"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:28:44 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
>> Linonut wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Thanks, Tim, for doing the legwork needed to put rjack/Terekhov's
>>> jeering into proper perspective.
>>
>> Here's an illustration o
To illustrate the deficiency of the SFLC's pleadings filed in all of the BusyBox
suits, here is an excerpt from a properly pled infringement claim from
SCO v. IBM:
---
EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is most plausible that the defendants simply said to the SFLC,
> "Dismiss or we will file a Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss" and collect our
> attorney fees and costs. Even an incompetent defense attorney would
> know that the SFLC
Tim Smith wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, rjack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note that 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) are connected by "or", not
"and". Do you have reason to believe this dismissal was not under
41(a)(1)(A)(i)?
Since no mutual stipulations under 41(a)ii are to be f
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What's the point? Verizon's subcontractor made the source available:
>
> What does that have to do with the lawsuit against Verizon? Actiontec is
> not a party to that "settled" lawsuit to begin with. SFLC sued Ver
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Well, actually the GPL most certainly is _not_ enforceable: it is a
>> license, not a contract. You are free to ignore it. Unfortunately,
>> [copyright]
>
> LOL. GNUtian dak admits that copyleft is not enforceable.
Linonut wrote:
[...]
> Give it up, rjack. You can't even get the usage of "specific" correct.
SFLC *specific* allegations regarding distribution of Busybox code
aren't really "specific" in the legal (copyright infringement) sense
because SFLC included qualification "and none of these distributio
Tim Smith wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So? Why do you think it significant that no stipulation was filed? If
> > > the prerequisites of 41(a)(1)(A)(i) were met, why would they not use
> > > that section, and make the simpler,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So? Why do you think it significant that no stipulation was filed? If
> > the prerequisites of 41(a)(1)(A)(i) were met, why would they not use
> > that section, and make the simpler, smaller, filing?
>
> If they'v
Tim Smith wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Note that 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) are connected by "or", not
> > > "and". Do you have reason to believe this dismissal was not under
> > > 41(a)(1)(A)(i)?
> > >
> > >
> > Since no mutual sti
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Note that 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) are connected by "or", not
> > "and". Do you have reason to believe this dismissal was not under
> > 41(a)(1)(A)(i)?
> >
> >
> Since no mutual stipulations under 41(a)ii are to be
* rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> Someone (I forget who) recently pointed out in one or both of these
>> newsgroups that when SFLC and Verizon settled their recent lawsuit,
>> the suit was dismissed with prejudice. What that means is that the
>> matter is completely
Tim Smith wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What do you find not equivalent about it? The first spells out in great
detail what the settlement was between the parties, whereas the second does
not, but I don't see how that is relevant. I don't recall offh
Tim Smith wrote:
[... GPL "settlement" and dismissal ...]
There was no stipulation of settlement. See the docket at PACER. More
evidence:
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html
"Strigl looked at me with a blank face and asked me to repeat my
question. H
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Well, actually the GPL most certainly is _not_ enforceable: it is a
> license, not a contract. You are free to ignore it. Unfortunately,
> [copyright]
LOL. GNUtian dak admits that copyleft is not enforceable. As for
"license, not a contract" GNUtian dak persistently
15 matches
Mail list logo
