can't get what, exactly? Spell it out in precise terms (what you called perfect world). And who is the FSF? I associate this charity with RMS. RMS' better world leads to extinction: Live cheaply, he said, offering some free advice. Don't buy a house, a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have to spend all your time making money to pay for them. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:02:15 -0500, Rjack wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Do you think the FSF would refuse to get a better world if it can't get It can't get what, exactly? Spell it out in precise terms (what you called perfect world). And who is the FSF? I associate this charity with RMS. RMS' better world leads to extinction: Live cheaply, he said, offering some free advice. Don't buy a house, a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have to spend all your time making money to pay for them. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) Alexander, you ever see a picture of RMS? http://linux.ues.edu.sv/servidor/maracosas/bruno2d/richard-stallman.jpg I doubt that any female of our species would consent to an intimate relationship. Sincerely, Rjack :) Roy 'Racine' Schestowitz might be interested. Looks aren't everything you know :) -- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Do you think the FSF would refuse to get a better world if it can't get It can't get what, exactly? Spell it out in precise terms (what you called perfect world). And who is the FSF? I associate this charity with RMS. RMS' better world leads to extinction: Live cheaply, he said, offering some free advice. Don't buy a house, a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have to spend all your time making money to pay for them. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) Alexander, you ever see a picture of RMS? http://linux.ues.edu.sv/servidor/maracosas/bruno2d/richard-stallman.jpg I doubt that any female of our species would consent to an intimate relationship. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] The GPL enforcement is already in existence. I said *court* enforcement, Hyman. There was no court order to date (World Wide) enforcing the GPL, to my knowledge. Here's English language comprehension exercise for you that might help. http://ia301337.us.archive.org/1/items/EbenMoglenLectureEdinburghJune2007text/scl2007_eben_moglen.html Given (Eben Moglen says): ... private agreement can substantially oust public law institutions ... Questions: 1. private agreement Is this known under the term contract or not? 2. can substantially oust public law institutions Is this humble objection (to substantially oust public law institutions) ought to result in substantially unenforceable contract or not? What do you think, Hyman? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: I said *court* enforcement, Hyman. Courts enforce things when the parties cannot come to agreement on their own. So far that hasn't happened. Well, except in the JMRI case, where the appeals court said that the plaintiffs could go ahead with their claims of copyright infringement. There was no court order to date (World Wide) enforcing the GPL, to my knowledge. There are no world-wide courts, to my knowledge. When will the SFLC's GPL court enforcement come in existence? When one of their defendants decides not to come into voluntary compliance with the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Verizon, Hyman. http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp Where is a mention of the GPL and/or source code? I'm tired of you playing this advocate game. Verizon was a defendant. (Dismissed by the SFLC *with prejudice* against their own client Plaintiffs.) When one of their defendants... regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Verizon, Hyman. The company which manufactures the routers for Verizon makes the GPLed sources available. They were not doing so for a substantial period of time after they began distributing the routers and before the SFLC filed its case. The URL for downloading contains /actiontec gateway/ as part of its name, so it's quite possible that the software comes directly from Actiontec rather than Verizon. In any event, the BusyBox developers seem to have decided that having the manufacturer provide the GPLed sources is sufficiently in compliance with the GPL that they chose not to pursue Verizon. As the copyright holders, that is their privilege. I'm tired of you playing this advocate game. You can't begin to imagine how tired we are of you. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen wrote: [... it's quite possible ...] :-) Nothing is Impossible. You can't begin to imagine how tired we are of you. Who is we, Hyman? You're a speaker for ... regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In any event, the BusyBox developers seem to have decided that having the manufacturer provide the GPLed sources is sufficiently in compliance with the GPL that they chose not to pursue Verizon. As the copyright holders, that is their privilege. We should be careful to not draw too broad a conclusion. The BusyBox copyright holders are not pursuing a copyright lawsuit against Verizon but we don't know the reasons. Maybe they wish to conserve their litigation funds and they carefully pick the most cost-effective battles. Or maybe Verizon is sufficiently in compliance as you speculated (although it seems to not be). Or maybe they have discussed the matter with Verizon, and Verizon agreed to take corrective steps in the near future. Or maybe they made some other agreement with Verizon that benefits both parties. Or maybe they are simply biding their time, and think that a small win now against one defendant will help a bigger win later against another. They are not obliged to sue everybody all at once. There could be other reasons that I overlooked that might occur to you if you gave this more thought instead of jumping to a single conclusion. You don't have the whole story and neither do I. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Boring. Extend time, extend time... time and time again. Case and case again. (With all cases thus far being closed following voluntarily dismissal notice filed by the SFLC.) When will the SFLC's GPL court enforcement come in existence? After each case has ended, the GPLed sources became available. The GPL enforcement is already in existence. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) WOW! Am I blind or is the court's clerk got concerned regarding (missing) Registration of busybox copyright(s)? U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-06426-PKC Anderson et al v. Extreme Networks, Inc. Assigned to: Judge P. Kevin Castel Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement Date Filed: 07/17/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintiff Erik Anderson an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson Software Freedom Law Center, Inc 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl. New York, NY 10023 212 580 0800 Fax: (212)-580-0898 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Daniel Ben Ravicher Software Freedom Law Center, Inc 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl. New York, NY 10023 (212)-580-0800 Fax: (212)-580-0898 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Rob Landley an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Daniel Ben Ravicher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Defendant Extreme Networks, Inc. a California Corporation Date Filed # Docket Text 07/17/2008 1 COMPLAINT against Extreme Networks, Inc.. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 657053)Document filed by Erik Anderson, Rob Landley.(rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/17/2008 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Extreme Networks, Inc.. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/17/2008 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck is so designated. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/17/2008 Case Designated ECF. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/21/2008 Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/23/2008 2 ORDER SCHEDULING INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 9/12/2008 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge P. Kevin Castel. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 7/23/08) (tro) (Entered: 07/23/2008) 07/31/2008 3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Extreme Networks, Inc. served on 7/22/2008, answer due 8/11/2008. Service was accepted by Perla Ibarra, Receptionist. Document filed by Erik Anderson; Rob Landley. (Williamson, Aaron) (Entered: 07/31/2008) 08/08/2008 4 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER, defendant Extreme Networks has until 9/5/08 to answer the complaint. Extreme Networks, Inc. answer due 7/17/2008. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 8/7/08) (cd) (Entered: 08/08/2008) 08/25/2008 5 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 8/21/08 re: Counsel requests an adjournment of the pretrial conference currently scheduled for September 12, 2008, to another date at the courts earliest convenience. ENDORSEMENT: The initial pretrial conference is adjourned to October 3, 2008 at 12:45 p.m., ( Initial Conference set for 10/3/2008 at 12:45 PM before Judge P. Kevin Castel.) (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 8/25/08) (mme) (Entered: 08/25/2008) 09/04/2008 6 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER, Extreme Networks, Inc. answer due 9/19/2008. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 9/4/08) (cd) (Entered: 09/04/2008) Boring. Extend time, extend time... time and time again. Case and case again. (With all cases thus far being closed following voluntarily dismissal notice filed by the SFLC.) When will the SFLC's GPL court enforcement come in existence? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: ROFL! Yet another delay (07/16/2008 3 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 7/14/08) AND blog announcement of yet another settlement. (from PACER... final order is not yet available on PACER as of 07/24/2008 13:55:26 ET) 07/28/2008 4 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the F.R.C.P., without prejudice, and without costs to any party. Clerk to close this case. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/28/08) (cd) (Entered: 07/28/2008) The track record is sorta getting better! LOL. 1. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. 2. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. 3. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. 4. Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice. 5. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) WOW! Am I blind or is the court's clerk got concerned regarding (missing) Registration of busybox copyright(s)? U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-06426-PKC Anderson et al v. Extreme Networks, Inc. Assigned to: Judge P. Kevin Castel Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement Date Filed: 07/17/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintiff Erik Anderson an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson Software Freedom Law Center, Inc 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl. New York, NY 10023 212 580 0800 Fax: (212)-580-0898 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Daniel Ben Ravicher Software Freedom Law Center, Inc 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl. New York, NY 10023 (212)-580-0800 Fax: (212)-580-0898 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Rob Landley an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Daniel Ben Ravicher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Defendant Extreme Networks, Inc. a California Corporation Date Filed # Docket Text 07/17/2008 1 COMPLAINT against Extreme Networks, Inc.. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 657053)Document filed by Erik Anderson, Rob Landley.(rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/17/2008 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Extreme Networks, Inc.. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/17/2008 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck is so designated. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/17/2008 Case Designated ECF. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/21/2008 Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/23/2008 2 ORDER SCHEDULING INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 9/12/2008 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge P. Kevin Castel. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 7/23/08) (tro) (Entered: 07/23/2008) - regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: The track record is sorta getting better! LOL. The track record is that after each case ends, the GPLed source code is available. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That one's easy. Suppose that his wife is a three-headed fire-breathing dragon. You are toast. Mmmm, toast -Miles -- Dictionary, n. A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic. This dictionary, however, is a most useful work. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:49:13 +, Rahul Dhesi wrote: thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To my understanding, the buyer does have the right, under the GPL, to the source. After, the GPL is targeted, you could say, at buyers to protect copyright owners. If no buyer has rights to the source, then that would make the GPL pointless, which, I suppose is your argument? Rights to the source is not a useful phrase, as it does not distinguish between the right to ask for the source (which the buyer has), the right to redistribute the source once the source is available (which the buyer has), and the right to enforce the seller's obligation to provide the source (which the copyright owner has but the buyer does not). The buyer can ask for the source but, ultimately, has now way of enforcing anybody to produce it? Seems pointless. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Tim Smith wrote: [...] (I'm assuming statutory damages would be available, because I'm assuming the copyrights have been registered. I can't find that registration, but I don't claim to be a good copyright registration searcher. I assume they have been registered, because if not, every defendant so far would have filed an answer to the complaint pointing that out, and the Defentdant to SFLC: Dismiss voluntarily or we'll file an answer and you'll have to pay. SFLC: Okay, okay. Wait a bit. Defentdant to SFLC: This is last warning. Dismiss voluntarily or we'll file an answer and you'll have to pay. SFLC to the World: files notice of voluntary dismissal Victory! court would have immediately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The first time, the court would have been amused at the plaintiff overlooking such a basic thing. But aren't they filling subsequent suits in the same court? The court is not going to be amused the second time the same plaintiff brings forth essentially the same case with the same flaw. We'd be seeing sanctions by now, probably. Thus, I infer that the copyrights must be registered). The SFLC is a bunch of *copyleft* lawyers (not copyright lawyers) with perfect skills of sucking misplaced tax-deductible donations. They are of opinion that http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html You do not need to register to enforce your copyright. Thus we can infer that the *copyleft* statute of GNU Republic doesn't impose any jurisdictional requirements to enforce copyr^Hlefts. Registration of copyright in the work that is allegedly infringed is a jurisdictional requirement. 17 U.S.C. § 411. Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195, 1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)(Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) as well as its predecessor, § 13, it has been held repeatedly that ownership of a copyright registration is a jurisidictional prerequisite to an action for infringement. . . . A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective and subject to dismissal.); Grundberg v. The Upjohn Company, 137 F.R.D. 372, 382; 19 U.S.P.Q. 1590 (D. Ut. 1991). Lacking even an allegation of registration of copyright ... this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Tim Smith wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rahul Dhesi) wrote: The SFLC says it differently. Their GPL enforcement always seeks some sort of penalty for the offender that goes far beyond simply making GPL sources available. Otherwise future defendants would have no incentive to not violate the GPL in the first place. Note that if the settlement is secret, it doesn't provide very much incentive. So, it seems unlikely that the SFLC would want to keep settlements secret. How about the defendants? Haven't many of them been public companies? A large settlement would show up in their public financial records, so isn't going to stay secret for long. Thus, I doubt they are going to worry too much about keeping it secret from the start. Thus, I suspect that the settlements are for little or no cash. Plaintiff may talk about large potential damages (statutory damages for bad faith infringement could get rather staggering rather fast...) to make the defendant come to their senses, but I don't think anyone would agree to that in settlement. (I'm assuming statutory damages would be available, because I'm assuming the copyrights have been registered. I can't find that registration, but I don't claim to be a good copyright registration searcher. I assume they have been registered, because if not, every defendant so far would have filed an answer to the complaint pointing that out, and the court would have immediately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The first time, the court would have been amused at the plaintiff overlooking such a basic thing. But aren't they filling subsequent suits in the same court? The court is not going to be amused the second time the same plaintiff brings forth essentially the same case with the same flaw. We'd be seeing sanctions by now, probably. Thus, I infer that the copyrights must be registered). The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow a district court to review the terms of their preempted, unenforceable GPL license on the merits. The fat revenue stream from charitable funds flowing into SFLC's attorneys' pockets would suddenly cease if their one of their crackpot complaints was ever reviewed by the court. Sincerely, Rjack -- The hardest part of fleecing a sucker is convincing him to express his gratitude for getting screwed -- ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: SFLC to the World: files notice of voluntary dismissal Victory! Before case begins: Defendants in violation of GPL. After case ends: Defendants make GLPed sources available. Victory indeed. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
* The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo: In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Alexander Terekhov How did you get that link, Hyman? I wen to http://www.supermicro.com, used the menu to click on Support/Downloads and noticed the link Supermicro FTP Site under Additional Resources. Now please go out of home and ask 100 guys on the street what does FTP Site (short of GPL) mean. Please let me know about your findings in this respect. Then ask them what HTML and HTTP mean as well. Good luck with either one. ;-) The good news: the link is ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/, and browsers do understand this link. The good new is that, if you start using Free software, you're more likely to encounter terms like FTP and SSH, if you've been unlucky enough to miss them in your usage of proprietary software (CuteFTP anyone?). The bad news: Uh...where is that thing I'm looking for, again? :-) ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/GPL/ Try this: $ wget -c -r -N -nH -np ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/GPL/ I'm doing it right now, and I'm not even a customer. It's a slow site, though (under 50K/s), so I'm going to abort it. -- fortune: cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
* Hyman Rosen peremptorily fired off this memo: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Now please go out of home and ask 100 guys on the street what does FTP Site (short of GPL) mean. 100 guys on the street, or a hundred guys on the street who have an interest in the source code? Of the latter, all of them know what an FTP site is. In any case, I didn't do any more searching to see if there's a better access route. But it didn't take me more than a few seconds to find this one. A surprising number of FTP sites can be found by prepending ftp://ftp.; -- A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions. -- George Eliot ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: SFLC to the World: files notice of voluntary dismissal Victory! Before case begins: Defendants in violation of GPL. After case ends: Defendants make GLPed sources available. http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen wrote: rjack wrote: The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow a district court to review the terms of their preempted, unenforceable GPL license on the merits. The fat revenue stream from charitable funds flowing into SFLC's attorneys' pockets would suddenly cease if their one of their crackpot complaints was ever reviewed by the court. Before the SFLC files its cases the defendants are in violation of the GPL. After the cases end, the GPLed source code is available. http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: SFLC to the World: files notice of voluntary dismissal Victory! Before case begins: Defendants in violation of GPL. After case ends: Defendants make GLPed sources available. http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp Before the case, for most of 2007, neither Actiontec nor Verizon made the sources for the FIOS router firmware avaialable. After the case, the sources are available from Actiontec. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp http://opensource.actiontec.com/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: SFLC to the World: files notice of voluntary dismissal Victory! Before case begins: Defendants in violation of GPL. ^^ After case ends: Defendants make GLPed sources available. ^^^ http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp Before the case, for most of 2007, neither Actiontec nor Verizon made the sources for the FIOS router firmware avaialable. After the case, the sources are available from Actiontec. Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant. After the case ends: Defendant is still in violation of the GPL. After the case ends: Defendant still doesn't make GPL'd sources available. After the case ends: Defendant can now violate alleged plaintiffs' copyrights in Busybox with impunity due to dismissal WITH PREJUDICE against plaintiffs. What a great victory for the GPL and plaintiffs. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp http://opensource.actiontec.com/ Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant. After the case ends: Defendant is still in violation of the GPL. After the case ends: Defendant still doesn't make GPL'd sources available. After the case ends: Defendant can now violate alleged plaintiffs' copyrights in Busybox with impunity due to dismissal WITH PREJUDICE against plaintiffs. What a great victory for the GPL and plaintiffs. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant. Verizon is the visible face for FIOS, so the suit was launched against them. I assume that in the process of discovering where things came from, the plaintiffs decided that since Verizon is redistributing Actiontec's routers, it would be sufficient for them if Actiontec would provide the GPLed sources (which they were not doing for most of 2007) rather than Verizon. It's quite possible that because of they way Verizon distributes the routers and firmware that they are in fact not subject to the GPL, because they resell the routers and serve the firmware through an Actiontec gateway. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant. Verizon is the visible face for FIOS, so the suit was launched against them. I assume that in the process of discovering where things came from, the plaintiffs decided that since Verizon is redistributing Actiontec's routers, it would be sufficient for them if Actiontec would provide the GPLed sources (which they were not doing for most of 2007) rather than Verizon. It's quite possible that because of they way Verizon distributes the routers and firmware that they are in fact not subject to the GPL, because they resell the routers and serve the firmware through an Actiontec gateway. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow a district court to review the terms of their preempted, unenforceable GPL license on the merits. The fat revenue stream from charitable funds flowing into SFLC's attorneys' pockets would suddenly cease if their one of their crackpot complaints was ever reviewed by the court. The SFLC would actually be a even more profitable business if the GPL was unenforacble, they would sue anyone who distributes GPL software, since if the license is indeed invalid, you fall back on default copyright law, which is very restrictive. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp http://opensource.actiontec.com/ Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant. After the case ends: Defendant is still in violation of the GPL. After the case ends: Defendant still doesn't make GPL'd sources available. The GPL requirement is: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, [Third option deleted as it is only relevant to noncommercial distribution] I don't see how you can tell if they are satisfying 3(b) or not without actually obtaining one of the routers from Verizon and seeing if it is accompanied with a written offer to provide the source. If it is, there is nothing that says that if they choose to distribute by the web, it has to be from a verizon.com web site. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow a district court to review the terms of their preempted, unenforceable GPL license on the merits. The fat revenue stream from charitable funds flowing into SFLC's attorneys' pockets would suddenly cease if their one of their crackpot complaints was ever reviewed by the court. The SFLC would actually be a even more profitable business if the GPL was unenforacble, they would sue anyone who distributes GPL software, since if the license is indeed invalid, you fall back on default copyright law, which is very restrictive. Dear Alfred, May I suggest that you google [ promissory estoppel detrimental reliance ]? Sincerely, Rjack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't see how you can tell if they are satisfying 3(b) or not without actually obtaining one of the routers from Verizon and seeing if it is accompanied with a written offer to provide the source. If it is, there is nothing that says that if they choose to distribute by the web, it has to be from a verizon.com web site. Generally, a settlement reflects a compromise, not a complete defeat for some party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_to_YES#Invent_options_for_mutual_gain -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Tim Smith wrote: [...] I don't see how you can tell if they are satisfying 3(b) or not without actually obtaining one of the routers from Verizon and seeing if it is accompanied with a written offer to provide the source. If it is, there is nothing that says that if they choose to distribute by the web, it has to be from a verizon.com web site. I've obtained a copy of 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt from http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp and can confirm that this transaction yielded no written offer to provide the source whatsoever. Go try it yourself. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: How could one possibly make an online distribution server being responsible for files delivery fall outside the scope of exclusive rights Downloading from anywhere can cause pieces of a file to get copied from one computer to another before they reach you. Why doesn't that fall outside the scope of exclusive rights? I imagine it's just inherent in the properties of digital objects and network transmissions. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Here's breaking news: invalid means that your invalid *demands* (not permissions) are void, and the rest is just fine. In your dreams. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
rjack wrote: [ promissory estoppel detrimental reliance ]? That's why it's good to have a nice clear license like the GPL. No on reading the GPL can have any doubt about what the license intends. Certainly cranks, crackpots, and code grabbers might not want to abide by the license or believe that its requirements have teeth, but they cannot plausibly claim to have received a promise that is not being honored. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: I've obtained a copy of 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt from http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp and can confirm that this transaction yielded no written offer to provide the source whatsoever. Go try it yourself. Have you installed the firmware on your router? Perhaps in the unpacked file system that results, you can find the offer. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Here's breaking news: invalid means that your invalid *demands* (not permissions) are void, and the rest is just fine. In your dreams. Care to elaborate, Hyman? Suppose... Example: (A contract) I (Hyman Rosen) hereby rent my apartment to YOU (Alexander Terekhov) under condition that YOU (Alexander Terekhov) will build a heroin factory in it and pay me (Hyman Rosen) 10% of your profits. I (Alexander Terekhov) accept your offer and then breach the contract. What's next, Hyman? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: I've obtained a copy of 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt from http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp and can confirm that this transaction yielded no written offer to provide the source whatsoever. Go try it yourself. Have you installed the firmware on your router? Perhaps in the unpacked file system that results, you can find the offer. Have you? Did you find the offer? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: How could one possibly make an online distribution server being responsible for files delivery fall outside the scope of exclusive rights Downloading from anywhere can cause pieces of a file to get copied from one computer to another before they reach you. Why doesn't that fall outside the scope of exclusive rights? I imagine it's just inherent in the properties of digital objects and network transmissions. Hypothetical: Party X puts a file up on a publicly accessible server and makes its location known. (For example, X puts it on their HTTP server, with a link from the front page to the download). Party Y downloads the file. The result is a copy of the file on Y's hard disk. Question: Who made that copy and/or distributed that copy? X or Y? Either answer has some problematic implications. Suppose it is Y that counts as having made that copy. First of all, this is certainly going to annoy the big media companies. It would mean that people who happen to store their music and movie files on their server, where others happen to download them, are not making copies. While some might like this answer, just because it annoys the big media companies, it would have the same problem for GPL software. Someone could put a binary up on a server, and say that since they aren't the one copying and distributing it--that's the downloaders--they have no GPL obligation to provide source. So, saying Y is the one doing the copying and distributing is not going to make copyright holders happy, whether they are big media companies, or free software developers. How about the other possibility. X is the one making and distributing the copy. That works out better for the media companies. File sharers, at least, whose shared files are actually downloaded, will be liable. But it only partly resolves the problem for free software. If I take some GPL software that I do not own the copyright for, and put it on my server, then all is well. I'm the one copying and distributing when people grab it from my server, so I have to follow GPL. We are all happy now, right? Right...except notice that this is only where I am not the copyright holder. Suppose the copyright holder puts their own free software up on their server? In other words, X is the copyright holder. Y downloads it. Y has not made a copy. Y has not distributed the software. Y has not done *anything* that requires copyright permission. But many free software licenses (including GPL) are based upon the recipient needing copyright permission to obtain the copy. If the answer to my question is that X is doing the copying and distributing, that is not going to make free software makers happy. I think the answer we'd need to make everyone happy is for X to be doing the distributing and Y to be doing the copying. That would make big media happy, because then both the sharer and the downloader are infringing copyright. It would make free software software makers happy, because the downloaders will need copyright permission, and so have to accept the free software license. I haven't thought deeply about this, but my first impression is that this should be addressed legislatively. The copyright laws should be amended to say that: 1. Making a file available on a download server (including P2P servers) counts as a distribution of the file to those who normally have access to the server for receiving files, and 2. Downloading a file from a server counts as the downloader making a copy. Alternatively, perhaps the right to make a file available via download, and the right to download the file from a given server, should be new exclusive rights, in addition to the current copyright exclusive rights (copying, making derivative works, distribution, displaying, and performing). -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: What's next, Hyman? I kick you out of the apartment, you go running to a judge whining about promissory estoppel, and he laughs at you. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: What's next, Hyman? I kick you out of the apartment, you go running to a judge whining about promissory estoppel, and he laughs at you. Suppose that my wife is a police officer. Forget kicking me out of your apartment. You might not survive that act. What's next, Hyman? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Tim Smith wrote: Who made that copy and/or distributed that copy? X or Y? This is at the heart of the making available suits. See http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/making-available-distribution-says-court-london-sire-v-doe. Either answer has some problematic implications. That's what always happens when humans try to force their desires on a universe that doesn't care. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Have you? Did you find the offer? I don't have FIOS - I live in an apartment building in NYC and Verizon isn't offering it to me yet. One day - I use Verizon for DSL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: What's next, Hyman? We get filmed for an episode of COPS. Or maybe Reno 911. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: What's next, Hyman? I kick you out of the apartment, you go running to a judge whining about promissory estoppel, and he laughs at you. Suppose that my wife is a police officer. Forget kicking me out of your apartment. You might not survive that act. What's next, Hyman? That one's easy. Suppose that his wife is a three-headed fire-breathing dragon. You are toast. I mean, while we are in the who can come up with the silliest irrelevant hypothetical contest, this entry seems as good as any. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
David Kastrup wrote: [...] I mean, while we are in the who can come up with the silliest irrelevant hypothetical contest, this entry seems as good as any. No. We are in enforcing invalid license contracts episode. You seem to suggest that it would require a three-headed fire-breathing dragon. That doesn't sound good or assuring for the GPL, GNUtian dak. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: I've obtained a copy of 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt from http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp and can confirm that this transaction yielded no written offer to provide the source whatsoever. Go try it yourself. Have you installed the firmware on your router? Perhaps in the unpacked file system that results, you can find the offer. At the risk of being overly picky, would that count? That requirement is that the written offer accompany the distribution. The file format does not appear to be any of the common archive formats, so there doesn't appear to be any reasonable way for most people to unpack it. Apparently, some Linksys routers also use .rmt files for firmware, and I did find one page where someone described a bit of the format, based on reverse engineering. Assuming that both routers are using the same .rmt format, it appears that there is a gzip'ed image of an ext2 filesystem inside. However, if I take Actiontec's .rmt file, and find every place inside it that has the right signature to be gzip'ed data, and start trying to gunzip from there, it fails. The data at all those locations reports various errors that indicate invalid gzip data. This, I would say that IF there is a written notice in there, it does not accompany the distribution of the GPL software--it is *part* of the distribution. To accompany, I'd say it has to either be a separate file that comes with the GPL file(s), or it has to be bundle with the GPL file(s) in an archive format that is reasonably common (zip, tarball, etc). -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
thufir wrote: The buyer is the guy who walks in off the street and purchases the router (which run GPL'ed software)? To my understanding, the buyer does have the right, under the GPL, to the source. After, the GPL is targeted, you could say, at buyers to protect copyright owners. That depends on how the seller of the routers acquired them. If he buys them from the manufacturer, he can sell them to the guy in the street, and that buyer has no one from whom he can demand the source, because first sale doctrine allows the seller to sell the included software without a license. The buyer of the router still has full rights under the GPL, so, for example, he could decompile the software, change it, redistribute it, and so forth. But there is no one who must provide source code to him. If no buyer has rights to the source, then that would make the GPL pointless, which, I suppose is your argument? It's not that the buyer has no rights to the source, it's that no one in this case has an obligation to provide it to him. That seems backwards in that, for example, the copyright holder might be dead, and lets say has no heirs and no will. That's just the way it is. Old but still copyrighted works languish all over the place. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] espoused: On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:01:14 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: No. Whomever distributes the software is on the hook for providing the source. You can force people to walk the chain all the way back to the manufacturer, but they are still ultimately on the hook for using someone elses work without proper authorization. But, if you've just got a router sitting in your window which you purchased on e-bay and are reselling, surely you, retailer, are not on the hook? Just the manufacturer, I'd think. That's not my understanding. The GPL is reasonably clear on this, if you distribute the software in binary form, such as on flash in a router, then you must also make the source available to anyone who wants it. I suppose it's just possible you could negotiate with your customer to accept it from a third party, but that hasn't been good enough in several cases in the past. -- | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk | | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ | | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/| | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! | ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A settlement is a private agreement between parties, and it can be as formal or informal as they want. In any case, there is no reason that the fine details need to be made public, and the general tendency of lawyers is to keep things quiet, because what you don't say can't hurt you. Your essential argument is that although they are hiding the actual settlement, they are not hiding anything within it. To me, this argument seems logically absurd, especially because the settlement in question intends to further the cause of open source software. The SFLC is not just one more typical private party making private agreements -- it's a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization with protection and advancement of free and open source software as its goal. Lawyers hide information when they think doing so will benefit their client. They yell loudly over rooftops (which they often do -- just look at recent contoversies in the news or via news.google.com) when they think doing so will benefit their client. In this case, some lawyer thinks that hiding the settlement details will benefit his client. We just don't know which lawyer and which client. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Your essential argument is that although they are hiding the actual settlement, they are not hiding anything within it. No. They are hiding the exact monetary amounts involved, for example, and there may be other things as well. We know only what both sides have agreed should be made public. One of those things is that the defendants have agreed to comply with the GPL, which is the goal of the SFLC. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
ROFL! Yet another delay (07/16/2008 3 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 7/14/08) AND blog announcement of yet another settlement. (from PACER... final order is not yet available on PACER as of 07/24/2008 13:55:26 ET) -- U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-05269-RMB Andersen et al v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Richard M. Berman Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement Date Filed: 06/09/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintiff Erik Andersen an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson Software Freedom Law Center, Inc 1995 Broadway 17th Floor New York, NY 10023 (212) 461-1911 Fax: (212) 580-0898 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Daniel Ben Ravicher Software Freedom Law Center, Inc 1995 Broadway 17th Floor New York, NY 10023 (212) 580-0800 Fax: (212) 580-0898 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Rob Landley an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Daniel Ben Ravicher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Defendant Super Micro Computer, Inc. a Delaware Corporation Date Filed # Docket Text 06/09/2008 1 COMPLAINT against Super Micro Computer, Inc.. (Filing Fee $ 350.00.)Document filed by Erik Andersen, Rob Landley.(mbe) (mbe). (Entered: 06/12/2008) 06/09/2008 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Super Micro Computer, Inc.. (mbe) (Entered: 06/12/2008) 06/09/2008 Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman is so designated. (mbe) (Entered: 06/12/2008) 06/09/2008 Case Designated ECF. (mbe) (Entered: 06/12/2008) 06/12/2008 ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO E-MAIL PDF. Note to Attorney for noncompliance with Section (3) of the S.D.N.Y. 3rd Amended Instructions For Filing An Electronic Case or Appeal and Section 1(d) of the S.D.N.Y. Procedures For Electronic Case Filing. E-MAIL the PDF for Document 1 Complaint to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mbe) (Entered: 06/12/2008) 07/14/2008 2 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Super Micro Computer, Inc. served on 6/27/2008, answer due 7/17/2008. Service was accepted by Bob Aeshliman, General Counsel. Document filed by Erik Andersen; Rob Landley. (Williamson, Aaron) (Entered: 07/14/2008) 07/16/2008 3 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 7/14/08 re: Plaintiffs request an adjournment of the pre-trial conference currently scheduled for July 17, 2008, at 9:15 a.m. to on or after August 1, 2008. ENDORSEMENT: Conference adjourned to 8/20/08 at 9:15 a.m. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/16/08) (js) (Entered: 07/16/2008) PACER Service Center -- http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jul/23/busybox-supermicro/ -- July 23, 2008 BusyBox Developers and Supermicro Agree to End GPL Lawsuit Good Faith Discussions Result in Dismissal of Copyright Infringement Case The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that an agreement has been reached to dismiss the GNU General Public License (GPL) enforcement lawsuit filed by SFLC against Super Micro Computer, Inc. on behalf of two principal developers of BusyBox. BusyBox is a lightweight set of standard Unix utilities commonly used in embedded systems and is open source software licensed under GPL version 2. One of the conditions of the GPL is that re-distributors of BusyBox are required to ensure that each downstream recipient is provided access to the source code of the program. Supermicro distributes BusyBox in its AOC-SIM1U+ IPMI 2.0 System Management Card and via its Web site. As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and offering to reinstate Supermicro's rights to distribute BusyBox under the GPL, Supermicro has agreed to appoint an Open Source Compliance Officer within its organization to monitor and ensure GPL compliance, to publish the complete and corresponding source code for the version of BusyBox it previously distributed, and to undertake substantial efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox from Supermicro of their rights to the software under the GPL. The settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of financial consideration to compensate the plaintiffs. We are pleased that the parties can put this matter behind them and that Supermicro has taken measures to avoid future GPL violations, said Aaron Williamson, SFLC Counsel. The lawsuit, Erik Andersen and Rob Landley v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. case number 1:08-cv-05269-RMB, was filed June 9, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. -- regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rahul Dhesi wrote: Your essential argument is that although they are hiding the actual settlement, they are not hiding anything within it. No. They are hiding the exact monetary amounts involved, for example, and there may be other things as well. We know only what both sides have agreed should be made public. One of those things is that the defendants have agreed to comply with the GPL, which is the goal of the SFLC. So we agree that they have something to hide. And you seem to be contradicting yourself, sometimes arguing they have nothing to hide, sometimes conceding that they do. There may be good reasons to hide the monetary amount. If it's large (e.g., SFLC gets $10 million), it makes the defendant look bad (akin to admitting wrong-doing) and may also make the SFLC look bad (greedy). If it's small (e.g., SFLC gets $50), if makes the SFLC look bad (it means the defendant essentially got away with wrong-doing and lost nothing when caught. But they could have redacted the amount and published the rest. There must be more -- enough that a few redactions would not suffice. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rahul Dhesi wrote: Your essential argument is that although they are hiding the actual settlement, they are not hiding anything within it. No. They are hiding the exact monetary amounts involved, for example, and there may be other things as well. We know only what both sides have agreed should be made public. One of those things is that the defendants have agreed to comply with the GPL, which is the goal of the SFLC. So we agree that they have something to hide. And you seem to be contradicting yourself, sometimes arguing they have nothing to hide, sometimes conceding that they do. There may be good reasons to hide the monetary amount. If it's large (e.g., SFLC gets $10 million), it makes the defendant look bad (akin to admitting wrong-doing) and may also make the SFLC look bad (greedy). If it's small (e.g., SFLC gets $50), if makes the SFLC look bad (it means the defendant essentially got away with wrong-doing and lost nothing when caught. You seem to overlook the case of monetary amount being negative to Busybox. I mean negative as in you [Busybox] don't have to pay our [Supermicro] attorneys' fees in the amount of $... except mandatory nominal damages in the amount of $1. Why not? That is a valid consideration to compensate Busybox developers to settle. http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/01/section-411a-bites-plaintiff-twice.html - The builder again moved to dismiss; the court granted the motion, holding that the relevant jurisdictional fact, which cannot be changed by amending the complaint, is that registration of the copyright had not been made when the complaint was originally filed. Plaintiff then re-filed its complaint; the builder moved to dismissal under FRCP 41(a). The court denied the motion, but sua sponte ordered plaintiff to pay attorneys fees in connection with the prior two dismissals, and to really show its pique stayed the proceedings until the fees were paid up. That was just the beginning of the mess, though, as years of litigation over motions for reconsideration, summary judgment, and appeal to the Seventh Circuit occurred. Ultimately, another $75,000 in fees were awarded in connection with the motion for summary judgment and the appeal. One cannot but wonder whether the final award was influenced by the 411(a) fiasco. - http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/lds/19991112mem.htm --- Registration of copyright in the work that is allegedly infringed is a jurisdictional requirement. 17 U.S.C. § 411. Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195, 1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)(Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) as well as its predecessor, § 13, it has been held repeatedly that ownership of a copyright registration is a jurisidictional prerequisite to an action for infringement. . . . A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective and subject to dismissal.); Grundberg v. The Upjohn Company, 137 F.R.D. 372, 382; 19 U.S.P.Q. 1590 (D. Ut. 1991). Lacking even an allegation of registration of copyright ... this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction. --- regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Yet another delay (07/16/2008 3 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 7/14/08) AND blog announcement of yet another settlement. Exactly as I said would happen. There's no need for scare quotes around the word. The settlement involves the defendant making the GPLed sources available, just as they should. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Rahul Dhesi wrote: So we agree... I really have no idea what you're getting at. The SFLC sues for GPL violations, they settle, the defendants agree to comply with the GPL and try to make good their previous violations, and some money changes hands. Your interest in knowing every last detail of the settlement doesn't obligate anyone to tell them to you. It's completely routine for various details of a settlement not be made public. You can believe that vast and nefarious secrets are being concealed, but I expect most people would take these settlements at face value. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: You seem to overlook the case of monetary amount being negative to Busybox. That could be true. Perhaps Busybox and the SFLC are so eager to enforce GPL compliance that they don't mind paying a little bit of money to help it along. But I doubt it. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] (3) suit ends, (4) GPLed sources made available. That's what I've just visited http://www.supermicro.com/ and entered GPL in Home Contact Us Advanced Search field. Clicking on Search button yielded - Supermicro Search Results Home Contact Us Advanced Search We are sorry. Your search yielded zero results. Please go back and try again. -- Do you have a link, Hyman? (I've also tried GNU in Home Contact Us Advanced Search to no avail.) regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Do you have a link, Hyman? ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/GPL/ TFTP Listing of /GPL/ at ftp.supermicro.com Parent Directory Jul 08 2008 12:02 74165878 ipmi_ppc_opensrc.tgz Jul 17 2008 11:1710212 lib_smc_usb_lcd_linux.tgz Brand spanking new files. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:45:15 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: I don't see why their participation is required, it's between the buyer and the manufacturer. No. The buyer has no rights derived from copyright law since he is not the copyright owner. The buyer is the guy who walks in off the street and purchases the router (which run GPL'ed software)? To my understanding, the buyer does have the right, under the GPL, to the source. No. The copyright owner has the right to demand that the buyer gets the source. The buyer does not have this right. If I pay at a merry-go-round for a ride of my child, the child does not get the right to demand a ride. _I_ get the right to demand that it gets a ride. After, the GPL is targeted, you could say, at buyers to protect copyright owners. The GPL is targeted at _effectively_ providing the buyers of software with certain rights. But it has to go via the copyright holder: Your honor, software buyers should have the right to... Richard, try to be coherent. You can't use software buyers and right in the same sentence in that way. Your honor, as a software author I should have the right to... Granted. I just _love_ how right those words sound. Yes, but it is not the customer who can enforce this. The manufacturer has an obligation to the copyright owner to make the source available to his customers. That seems backwards in that, for example, the copyright holder might be dead, and lets say has no heirs and no will. Tough. Get your copy before it is too late. For example, there are people who take GPLed software, extend it, and rerelease under the GPL in order to follow their obligations, but don't give shit about the GPL or adherence to it regarding their own software. Now if someone lifts only their contribution from the GPL-licensed software and sells you proprietary binaries without the source, you are screwed. _You_ are not in a position to demand source, and the copyright owner, the _only_ one to make demands, can't be bothered. If you can't get him interested to take this up, you are plain out of options. Because you are the software buyer. See above. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But as usual, we have (1) GPL violation, (2) SFLC files suit, (3) suit ends, (4) GPLed sources made available. That's what GPL enforcement is all about. The SFLC says it differently. Their GPL enforcement always seeks some sort of penalty for the offender that goes far beyond simply making GPL sources available. Otherwise future defendants would have no incentive to not violate the GPL in the first place. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No. The copyright owner has the right to demand that the buyer gets the source. The buyer does not have this right. If I pay at a merry-go-round for a ride of my child, the child does not get the right to demand a ride. _I_ get the right to demand that it gets a ride. Not a good analogy. The child as beneficiary to a contract could almost certainly enforce it. (Although, of course, it would have to find some other parent or guardian to represent it in court, if you failed to do so yourself.) -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Do you have a link, Hyman? ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/GPL/ TFTP Listing of /GPL/ at ftp.supermicro.com Parent Directory Jul 08 2008 12:02 74165878 ipmi_ppc_opensrc.tgz Jul 17 2008 11:1710212 lib_smc_usb_lcd_linux.tgz Brand spanking new files. :-) How did you get that link, Hyman? regards, alexander. (still downloading...) -- 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: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: How did you get that link, Hyman? I wen to http://www.supermicro.com, used the menu to click on Support/Downloads and noticed the link Supermicro FTP Site under Additional Resources. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: How did you get that link, Hyman? I wen to http://www.supermicro.com, used the menu to click on Support/Downloads and noticed the link Supermicro FTP Site under Additional Resources. Now please go out of home and ask 100 guys on the street what does FTP Site (short of GPL) mean. Please let me know about your findings in this respect. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:38:38 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: How did you get that link, Hyman? I wen to http://www.supermicro.com, used the menu to click on Support/Downloads and noticed the link Supermicro FTP Site under Additional Resources. Now please go out of home and ask 100 guys on the street what does FTP Site (short of GPL) mean. Please let me know about your findings in this respect. regards, alexander. Then ask them what HTML and HTTP mean as well. Good luck with either one. ;-) The good news: the link is ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/, and browsers do understand this link. Firefox in particular shows a nicely formatted, if rather large and somewhat disorganized, list of directories. The bad news: Uh...where is that thing I'm looking for, again? :-) -- #191, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Q: Why is my computer doing that? A: Don't do that and you'll be fine. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Now please go out of home and ask 100 guys on the street what does FTP Site (short of GPL) mean. 100 guys on the street, or a hundred guys on the street who have an interest in the source code? Of the latter, all of them know what an FTP site is. In any case, I didn't do any more searching to see if there's a better access route. But it didn't take me more than a few seconds to find this one. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rahul Dhesi) wrote: The SFLC says it differently. Their GPL enforcement always seeks some sort of penalty for the offender that goes far beyond simply making GPL sources available. Otherwise future defendants would have no incentive to not violate the GPL in the first place. Note that if the settlement is secret, it doesn't provide very much incentive. So, it seems unlikely that the SFLC would want to keep settlements secret. How about the defendants? Haven't many of them been public companies? A large settlement would show up in their public financial records, so isn't going to stay secret for long. Thus, I doubt they are going to worry too much about keeping it secret from the start. Thus, I suspect that the settlements are for little or no cash. Plaintiff may talk about large potential damages (statutory damages for bad faith infringement could get rather staggering rather fast...) to make the defendant come to their senses, but I don't think anyone would agree to that in settlement. (I'm assuming statutory damages would be available, because I'm assuming the copyrights have been registered. I can't find that registration, but I don't claim to be a good copyright registration searcher. I assume they have been registered, because if not, every defendant so far would have filed an answer to the complaint pointing that out, and the court would have immediately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The first time, the court would have been amused at the plaintiff overlooking such a basic thing. But aren't they filling subsequent suits in the same court? The court is not going to be amused the second time the same plaintiff brings forth essentially the same case with the same flaw. We'd be seeing sanctions by now, probably. Thus, I infer that the copyrights must be registered). -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
JEDIDIAH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2008-07-22, Rahul Dhesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I guess that the plaintiffs decided that having the manufacturer of the routers comply with the GPL was good enough for them, because it would be difficult to explain in court that Verizon was not complying with the GPL given this availability. But that's just a guess. If it's an action tek router, sold to an importer exporter, and then to another middleman, and then to a retailer, to whom do you go for the source code? presumably, just action tek. I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the buyer of the router, the right to get source code from somewhere. I don't think it does. THAT is EXACTLY what the GPL provides for. Yes, but it is not a right of the buyer, but a right of the copyright owner that this happens. So the buyer can't sue, he can just notify the copyright owner. If the copyright owner can't be bothered, the buyer is pretty much out of options. That is the reason that the FSF wants copyright assignments to contributions for important GNU software. All is does is require everybody distributing the router to others to also give recipients the source code, which is not quite the same thing as giving you the right to demand it. So where would you get the source code? From anywhere where it's available. No. Whomever distributes the software is on the hook for providing the source. Quite so. But the line to the hook is held by the author, not the buyer. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: rjack wrote: The trouble is you can't write a copyright license that controls all third parties as long as they follow the GPL. Congress specifically forbid this situation with 17 USC sec. 301. That's the federal preemption clause. What does that have to do with anything? Who says anything about controlling anyone? The distributor is licensing the code to all third parties under the terms of the GPL. Uh no. Third parties are not involved. Only recipients. In GPLv2, there was a clause that you could replace source code with a written offer to source code, and this offer had to be valid for any third party (namely, any downstream recipients) and had to be passed on to any such third party. That was a very specific circumstance and only made third parties involved when you _used_ that option. GPLv3 contains no such option AFAICS. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rahul Dhesi wrote: I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the buyer of the router, the right to get source code from somewhere. It does, unless the chain of GPL licensing is somehow broken, perhaps through the use of the First Sale Doctrine. No, it doesn't. It gives the buyer the possibility to notify the copyright holder, because the copyright holder (and nobody else) has the right to enforce the form of distribution. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:01:14 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: No. Whomever distributes the software is on the hook for providing the source. You can force people to walk the chain all the way back to the manufacturer, but they are still ultimately on the hook for using someone elses work without proper authorization. But, if you've just got a router sitting in your window which you purchased on e-bay and are reselling, surely you, retailer, are not on the hook? Just the manufacturer, I'd think. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uh no. Third parties are not involved. Only recipients. In GPLv2, there was a clause that you could replace source code with a written offer to source code, and this offer had to be valid for any third party (namely, any downstream recipients) and had to be passed on to any such third party. That was a very specific circumstance and only made third parties involved when you _used_ that option. GPLv3 contains no such option AFAICS. Take a look at section 6b of GPLv3. It's similar to 3b of GPLv2, with the notable difference that it is only for the case where you distribute the object code on a physical medium. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff: http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx So when did this page appear? And do they actually honor So once again you want me to prove something? The latest (as of now) google's cached version is of 5 Jul 2008 05:33:37 GMT. Go check it yourself. http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx To download a printable version, click here. Clicking there yields: http://www.extremenetworks.com/libraries/services/OpenSourceLicensesExtremeXOS.pdf That PDF is dated May 14, 2008. Interestingly enough it predates June 25, 2008: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jul/21/busybox/extreme-networks.pdf -- 17. On March 12, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs sent Defendant their requirements for settling the dispute, which included that Defendant: comply with the License; appoint an Open Source Compliance Officer; notify prior recipients of infinging products of their rights under the License; and compensate Plaintiffs. 18. On June 25, 2008, after a series of communications between the parties regarding other of Plaintiffs requirements for settlement, Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiffs. 19. On June 26, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs again notified Defendant that its continued distribution of the Program was in violation of the License and an infringement of Plaintiffs copyrights. Plaintiffs counsel requested a call to discuss the matter further. 20. Defendant has not responded to Plaintiffs June 26 notice, and continues to distribute the Infringing Products and Firmware in violation of Plaintiffs exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. -- Hey Hyman, what do you think about all that? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
