subject:"Re\: Settlements"

RJack u...@example.net writes:

 David Kastrup wrote:

 Well since the unlicensed use conflicts with the exclusive rights to
 copy and modification without a license, there we are.


 You can deem terms in a license whatever you want -- the pen is in your
 hand. You can call a contractual covenant a condition until you turn
 blue in the face but it won't magically make it a condition or scope
 of use restriction.

Its not a scope of use restriction because the scope of use is not
restricted but extended.  The conditions for the extension are spelled
out.  If you don't meet them, you are back to the normal usage rights
under copyright law.

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

Copying and modification without license conflicts with the specific
exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute.

 The only two legal mechanisms in a copyright license that can cause a
 use to conflict with an exclusive right are a scope of use
 restriction or an unsatisfied condition precedent.

The GPL and related free software licenses don't introduce any conflicts
with exclusive rights.  They _lift_ some usage constraints that would,
without a license, constitute a conflict with exclusive rights.  There
are conditions under which these additional permissions otherwise
prohibited by the exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute
are given.

All your silly word games don't change that.

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

Re: Settlements

2010-03-02 Thread Hyman Rosen


On 3/1/2010 9:53 PM, RJack wrote:
 Copying and distribution are

*expressly* permitted by the Artistic license with neither scope of use
restriction nor condition precedent to limit the licensed rights


No, that's wrong according to CAFC:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to
protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public
license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and distribute
the computer programs and files included in the downloadable software
package.

It doesn't matter how much you hate and disagree with this decision.
In the battle of crank vs. court, court always wins.

 When did you finally realize that

simply using a phrase like provided that cannot magically turn a
contractual covenant into a scope of use restriction or condition
precedent?


Sorry, but according to CAFC, that's exactly what happens:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of
conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and
distribute are granted Aprovided that@ the conditions are met.
Under California contract law, provided that typically
denotes a condition.

It doesn't matter how much you hate and disagree with this decision.
In the battle of crank vs. court, court always wins.


The Supreme Court stated that fact with crystal clarity:
An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
copyright statute.


The only use here is copying and distribution, part of the exclusive
rights enumerated in 17 USC 106. Copying and distribution may only be
carried out by others with permission from the rights holders, and in
the case of the Artistic License and the GPL, such permission comes
only when conditions are adhered to. When those conditions are not met,
the copying and distribution will constitute infringement.

The CAFC has issued its decision. That decision stands regardless of
whether you believe it contradicts the SUpreme Court, until the Supreme
Court itself says otherwise. It doesn't matter how much you hate and
disagree with this decision. In the battle of crank vs. court, court
always wins.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements

2010-03-02 Thread Hyman Rosen


On 3/2/2010 8:35 AM, RJack wrote:

A U.S. appeals court can issue a ruling directly contradicting the U.S.
Supreme Court but it will only signify an appeals court in error


Until the Supreme Court itself says otherwise, the ruling of
the appeals court stands, regardless of how much you hate and
disagree with the decision. In the battle of crank vs. court,
court wins. Always.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements


Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
 Sorry, but according to CAFC, that's exactly what happens:
 http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
  The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of
  conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and
  distribute are granted Aprovided that@ the conditions are met.
  Under California contract law, provided that typically
  denotes a condition.

Under California contract law, provided that typically denotes a
condition. See, e.g., Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911)

The CAFC further ruled: 

The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the
open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes... 

How on earth can disclosure and explanation of changes come before (be
a condition precedent) to the license grant? 

As discussed by The Supreme Court of California, the term provided may
or may not indicate a condition, noting that there is no magic in the
term [provided], and the clause in a contract is to be construed from
the words employed and from the purpose of the parties, gathered from
the whole instrument. Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 115 P. 743, 744 (Cal. 1911)
(quoting Boston Safe Dep. and Trust Co. v. Thomas, 53 P. 472 (Kan. 1898)
(finding that, based on a reading of an entire provision, a clause
containing provided, that was not a condition)). 

It is undoubtedly true, as claimed by appellant, that stipulations in a
contract are not construed as conditions precedent unless that
construction is made necessary by the terms of the contract. ( Deacon v.
Blodget, 111 Cal. 418, [44 Pac. 159]; Antonelle v. Lumber Co., 140 Cal.
318, [73 Pac. 966].) There are also well considered cases holding that
provided does not necessarily impose a condition. In Hartung v. Witte,
59 Wis. 285, [18 N. W. 177], it is said: But the words, upon the
express condition, as here used, or the words if it shall so happen
or provided however and the like do not always make a condition, and
it is often a nice question to determine whether it is a condition or a
covenant and courts always construe similar clauses in a deed as
covenants rather than as conditions, if they can reasonably do so. (2
Washburn on Real Property, 4.) 

In Stanley v. Colt, 72 U.S. 119, [18 L. Ed. 502], it is declared that
The word provided though an appropriate word to constitute a common law
condition does not invariably and of necessity do so. On the contrary,
it may give way to the intent of the party as gathered from an
examination of the whole instrument, and be taken as expressing a
limitation in trust. 

Similarly in Woodruff v. Woodruff, 44 N. J. Eq. 353, [16 Atl. 6, 1 L.
R. A. 380], it is said: While the words provided nevertheless and
upon the following conditions are appropriate words to create a
condition, they do not of necessity create such an estate. They and
similar words, will give way when the intention of the grantor as
manifested by the whole deed, is otherwise, and they have frequently
been explained and applied as expressing simply a covenant or a
limitation in trust. 

Indeed, the decisions are uniform to the point that, while ordinarily
the word provided indicates that a condition follows, as expressed in
Boston S. and D. v. Thomas, 59 Kan. 470, [53 Pac. 472], there is no
magic in the term, and the clause in a contract is to be construed from
the words employed and from the purpose of the parties, gathered from
the whole instrument. 

The Restatement (Second) of Contracts Article 224 states:

Condition Defined:
A condition is an event, not certain to occur, which must occur, unless
its non-occurrence is excused, before performance under a contract
becomes due.

Obviously an event that depends on performance of a contract cannot
occur *before* performance of the contract becomes due. This result is
called an impossible condition in contract construction and is strictly
construed *against* the drafter.

The ruling of the CAFC reminds me of this limerick ridiculing the theory
of special relativity:

There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way
And returned the previous night!

 Arthur Reginald Buller

See also:

http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15939 

regards,
alexander.

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

Re: Settlements

2010-03-02 Thread Hyman Rosen


On 3/2/2010 10:16 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

How on earth...


Be sure to get back to me once the CAFC decision is reversed.

Meanwhile, the straightforward conditions of the AL, and the
GPL by extension, hold. Anyone wishing to avail themselves of
the permission to copy and distribute granted by those licenses
must follow the conditions of those licenses. If they copy and
distribute covered works without meeting the conditions of the
licenses, then they are infringing.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:

 Hyman Rosen wrote:
 [...]
 Sorry, but according to CAFC, that's exactly what happens:
 http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
  The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of
  conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and
  distribute are granted Aprovided that@ the conditions are met.
  Under California contract law, provided that typically
  denotes a condition.

 “Under California contract law, “provided that” typically denotes a
 condition. See, e.g., Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911)”

 The CAFC further ruled: 

 “The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the
 open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes...” 

 How on earth can “disclosure and explanation of changes” come before (be
 a condition precedent) to the license grant? 

Causality does not necessarily imply temporal order in the legal world,
because the legal _meaning_ of an act might sometimes be established
only at a later point of time.

Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft.  The
relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the
status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register.
Passing a cash register, however, is not what the law considers a crime.

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

Re: Settlements

Hey dak, a nice summary...

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
 
 David Kastrup wrote:
 [...]
  Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft.  The
  relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the
  status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register.
 
 Uh stupid dak. You're mistaken.
 
 http://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/forum_topic.asp?topic_id=37040

http://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/forum_topic.asp?topic_id=3567

Sehr geehrter Ratsuchender, 

wenn Sie den Supermarkt noch nicht verlassen haben, ist dies ein Indiz
dafür, dass Sie nur einen versuchten Diebstahl begangen haben, von dem
Sie noch strafbefreiend zurücktreten konnten. 

Allerdings kommt es für die Beurteilung auch auf die Größe der Ware an,
denn befand sich die Beute versteckt im Einkaufswagen, haben Sie den
Diebstahl nur versucht. 

Handelte es sich dagegen um sehr kleine Gegenstände, die Sie in der
Jacke versteckt hatten, dann liegt ein vollendeter Diebstahl vor. Von
diesem ist ein Rücktritt nicht möglich. 

Sie sehen, dass es bei der rechtlichen Beurteilung auf die sehr genaue
Kenntnis des Sachverhalts ankommt. 

Insgesamt haben Sie sich erst einmal mit Ihrem Schreiben an den
Supermarkt richtig verhalten. Sie können auch ersteinmal eine mögliche
Vorladung der Polizei abwarten. Das würde sich nicht nachteilig für Sie
auswirken. Insgesamt rate ich Ihnen zu einem anwaltlichen Beistand.
Gerne stehe ich Ihnen hierfür zur Verfügung. 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen 

Marcus Alexander Glatzel 
Rechtsanwalt 

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:

 David Kastrup wrote:
 [...]
 Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft.  The
 relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the
 status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register.

 Uh stupid dak. You're mistaken.

 http://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/forum_topic.asp?topic_id=37040

We have other actions establishing the intent of the persons here.  But
anyway, you'll notice that only the Anwalt talks about complete theft,
while the only relevant opinion is that of the court, and the court does
not talk about theft in its description of the complaint, but the
taking of a non-own moveable object from somebody else with the intent
of making it his own against the law.

And the Anwalt is not exactly acting without self-interest, as he
writes: Ich stehe Ihrem Sohn natürlich jederzeit für seine Verteidigung
zur Verfügung., offering to defend the purportive thief for a fee.  So
he has an interest in making the incident appear worse than it is.

So you manage, again, to dig up a quote that does not actually help your
argument.

I have actually once had an attempt of an interview by a detective that
had imagined me to have pocketed a can of nuts (I had taken a look at
its prize tag, decided that it was overprized and put it back).  The
detective waited until after I had passed the cash register.  Not his
lucky day I guess because me blowing my top was likely not all too well
for keeping a low profile.

But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of
knowing whether I had merely been employing my pocket because I was
running out of space in my hands or because I intended to steal
something.

That detective obviously knew that.  And the court on that page you cite
obviously knew it as well which is why he does not talk about theft but
something quite more iffish.

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

Re: Settlements


David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
 Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft.  The
 relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the
 status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register.

Uh stupid dak. You're mistaken.

http://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/forum_topic.asp?topic_id=37040

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements


David Kastrup wrote:
 
 Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
 
  David Kastrup wrote:
  [...]
  Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft.  The
  relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the
  status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register.
 
  Uh stupid dak. You're mistaken.
 
  http://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/forum_topic.asp?topic_id=37040
 
 We have other actions establishing the intent of the persons here.  But
 anyway, you'll notice that only the Anwalt talks about complete theft,
 while the only relevant opinion is that of the court, and the court does
 not talk about theft in its description of the complaint, but the
 taking of a non-own moveable object from somebody else with the intent
 of making it his own against the law.

Uh moron dak.

http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/242.html

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

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:

 David Kastrup wrote:
 [...]
 But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of

 Uh retard dak.

Ah, your standard way of saying that you have run out of arguments
again.

 http://lawww.de/Library/242/loesung.html

Answers without questions?

Are you trying to beat your own track record of posting irrelevant
links?

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

Re: Settlements


David Kastrup wrote:
 
 Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
 
  David Kastrup wrote:
  [...]
  But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of
 
  Uh retard dak.
 
 Ah, your standard way of saying that you have run out of arguments
 again.
 
  http://lawww.de/Library/242/loesung.html
 
 Answers without questions?

Go to doctor dak.

http://www.ladendiebstahl.de/Strafgesetz.htm

Sobald ein Täter eine Ware in seine Kleidung oder in eine mitgeführte
Tasche gesteckt hat, ist sein Gewahrsam begründet und damit der
Diebstahl vollendet.

http://www.gutefrage.net/frage/ist-das-ladendiebstahl

Sobald ein Täter eine Ware in seine Kleidung oder in eine mitgeführte
Tasche gesteckt hat, ist sein Gewahrsam begründet und damit der
Diebstahl vollendet.

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:

 David Kastrup wrote:
 
 Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
 
  David Kastrup wrote:
  [...]
  But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of
 
  Uh retard dak.
 
 Ah, your standard way of saying that you have run out of arguments
 again.
 
  http://lawww.de/Library/242/loesung.html
 
 Answers without questions?

 Go to doctor dak.

 http://www.ladendiebstahl.de/Strafgesetz.htm

 Sobald ein Täter eine Ware in seine Kleidung oder in eine mitgeführte
 Tasche gesteckt hat, ist sein Gewahrsam begründet und damit der
 Diebstahl vollendet.

 http://www.gutefrage.net/frage/ist-das-ladendiebstahl

 Sobald ein Täter eine Ware in seine Kleidung oder in eine mitgeführte
 Tasche gesteckt hat, ist sein Gewahrsam begründet und damit der
 Diebstahl vollendet.

You are again citing a comment rather than the law.  And the particular
sentence makes little enough sense:

As soon as a perpetrator puts an item into his clothes or a carried
bag, his confinement is justified, and thus the theft is completed.

That's shaking the order and dependencies of the acts up rather
absurdly.

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

Re: Settlements


David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
 You are again citing a comment rather than the law.  And the particular
 sentence makes little enough sense:

You're incurable, stupid dak.

http://heinrich.rewi.hu-berlin.de/examinatorium/BT/Internet21.pdf

http://www.nomos-shop.de/_assets/downloads/Kindh%C3%A4user%20StGB%20BT2_%C2%A7%202%20Diebstahl.pdf

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements

2010-03-01 Thread David Kastrup

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:

On 2/27/2010 10:53 AM, John Hasler wrote:
innocent infringement

Innocent infringement occurs when you have reason to believe that
a work you are copying is not under copyright.

Or reason to believe you are in compliance with licensing conditions
(like when licensing conditions are ambiguous).

Having a copyright notice attached to the work defeats such a claim.

No, that has nothing to do with it. _Any_ copyrightable material _is_
copyrighted by default according to the Berne condition. Copyright
notices are not necessary. You need something substantial to be able to
assume not under copyright.

In fact, in a just-decided case
http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/maverick_harper_100225FifthCirDecis.pdf
the Fifth Circuit decided that the mere fact that songs were available
on CDs which carried copyright notices was sufficient to defeat such a
defense, whether or not the defendant ever actually saw them.

Because copyright is the default even in absence of copyright notices.
If copyright notices are merely absent, that does not make for an
assumption of must be public domain.

There has been some deadline in the 70s or so when things were the other
way round, so if you get hold of material definitely published before
that time by an _authorized_ publisher and without copyright notices,
you might be successful with that defense.

Other than that: slim chance.

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

Re: Settlements

2010-03-01 Thread RJack


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/26/2010 5:21 PM, RJack wrote:

Except the claimed conditions aren't conditions at all -- they're
contractual covenants.


http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to
protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public
license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and
distribute the computer programs and files included in the
downloadable software package.

Crank vs. court. Court wins.




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

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

Supreme Court vs. moron. Court wins.

ROFL

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

Re: Settlements

2010-03-01 Thread John Hasler

David Kastrup writes:
 There has been some deadline in the 70s or so when things were the
 other way round, so if you get hold of material definitely published
 before that time by an _authorized_ publisher and without copyright
 notices, you might be successful with that defense.

That's what got ATT on BSD Unix.

 Other than that: slim chance.

Which is what I said: You _might_ manage innocent infringement.  But, as
I noted, it would be pointless because you would still have to come into
compliance or cease distributing which is all that the SFLC demands
anyway.  Innocent infringement merely reduces the penalties.  It is not
a free pass for copyright infringement.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements

2010-03-01 Thread Hyman Rosen


On 3/1/2010 4:57 AM, David Kastrup wrote:

Hyman Rosenhyro...@mail.com  writes:

Having a copyright notice attached to the work defeats such a claim.

No, that has nothing to do with it.


Wrong. 17 USC 401(d) says:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#401
(d) Evidentiary Weight of Notice. — If a notice of copyright
in the form and position specified by this section appears on
the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright
infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to
such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent
infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages,
except as provided in the last sentence of section 504(c)(2).

(The exception isn't relevant here.) And the Fifth Circuit just
decided that had access means that a copy with copyright notice
exists and is generally available, and it is not necessary to show
that the defendant saw and was aware of such a notice, for the
innocent infringer defense to be disallowed.
http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/maverick_harper_100225FifthCirDecis.pdf
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements

2010-03-01 Thread Hyman Rosen


On 3/1/2010 7:45 AM, RJack wrote:

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


The infringing use is copying and distribution, exactly
as specified in the copyright statute.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements

2010-03-01 Thread RJack


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 3/1/2010 7:45 AM, RJack wrote:

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


The infringing use is copying and distribution, exactly as specified
in the copyright statute.


Sadly your apparent inability to understand the distinction between
the proposed use (scope restriction) and the enumerated exclusive
rights themselves leaves you appearing as ignorant as ever.

Neither copyright attributions nor licensing utilize the exclusive
rights in copyrighted source code and as a consequence of this fact, the
proposed uses cannot conflict with one of the specific exclusive rights
conferred by the copyright statute.

Both copyright attributions and copyright licenses are written in
plain English -- not model train source code. Your claims to the
contrary leave you looking utterly foolish. You should take more pride
in yourself.

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

Supreme Court vs. moron. Court wins.

ROFL

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

Re: Settlements

2010-03-01 Thread Hyman Rosen


On 3/1/2010 2:16 PM, RJack wrote:

Sadly your apparent inability to understand the distinction between
the proposed use (scope restriction) and the enumerated exclusive
rights themselves leaves you appearing as ignorant as ever.


The only use involved here is copying and distribution, which are
among the enumerated exclusive rights of the statute.


Neither copyright attributions nor licensing utilize the exclusive
rights in copyrighted source code


Correct but totally irrelevant, because the exclusive rights
which are being infringed is the right to copy and distribute.


and as a consequence of this fact, the
proposed uses cannot conflict with one of the specific exclusive rights
conferred by the copyright statute.


The only use involved here is copying and distribution, which are
among the enumerated exclusive rights of the statute.


Both copyright attributions and copyright licenses are written in
plain English -- not model train source code. Your claims to the
contrary leave you looking utterly foolish. You should take more pride
in yourself.


Model train source code is written in a mixture of computer
language and plain English. But that makes no difference
anyway. As a CONDITION for the USE of COPYING and DISTRIBUTION
the LICENSE requires ATTRIBUTION. Should the work be copied
and distributed otherwise, the conditions are violated and the
copier has no permission to copy and distribute the work, and
doing so is an infringement of the rights holder's exclusive
right to copy and distribute.


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


The only use involved here is copying and distribution, which are
among the enumerated exclusive rights of the statute.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements

2010-03-01 Thread RJack


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 3/1/2010 2:16 PM, RJack wrote:


The only use involved here is copying and distribution, which are 
among the enumerated exclusive rights of the statute.


You are finally seeing the light Hyman! Copying and distribution are
*expressly* permitted by the Artistic license with neither scope of use
restriction nor condition precedent to limit the licensed rights -- the
only contractual covenants such as promises to attribute and
licensing. Jacobsen's claims sound in breach of contract and not
copyright infringement.

I knew you'd get it sooner or later! When did you finally realize that
simply using a phrase like provided that cannot magically turn a
contractual covenant into a scope of use restriction or condition
precedent? The Supreme Court stated that fact with crystal clarity:

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

Supreme Court vs. moron. Court wins.

ROFL

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

Re: Settlements

2010-03-01 Thread David Kastrup

RJack u...@example.net writes:

 Hyman Rosen wrote:
 On 3/1/2010 2:16 PM, RJack wrote:

 The only use involved here is copying and distribution, which are
 among the enumerated exclusive rights of the statute.

 You are finally seeing the light Hyman! Copying and distribution are
 *expressly* permitted by the Artistic license with neither scope of use
 restriction nor condition precedent to limit the licensed rights -- the
 only contractual covenants such as promises to attribute and
 licensing.

Preamble

This license establishes the terms under which a given free software

Package may be copied, modified, distributed, and/or redistributed. The
^^^
intent is that the Copyright Holder maintains some artistic control over
the development of that Package while still keeping the Package
available as open source and free software.


Permissions for Redistribution of the Standard Version

(2) You may Distribute verbatim copies of the Source form of the
Standard Version of this Package in any medium without restriction,
either gratis or for a Distributor Fee, provided that you duplicate
^^^
all of the original copyright notices and associated disclaimers. At
^
your discretion, such verbatim copies may or may not include a
Compiled form of the Package.


And so forth and so on.  Your with neither scope of use restriction nor
condition precedent can't be called much more than a desperate lie.

 I knew you'd get it sooner or later! When did you finally realize that
 simply using a phrase like provided that cannot magically turn a
 contractual covenant into a scope of use restriction or condition
 precedent?

There is no contract to which two parties agreed (where is the
signature?  Where an act of contract forming?), so we can't claim a
contractual covenant.

 The Supreme Court stated that fact with crystal clarity:

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

Well since the unlicensed use conflicts with the exclusive rights to
copy and modification without a license, there we are.

You can't _both_ claim that the license permits copying and modification
while at the same time claiming that the conditions for which it does so
are not conditions.

 Supreme Court vs. moron. Court wins.

You bet it does.  And the moron does not even understand the words the
court uses.

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

Re: Settlements

2010-02-28 Thread Hyman Rosen


On 2/26/2010 5:21 PM, RJack wrote:

Except the claimed conditions aren't conditions at all -- they're
contractual covenants.


http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to
protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public
license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and
distribute the computer programs and files included in the
downloadable software package.

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

Re: Settlements

2010-02-28 Thread Hyman Rosen


On 2/27/2010 10:53 AM, John Hasler wrote:

innocent infringement


Innocent infringement occurs when you have reason to believe that
a work you are copying is not under copyright. Having a copyright
notice attached to the work defeats such a claim. In fact, in a
just-decided case
http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/maverick_harper_100225FifthCirDecis.pdf
the Fifth Circuit decided that the mere fact that songs were
available on CDs which carried copyright notices was sufficient
to defeat such a defense, whether or not the defendant ever
actually saw them.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements

2010-02-28 Thread Alexander Terekhov


Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 2/26/2010 5:21 PM, RJack wrote:
  Except the claimed conditions aren't conditions at all -- they're
  contractual covenants.
 
 http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
  The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? 

Judge HOCHBERG: Of course five.

Abraham Lincoln: No, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg! 

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:

 On 2/26/2010 10:56 AM, RJack wrote:
 Alexander and I have gone to great lengths to explain to you the
 difference between a condition precedent and a scope of use
 condition.

 The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition
 of granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work.
 One of the alternatives available to obtain permission is to
 make source available upon request. If someone copies and
 distributes a covered work using this provision but does not
 intend to honor such requests, he is infringing the copyright
 of the rights holders.

Actually I disagree here: if he does so using this provision, he is
violating not copyright, but his obligations to the copyright holder he
subjected himself to voluntarily by using this provision.  Copyright
is what gives the copyright holder the power to insist on the
recipients' compliance, but once the recipient states to make use of the
license, we are talking of breach of license terms rather than breach
of copyright, even though copyright enables the copyright holder to
insist.

GPLv2 more or less combined the two by automatically terminating the
license upon non-compliance.  But I don't think that this clause was
ever actively pursued in court.

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

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:

 Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 2/26/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the
  District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above.
 
 Crank vs. court. Court wins.

 Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? 

 Judge HOCHBERG: Of course five.

 Abraham Lincoln: No, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg! 

She's got the job, not you.  And what _you_ have been calling this poor
dog...

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

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:

 Hyman Rosen wrote:
 [...]
 make source available upon request. If someone copies and
 distributes a covered work using this provision but does not
 intend to honor such requests, he is infringing the copyright

 Think of someone simply changing his mind later or just losing all the
 sources for some reason you retard.

 Hyman:  Hello distributor, I've got your offer, give me the sources.

 Distributor: Sources? Fuck, where is the sources?! Shit, my wife
 shredded all that stuff!!!

 Hyman: You fucking copyright infringer! I'm calling SFLC!!!

In this case you'll have little problem getting a court order that
orders distribution of binaries to stop.  Depending on the case,
penalties are easy enough to come by.

My wife shredded all that stuff is not seen as a valid defense in
other business matters, so this would be no difference.  Due diligence
can be expected of business people.

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

Re: Settlements

RJack u...@example.net writes:

 Hyman Rosen wrote:
 On 2/26/2010 12:05 PM, RJack wrote:
 Hyman Rosen wrote:
 The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of
  granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work.

 Back to denial already Hyman? Please identify the section of 17 USC
 106 where causing someone to license a work conflicts with a
 specific exclusive right of an owner of copyrights.

 The GPL requires that as a condition to copy and distribute a covered
 work, you must license the whole work at no charge to all others. I
 have no idea what your question above even means; the English seems
 not quite right.

 It seems that everyone in the World except a few GNUtians understand
 that licensing (the act of contract formation) doesn't require the
 copying and distribution of source code.

Contract formation requires the consent of two parties.  Most software
licensing schemes require an explicit act of the licensee to yield
rights that copyright laws would grant him as the purchaser of the
media.  There is some debate about what forms of shrinkwrap licenses
(by breaking this seal you agree to be bound to the following terms,
return the media if you don't want to) or click-thru licenses (Click
`I agree' to the following obnoxious license terms or return the
software for a refund) are actually legally binding, but the whole
point is that there is an attempt to have the licensee express explicit
agreement to yield rights he otherwise would be granted.

The GPL does not attempt to restrict your rights under copyright law.
There is no act of contract formation.  Making use of the GPL is a
voluntary act and decision of the licensee, he can use the software for
the normal purpose granted by copyright laws without heeding the GPL at
all.  But there is nothing other than the GPL that grants you a priori
(i.e., without negotiation a different deal with the copyright holder)
permission to copy and distribute source or binaries beyond what is
allowed to you under copyright laws' definition of fair use.

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

Re: Settlements

2010-02-27 Thread Alexander Terekhov

David Kastrup wrote:

[... There is no act of contract formation ...]

Uh crackpot dak.

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

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

Allgemein versteht man unter Lizenz die Befugnis, das Immaterialgut
eines anderen zu benutzen. Als Immaterialgueter kommen insbesondere
Marken, Urheberrecht oder Patente Dritter in Betracht. Nachdem es nur
sehr wenige gesetzliche Regelungen gibt, werden Lizenzen
ueblicherweise in individuellen Vertraegen, den Lizenzvertraegen,
geregelt. Auf Lizenzvertraege findet zunaechst wie auf alle Vertraege
das allgemeine Vertragsrecht Anwendung. Daneben werden verschiedene
Vorschriften des BGB analog angewandt. Insbesondere die Bereiche der
Rechtspacht, des Mietrechts, des Kaufrechts und des
Dienstvertragsrechts finden Anwendung.

Soweit Lizenzen (wie haeufig) in Formularvertraegen geregelt werden,
finden auch die Regelungen ber die Allgemeinen Geschaeftsbedingungen
der 305 ff BGB Anwendung.

http://www.boehmanwaltskanzlei.de/mehr-/vertragsrecht/details/lizenzvertragsrecht/355-der-lizenzvertrag.html

Hth, silly dak.

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:

David Kastrup wrote:

[... There is no act of contract formation ...]

Uh crackpot dak.

You are citing a private opinion again, not law. And actually, if you
take a look at what the author writes later, you find that he does
change this statement:

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

See? He now reduces this to üblicherweise, commonly. And then
talks about the consequences _if_ the license is given in the course of
contract formation:

Auf Lizenzvertraege findet zunaechst wie auf alle Vertraege das
allgemeine Vertragsrecht Anwendung. Daneben werden verschiedene
Vorschriften des BGB analog angewandt. Insbesondere die Bereiche der
Rechtspacht, des Mietrechts, des Kaufrechts und des
Dienstvertragsrechts finden Anwendung.

Soweit Lizenzen (wie haeufig) in Formularvertraegen geregelt werden,
finden auch die Regelungen ber die Allgemeinen Geschaeftsbedingungen
der 305 ff BGB Anwendung.

Again, he says: In case that (as often) a license is concocted as a
form contract, the rules about AGB are applicable.

The GPL is not a form contract since the recipient does not need to
agree to it in the course of acquiring a software medium and using it in
the normal manner permissable by copyright. That sale may very well be
governed by the AGB of the vendor.

The GPL concerns additional permissions that the recipient is free to
execute _if_ he meets the conditions.

http://www.boehmanwaltskanzlei.de/mehr-/vertragsrecht/details/lizenzvertragsrecht/355-der-lizenzvertrag.html

Hth, silly dak.

Does this Kanzlei know what personal interpretations of yourself you
associate them with?

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

Re: Settlements

2010-02-27 Thread Alexander Terekhov

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
http://books.google.de/books?id=q2lkquXoZwEC

See? He now reduces this to üblicherweise, commonly. And then
talks about the consequences _if_ the license is given in the course of
contract formation:

http://www.boehmanwaltskanzlei.de/mehr-/vertragsrecht/details/lizenzvertragsrecht/355-der-lizenzvertrag.html

Does this Kanzlei know what personal interpretations of yourself you
associate them with?

Uh retard dak. Louis Pahlow http://books.google.de/books?id=q2lkquXoZwEC
isn't working for http://www.boehmanwaltskanzlei.de -- can you grok that
simple thing, retard dak?

Are you sure that you are ready to talk about concepts such as

- staatlichen Hoheitsakts

- kraft Gesetzes

- Vertrag

- Allgemeinen Geschaeftsbedingungen

you silly dak?

Why don't you first make a basic research regarding that material before
posting more nonsensical replies here?

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

Re: Settlements

2010-02-27 Thread John Hasler

David Kastrup writes:
 My wife shredded all that stuff is not seen as a valid defense in
 other business matters, so this would be no difference.  Due diligence
 can be expected of business people.

The most that My wife shredded all that stuff would get you is
innocent infringement
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Innocent_infringement (but you will have
to show that you stopped infringing the instant you were notified by the
plaintiff).  Damages may be reduced but probably not eliminated and
an injunction will still issue.  Since cessation of infringement is what
the SFLC asks for this would be rather useless.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements


Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 2/25/2010 3:07 PM, RJack wrote:
  Troll vs. Hyman's fertile imagination. Troll wins another one. ROFL.
 
 No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court.

Moving targets once again, silly Hyman?

Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed initial conference and motions.
But in the current case defendants seem to be willing to call the SFLC's
bluff in court.

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements


Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/25/2010 3:07 PM, RJack wrote:

Troll vs. Hyman's fertile imagination. Troll wins another one.
ROFL.

No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court.


Moving targets once again, silly Hyman?

Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed initial conference and
motions. But in the current case defendants seem to be willing to
call the SFLC's bluff in court.



Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and run
once again. The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge. It's obvious
the defendants aren't the slightest bit intimidated by the SFLC clowns.
At a glance, the actual complaint demonstrates to the defendant lawyers
the amateurish nature of the SFLC lawyers. The joinder of the  Software
Freedom Conservacy Inc. is a glaring error. From the context of the
court's summary of the issues, it is also obvious that the defendants'
lawyers know that Erik Andersen is not the owner and author of the
single computer program known as BusyBox. The SFLC is heading into a
train wreck on March 8th when the Answers to Complaint are due by order
of the Court. No more delays. May justice reign!

Sincerely,
RJack :)

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

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



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

Re: Settlements

2010-02-26 Thread David Kastrup

RJack u...@example.net writes:

 Alexander Terekhov wrote:
 Hyman Rosen wrote:
 On 2/25/2010 3:07 PM, RJack wrote:
 Troll vs. Hyman's fertile imagination. Troll wins another one.
 ROFL.
 No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court.

 Moving targets once again, silly Hyman?

 Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed initial conference and
 motions. But in the current case defendants seem to be willing to
 call the SFLC's bluff in court.


 Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and run
 once again. The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge.

It's not likely that it will get it unless a defendant claims compliance
as a defense.  If he doesn't, there is no reason for a judge to review
the GPL as it can't be relevant without the defendant agreeing to rely
on its permissions.  If he doesn't, it is a piece of paper irrelevant to
the parties' relations and the case.

 It's obvious the defendants aren't the slightest bit intimidated by
 the SFLC clowns.

Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath of
the settlements?

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

Re: Settlements


On 2/26/2010 4:12 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court.

Moving targets once again, silly Hyman?


No. You are trying to make something out of the lawyers in the
Perfect 10 case having advised the court of the settlement. But
there is nothing to make of that - the reason for this was only
that there was a hearing scheduled and they settled too late to
file papers canceling it. So everybody showed up in court and
told the judge that they had settled. If they had settled a
little earlier, the plaintiffs would have just filed the
settlement and that would be that.


Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed initial conference and motions.
But in the current case defendants seem to be willing to call the SFLC's
bluff in court.


It is not a bluff. It is a clear case of copyright infringement.
As to the disposition of the case, we'll see. I expect that it
will go like all the others.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements


On 2/26/2010 6:47 AM, RJack wrote:

Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and run
once again.


In each of the cases that the SFLC filed, the defendants came into
compliance with the GPL once the cases ended. While anti-GPL cranks
might like to characterize this as cutting and running, outcomes
which match goals are normally classified as victories.


The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge.


There's not much to review there. It's just a copyright license.

 It's obvious

We'll just wait and see then.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements


On 2/26/2010 8:05 AM, David Kastrup wrote:

RJacku...@example.net  writes:

It's obvious the defendants aren't the slightest bit intimidated by
the SFLC clowns.


Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath of
the settlements?


He means the new defendants. Remember, to anti-GPL cranks,
every case is the one that will finally break the back of
the GPL. Until it doesn't, and then it's because the SFLC
cut and run or because the judge was drunk, or it's in a
court whose precedents aren't binding, or any of a million
other excuses.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements


David Kastrup wrote:

RJack u...@example.net writes:


Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and 
run once again. The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge.


It's not likely that it will get it unless a defendant claims 
compliance as a defense.  If he doesn't, there is no reason for a 
judge to review the GPL as it can't be relevant without the defendant
 agreeing to rely on its permissions.  If he doesn't, it is a piece 
of paper irrelevant to the parties' relations and the case.


Why is it that you GNUtians slip into solipsistic denials whenever you
are confronted with incontrovertible, verifiable evidence of prevailing
law? Your eyes close and you simply refuse to confront reality.

The SFLC cases are being prosecuted in the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals in the United States. You have repeatedly ignored that court's
rulings and insisted upon making up your own legal nonsense.

One more time:

As we said in Bourne, when the contested issue is the scope of a
license, rather than the existence of one, the copyright owner bears the
burden of proving that the defendant's copying was unauthorized under
the license and the license need not be pleaded as an affirmative
defense. Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229 (2nd Cir. 1998).

Where the dispute turns on whether there is a license at all, the
burden is on the alleged infringer to prove the existence of the
license. See id. Where the dispute is only over the scope of the
license, by contrast, the copyright owner bears the burden of proving
that the defendant's copying was unauthorized. Id. Tasini v. New York
Times, 206 F.3d 161 (2nd Cir. 2000} affrm'd, New York Times Co. v.
Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001)

This situation is like Hyman Rosen's repeated denials that the U.S.
Supreme Court's rulings are the controlling law within the United States
federal system:

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

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

We can be open to opinions concerning interpretations of facts and law
but at some point, continuing your denials on incontrovertible,
authoritative rulings simply merits that you be ignored in the future.


It's obvious the defendants aren't the slightest bit intimidated by
 the SFLC clowns.


Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath 
of the settlements?


There are no settlements and you can't produce a copy of one. You can
only claim imaginary settlements which, of course, no one believes in.

Sincerely,
RJack :)


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

Re: Settlements

2010-02-26 Thread David Kastrup

RJack u...@example.net writes:

 David Kastrup wrote:
 RJack u...@example.net writes:

 Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and
 run once again. The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge.

[...]

 We can be open to opinions concerning interpretations of facts and law
 but at some point, continuing your denials on incontrovertible,
 authoritative rulings simply merits that you be ignored in the future.

At some point of time you have to make up your mind whether or not there
has been an authoritive ruling with regard to the GPL or not.

Vehemently claiming both at once looks a bit silly.

 Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath
 of the settlements?

 There are no settlements and you can't produce a copy of one. You can
 only claim imaginary settlements which, of course, no one believes in.

Why else would the defendants bother to make the GPLed source available
in the aftermath of the settlements?

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

Re: Settlements


On 2/26/2010 9:32 AM, RJack wrote:

As we said in Bourne, when the contested issue is the scope of a
license, rather than the existence of one, the copyright owner bears the
burden of proving that the defendant's copying was unauthorized under
the license and the license need not be pleaded as an affirmative
defense. Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229 (2nd Cir. 1998).


Sounds correct to me. It will be easy to demonstrate this,
since the defendants are not making GPLed sources properly
available.

This also, from the same decision:
http://openjurist.org/144/f3d/229/graham-v-d-james
See Grand Union Co. v. Cord Meyer Dev. Co., 761 F.2d 141,
147 (2d Cir.1985) (In the absence of more compelling
evidence that the parties intended to create a condition,
the negotiation provision must be construed as a promise
or covenant.);

The GPL clearly establishes requirements as a condition for
receiving permission to copy and distribute.


This situation is like Hyman Rosen's repeated denials that the U.S.
Supreme Court's rulings are the controlling law within the United States
federal system:


Of course I have denied no such thing.


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


The unlicensed use was the copying and distribution of the work,
as granted exclusively to the rights holder by 17 USC 106.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements


On 2/26/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a
(confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a

 court order?

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

Re: Settlements


Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 2/26/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a
  (confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a
   court order?
 
 What for?

This is done so that the court which was initially assigned the case may
retain jurisdiction over it. The court is then free to modify its order
as necessary to achieve justice in the case, and a party that breaches
the settlement may be held in contempt of court, rather than facing only
a civil claim for the breach. In cases where confidentiality is required
by the parties, the court order may refer to another document which is
not disclosed, but which may be revealed to prove a breach of the
settlement.

End Quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation)

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements


On 2/26/2010 10:29 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:


Hyman Rosen wrote:


On 2/26/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a
(confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a

court order?

What for?


This is done so that the court which was initially assigned the case may
retain jurisdiction over it. The court is then free to modify its order
as necessary to achieve justice in the case, and a party that breaches
the settlement may be held in contempt of court, rather than facing only
a civil claim for the breach. In cases where confidentiality is required
by the parties, the court order may refer to another document which is
not disclosed, but which may be revealed to prove a breach of the
settlement.

End Quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation)


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

After each one of the SFLC's cases have ended, the defendants have
made the GPLed sources properly available. So despite the settlement
agreements not being filed with the court, the SFLC has achieved its
desired outcome.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements


Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 2/26/2010 10:29 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
 
  Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
  On 2/26/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a
  (confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a
  court order?
 
  What for?
 
  This is done so that the court which was initially assigned the case may
  retain jurisdiction over it. The court is then free to modify its order
  as necessary to achieve justice in the case, and a party that breaches
  the settlement may be held in contempt of court, rather than facing only
  a civil claim for the breach. In cases where confidentiality is required
  by the parties, the court order may refer to another document which is
  not disclosed, but which may be revealed to prove a breach of the
  settlement.
 
  End Quote.
 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation)
 
 Same source:

Uh moron Hyman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation)#United_States


  The settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements of the
  parties, and is often put in force by an order of the court after
  a joint stipulation  by the parties. In other situations (as where
  the claims have been satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of
  money) the plaintiff and defendant can simply file a notice that
  the case has been dismissed.
 
 After each one of the SFLC's cases have ended, the defendants have
 made the GPLed sources properly available. So despite the settlement
 agreements not being filed with the court, the SFLC has achieved its
 desired outcome.

Take your meds Hyman. Take your meds.

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements


Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
 told the judge that they had settled. If they had settled a
 little earlier, the plaintiffs would have just filed the
 settlement and that would be that.

When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a
(confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a court order,
retard Hyman?

 
  Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed initial conference and motions.
  But in the current case defendants seem to be willing to call the SFLC's
  bluff in court.
 
 It is not a bluff. It is a clear case of copyright infringement.

Take your meds Hyman. Take your meds.

Defendants intend to show that the Plaintiff's have no damages, 
that the Defendants did nothing actionable under copyright law, 
that any alleged copying was not willful, that Plaintiffs are 
not the proper parties, that the copyright held by Mr. Andersen
is not applicable, and that, since being put on notice of the 
purported requirements of the general public license, Defendants 
have endeavored to come into compliance with what can only be 
described as a 'moving target'.

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements


Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
 The unlicensed use was the copying and distribution of the work,
 as granted exclusively to the rights holder by 17 USC 106.

Yeah, and failure to provide source code (e.g. NOT acting upon a source
code offer) a year later after copying and distribution of the work is
still copying and distribution of the work right silly Hyman?

Take your meds Hyman. Take your meds.

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements


Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 2/26/2010 10:35 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  Yeah, and failure to provide source code (e.g. NOT acting upon a source
  code offer) a year later after copying and distribution of the work is
  still copying and distribution of the work right silly Hyman?
 
 No, it is failure to meet the conditions for having permission
 to copy and distribute the work, and therefore it is copyright
 infringement.

Copy and distribute the work already happened ONE YEAR BEFORE FAILURE
YOU MORON.

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements


On 2/26/2010 10:42 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Copy and distribute the work already happened ONE YEAR BEFORE FAILURE


Permission to copy and distribute is granted on condition
of honoring the GPL. Copying and distribution without
honoring the provisions of the GPL infringes the copyright
of the rights holders.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/26/2010 9:32 AM, RJack wrote:
As we said in Bourne, when the contested issue is the scope of a 
license, rather than the existence of one, the copyright owner 
bears the burden of proving that the defendant's copying was 
unauthorized under the license and the license need not be pleaded 
as an affirmative defense. Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229 (2nd Cir.

1998).


Sounds correct to me. It will be easy to demonstrate this, since the 
defendants are not making GPLed sources properly available.


This also, from the same decision: 
http://openjurist.org/144/f3d/229/graham-v-d-james See Grand Union 
Co. v. Cord Meyer Dev. Co., 761 F.2d 141, 147 (2d Cir.1985) (In the 
absence of more compelling evidence that the parties intended to 
create a condition, the negotiation provision must be construed as a 
promise or covenant.);


The GPL clearly establishes requirements as a condition for receiving
 permission to copy and distribute.


Alexander and I have gone to great lengths to explain to you the
difference between a condition precedent and a scope of use
condition. Either you are incapable of understanding the difference
in the two concepts or you are deliberately confusing the two concepts.

OK, one more time;

*** Condition Precedent
A condition is an event, not certain to occur, which must occur, unless
its non-occurrence is excused, before performance under a contract
becomes due.”; Restatement (Second) of Contracts Sec. 224

A condition precedent determines *when* a license grant first comes into
existence. Obviously an “event” that *depends* on the performance of a
contract cannot occur *before* performance of the contract becomes due.
This result is called an impossible condition in contract construction
and is *strictly* construed *against* the drafter.


Now, one more time;

*** Scope of Use Condition;
A *direct* stated limitation in a license grant that limits a specific
right.

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

Merely calling something in a license a condition does *not* make it
a condition -- the condition must violate one of the specific rights
granted in 17 USC 106 while no permission in the license otherwise
exists to do so.

A mistake is often made in open source licenses. A deliberately broad
grant of rights is stated in the first part of a license and *then*
subsequently, conditions are defined in the license. That constitutes
conflicting language and is construed strictly against the drafter. Now,
*once* a permission is granted you can't subsequently sue for copyright
 infringement, only for breach of contract. The Supreme Court
established this principle in 1927:

Any language used by the owner of the patent or any conduct on his part
exhibited to another, from which that other may properly infer that the
owner consents to his use of the patent in making or using it, or
selling it, upon which the other acts, constitutes a license, and a
defense to an action for a tort. Whether this constitutes a gratuitous
license or one for a reasonable compensation must, of course, depend
upon the circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter
in respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not
an unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner.;  De Forest Radio Tel.
 Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, (1927).


Sincerely,
RJack :)

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

Re: Settlements


On 2/26/2010 10:56 AM, RJack wrote:

Alexander and I have gone to great lengths to explain to you the
difference between a condition precedent and a scope of use
condition.


The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition
of granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work.
One of the alternatives available to obtain permission is to
make source available upon request. If someone copies and
distributes a covered work using this provision but does not
intend to honor such requests, he is infringing the copyright
of the rights holders.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements

Stop confusing conditions v. scope limitations v. covenants, silly
Hyman.

There is a reason why these concepts are different. 

Bluntly calling license's obligations and limitations conditions
doesn't change anything (except making things worse for the
licensor/drafter). 

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements


On 2/26/2010 12:08 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Stop confusing conditions v. scope limitations v. covenants, silly
Hyman. There is a reason why these concepts are different.
Bluntly calling license's obligations and limitations conditions
doesn't change anything (except making things worse for the
licensor/drafter).


http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Jacobsen argues that the terms of the Artistic License define
the scope of the license and that any use outside of these
restrictions is copyright infringement. Katzer/Kamind argues
that these terms do not limit the scope of the license and are
merely covenants providing contractual terms for the use of the
materials, and that his violation of them is neither compensable
in damages nor subject to injunctive relief.
...
The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to
protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public
license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and
distribute the computer programs and files included in the
downloadable software package.
...
For the aforementioned reasons, we vacate and remand.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/26/2010 10:56 AM, RJack wrote:
Alexander and I have gone to great lengths to explain to you the 
difference between a condition precedent and a scope of use 
condition.


The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of
granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work.


Back to denial already Hyman?


2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.; GPL sec 2

Please identify the section of 17 USC 106 where causing someone to
license a work conflicts with a specific exclusive right of an owner of
copyrights.

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

I await your answer with 'bated breath.


One of the alternatives available to obtain permission is to make
source available upon request. If someone copies and distributes a
covered work using this provision but does not intend to honor such
requests, he is infringing the copyright of the rights holders.


Please identify the section of 17 USC 106 where failing to provide
source code conflicts with a specific exclusive right of an owner of
copyrights.

Living in your cocoon of denial probably feels good Hyman but
you really should try to reintegrate yourself into the real world.

Sincerely,
RJack :)






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

Re: Settlements


Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
 make source available upon request. If someone copies and
 distributes a covered work using this provision but does not
 intend to honor such requests, he is infringing the copyright

Think of someone simply changing his mind later or just losing all the
sources for some reason you retard.

Hyman:  Hello distributor, I've got your offer, give me the sources.

Distributor: Sources? Fuck, where is the sources?! Shit, my wife
shredded all that stuff!!!

Hyman: You fucking copyright infringer! I'm calling SFLC!!!

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements


On 2/26/2010 11:49 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Think of someone simply changing his mind later or just losing all the
sources for some reason


http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/77imono.phtml
You.. can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You  can be a
millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You say.. Steve.. how can I
be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes? First.. get a million
dollars. Now.. you say, Steve.. what do I say to the tax man
when he comes to my door and says, 'You.. have never  paid
taxes'? Two simple words. Two simple words in the English
language: I forgot!
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements


On 2/26/2010 12:05 PM, RJack wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of
granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work.


Back to denial already Hyman?
Please identify the section of 17 USC 106 where causing someone to
license a work conflicts with a specific exclusive right of an owner of
copyrights.


The GPL requires that as a condition to copy and distribute
a covered work, you must license the whole work at no charge
to all others. I have no idea what your question above even
means; the English seems not quite right. It is the copying
and distribution which is the exclusive right of the copyright
holders; granting the license is a condition of receiving
permission from the rights holders to copy and distribute.


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


The unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution,
exactly as specified in 17 USC 106. The use is unlicensed when
the copier fails to meet the conditions required by the GPL in
order for permission to copy and distribute to be granted.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements


Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 2/26/2010 12:08 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  Stop confusing conditions v. scope limitations v. covenants, silly
  Hyman. There is a reason why these concepts are different.
  Bluntly calling license's obligations and limitations conditions
  doesn't change anything (except making things worse for the
  licensor/drafter).
 
 http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
  Jacobsen argues that the terms of the Artistic License define
  the scope of the license and that any use outside of these
  restrictions is copyright infringement. Katzer/Kamind argues
  that these terms do not limit the scope of the license and are
  merely covenants providing contractual terms for the use of the
  ...
  The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to
  protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public
  license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and
  distribute the computer programs and files included in the
  downloadable software package.
  ...
  For the aforementioned reasons, we vacate and remand.

Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above.

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? 

Judge HOCHBERG: Of course five.

Abraham Lincoln: No, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg! 

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements


Alexander Terekhov wrote:
 
 Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
  On 2/26/2010 12:08 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
   Stop confusing conditions v. scope limitations v. covenants, silly
   Hyman. There is a reason why these concepts are different.
   Bluntly calling license's obligations and limitations conditions
   doesn't change anything (except making things worse for the
   licensor/drafter).
 
  http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
   Jacobsen argues that the terms of the Artistic License define
   the scope of the license and that any use outside of these
   restrictions is copyright infringement. Katzer/Kamind argues
   that these terms do not limit the scope of the license and are
   merely covenants providing contractual terms for the use of the
   ...
   The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to
   protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public
   license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and
   distribute the computer programs and files included in the
   downloadable software package.
   ...
   For the aforementioned reasons, we vacate and remand.
 
 Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the
 District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above.

http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=661

Worst judge I have yet encountered. Decides the case beforehand and her
opinions are excerpts from her predetermined winner's briefs. Ignores
the facts and pleadings. When you lose, you want to at least feel the
judge listened and considered what you had to say -- not so with this
judge. She blows you off and makes it clear she's blowing you off. 

 
 Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five?
 
 Judge HOCHBERG: Of course five.
 
 Abraham Lincoln: No, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg!
 

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements


On 2/26/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above.


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

Re: Settlements


Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 2/26/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the
  District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above.
 
 Crank vs. court. Court wins.

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? 

Judge HOCHBERG: Of course five.

Abraham Lincoln: No, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg! 

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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

Re: Settlements


On 2/26/2010 12:54 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=661

She can spot a player a mile away and takes
appropriate action in the name of justice.

One can only hope that you have an opportunity to
appear before her!
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/26/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the
 District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney
above.


Crank vs. court. Court wins.


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

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

My court's bigger 'n your court.

Denier* vs. Supreme Court

Supreme Court wins.


*denier2 definition
de·nier (dē nī′ər, di-)
noun a person who denies
http://www.yourdictionary.com/denier
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/26/2010 12:54 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=661

She can spot a player a mile away and takes appropriate action in the
 name of justice.

One can only hope that you have an opportunity to appear before her!


One can only hope that she has an opportunity to appear before the
United States Supreme Court!

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

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

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

Re: Settlements


On 2/26/2010 3:55 PM, RJack wrote:

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


The unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution,
exactly as specified in 17 USC 106. The use is unlicensed when
the copier fails to meet the conditions required by the GPL in
order for permission to copy and distribute to be granted.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements


On 2/26/2010 3:58 PM, RJack wrote:

One can only hope that she has an opportunity to appear before the
United States Supreme Court!


Judges don't appear before the Supreme Court in the U.S.


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


The unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution,
exactly as specified in 17 USC 106. The use is unlicensed when
the copier fails to meet the conditions required by the GPL in
order for permission to copy and distribute to be granted.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 2/26/2010 12:05 PM, RJack wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of
 granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work.


Back to denial already Hyman? Please identify the section of 17 USC
106 where causing someone to license a work conflicts with a
specific exclusive right of an owner of copyrights.


The GPL requires that as a condition to copy and distribute a covered
work, you must license the whole work at no charge to all others. I
have no idea what your question above even means; the English seems
not quite right.


It seems that everyone in the World except a few GNUtians understand
that licensing (the act of contract formation) doesn't require the
copying and distribution of source code.


It is the copying and distribution which is the exclusive right of
the copyright holders; granting the license is a condition of
receiving permission from the rights holders to copy and distribute.


The act of granting the license does *not* involve copying and
distribution of source code Hymen. It is an act that consists of forming
a legal relationship -- an exchange of legally binding promises.




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


The unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution, 
exactly as specified in 17 USC 106.


Bull. The unlicensed use you claim is failure to license (form a contract).


The use is unlicensed when the copier fails to meet the conditions
required by the GPL in order for permission to copy and distribute to
be granted.


It's not a condition unless it involves the copying and distribution
of the source code. Contract formation (licensing) is a legal operation
and does not utilize source code exclusive rights.

Ever see a copyright license written in computer source code? If you
have please show me said claimed license.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

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



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

Re: Settlements


On 2/26/2010 4:28 PM, RJack wrote:

It seems that everyone in the World except a few GNUtians understand
that licensing (the act of contract formation) doesn't require the
copying and distribution of source code.


Everyone understands that granting a license doesn't
require anything except stating the terms of it.


The act of granting the license does *not* involve copying and
distribution of source code


Correct.


The unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution, exactly
as specified in 17 USC 106.


Bull. The unlicensed use you claim is failure to license (form a contract).


In all of these cases, companies copied and distributed GPL-
covered code without adhering to the conditions of the GPL.
This made such copying and distribution an infringing use.


It's not a condition unless it involves the copying and distribution
of the source code. Contract formation (licensing) is a legal operation
and does not utilize source code exclusive rights.


The infringing use was copying and distribution.
You appear seriously confused.


Ever see a copyright license written in computer source code?

 If you have please show me said claimed license.

All GPL-covered code includes the GPL by reference to a file
which accompanies the source code, for brevity.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Settlements