Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"amicus_curious" writes: >> The CAFC has ruled that these requirements are not meaningless. >> -- >They suggested that the requirements were not meaningless to the >copyright holders who get a thrill out of seeing their name in print, >but that is meaningless to me. I think that it speaks ill o

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

Rjack writes: >>> I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is >>> the enforcement of meaningless requirements >> >> The CAFC has ruled that these requirements are not meaningless. >The CAFC opinion is advisory only and contrary to other circuits >(including its own preced

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"amicus_curious" writes: >> The companies misappropriating GPL software are thus causing a lot of >> time and effort to be expended. If they respected the copyrights of >> software authors, all of this discussion would be unnecesary. >> >Or if the authors weren't such egomaniacs, they could just

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"Alan Mackenzie" wrote in message news:gnq4bn$27e...@colin2.muc.de... In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious wrote: "Rahul Dhesi" wrote in message news:gnpj2u$7q...@blue.rahul.net... "amicus_curious" writes: Look at the SFLC website for a complete list. Typically, some company, for examp

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"Thufir Hawat" wrote in message news:do0ol.50595$xk6.48...@newsfe12.iad... On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:39:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: The FOSS value proposition is that if you use it, fine, and if you modify it and distribute it you must disclose your modifications. Who says? Do you have

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"Rahul Dhesi" wrote in message news:gnq41q$sr...@blue.rahul.net... "amicus_curious" writes: Well that subject line was long ago. What I am saying is the the SFLC and its client BusyBox are just wasting the world's time. Perhaps they have a legal right to do that, but it is still nonsense

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"Alan Mackenzie" wrote in message news:gnq384$27e...@colin2.muc.de... You could make the same sort of argument about any "petty" peccadillo. Why bother prosecuting a fare dodger for a 2 Euro fare? Seems a bit disproportionate, doesn't it? Do they arraign and prosecute people for this in yo

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

Thufir Hawat wrote: On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:39:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: The FOSS value proposition is that if you use it, fine, and if you modify it and distribute it you must disclose your modifications. Who says? -Thufir U.S. copyright law certainly doesn't support the "FOSS valu

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"amicus_curious" writes: >> ...If takes negligible effort to include a copy of the GPL with >> their software distributions. If they don't, this is clearly an attempt >> to hide their wrong-doing. >> -- >I don't agree with that. The FOSS value proposition is that if you use >it, fine, and if yo

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious wrote: > "Rahul Dhesi" wrote in message > news:gnpj2u$7q...@blue.rahul.net... >> "amicus_curious" writes: >>>Look at the SFLC website for a complete list. Typically, some company, >>>for >>>example Monsoon, uses stock FOSS stuff in their product, which is

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"amicus_curious" writes: >Well that subject line was long ago. What I am saying is the the SFLC and >its client BusyBox are just wasting the world's time. Perhaps they have a >legal right to do that, but it is still nonsense and at the end of the day >they will be remembered as being egotist

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:39:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: > The FOSS value proposition is that if you use it, fine, and if you > modify it and distribute it you must disclose your modifications. Who says? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious wrote: > > "David Kastrup" wrote in message > news:851vtr64ch@lola.goethe.zz... >> "amicus_curious" writes: >>> "David Kastrup" wrote: "amicus_curious" writes: > Well that subject line was long ago. What I am saying is the the SFLC > and its cli

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"Alan Mackenzie" wrote in message news:gnp50j$2qe...@colin2.muc.de... The Verizon website, , appears to contain no mention of their "victory". You'd think they'd put up something to counteract the negative publicity, surely? Or to discourage future "fools" from embr

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"Rahul Dhesi" wrote in message news:gnpj2u$7q...@blue.rahul.net... "amicus_curious" writes: Look at the SFLC website for a complete list. Typically, some company, for example Monsoon, uses stock FOSS stuff in their product, which is what the FOSS folk seem to want them to do... Typicall

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"David Kastrup" wrote in message news:85r61r4nvu@lola.goethe.zz... "amicus_curious" writes: If it fails early, it gets returned to the store or to the manufacturer for credit. If your whole computing centre gets compromised because a packet logger could be inserted into the router, re

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"David Kastrup" wrote in message news:851vtr64ch@lola.goethe.zz... "amicus_curious" writes: "David Kastrup" wrote: "amicus_curious" writes: but that is meaningless to me. Laws don't depend on you seeing a meaning in them. Who is talking about the law? The judges, and you can

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

amicus_curious wrote: > > "Alan Mackenzie" wrote in message > news:gnp3nr$2qe...@colin2.muc.de... >> In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious wrote: >>> >>> "Rahul Dhesi" wrote in message >>> news:gnncnr$vo...@blue.rahul.net... "amicus_curious" writes: >> >That gives FOSS a bad name. Who

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack writes: [ quoting a blogger ] Developers care about the licenses on the software they use and incorporate into their projects, they like permissive licenses, and they will increasingly demand permissive licenses. ... The FSF's apparent lack of vision will lead to

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

Rahul Dhesi wrote: [...] > Some of the biggest players in the software industy, including > Microsoft, http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/ > IBM, http://www-03.ibm.com/opensource/ > Oracle, http://oss.oracle.com/ > and Adobe, http://opensource.adobe.com/ What is your point, Rahul? re

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"amicus_curious" writes: > "Alan Mackenzie" wrote in message > news:gnp3nr$2qe...@colin2.muc.de... >> In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious wrote: >>> >>> "Rahul Dhesi" wrote in message >>> news:gnncnr$vo...@blue.rahul.net... "amicus_curious" writes: >> >That gives FOSS a bad name. Who

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

Rjack writes: [ quoting a blogger ] >Developers care about the licenses on the software they use and >incorporate into their projects, they like permissive licenses, and >they will increasingly demand permissive licenses. ... >The FSF's apparent lack of vision will >lead to the obvious outcome't

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"amicus_curious" writes: >Look at the SFLC website for a complete list. Typically, some company, for >example Monsoon, uses stock FOSS stuff in their product, which is what the >FOSS folk seem to want them to do... Typically these example companies are misappropriating copyrighted software.

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:25:20 +, Doug Mentohl wrote: > Rjack wrote: > >> What I see is an increasingly negative reaction to the SFLC tactics and >> growing support for projects that are developed under truly "free" open >> source licenses that do not attempt to control other people's contrib

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"Alan Mackenzie" wrote in message news:gnp3nr$2qe...@colin2.muc.de... In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious wrote: "Rahul Dhesi" wrote in message news:gnncnr$vo...@blue.rahul.net... "amicus_curious" writes: That gives FOSS a bad name. Who wants to use stuff like that and risk getting bi

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"David Kastrup" wrote in message news:85ab8f68m4@lola.goethe.zz... Rjack writes: amicus_curious wrote: What irks me is that the victims of the SDLC Wait, where are the victims if the rant du jour is that the cases are all voluntarily dismissed with damage to the SDLC? Really, our t

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"amicus_curious" writes: > "David Kastrup" wrote: >> "amicus_curious" writes: >> >>> but that is meaningless to me. >> >> Laws don't depend on you seeing a meaning in them. >> > Who is talking about the law? The judges, and you can read in the subject title that this thread is about laws and t

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

David Kastrup wrote: I have Google automatic alerts set for tracking various elements of software licensing. What I see is an increasingly negative reaction to the SFLC tactics and growing support for projects that are developed under truly "free" open source licenses that do not attempt to

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"Doug Mentohl" wrote in message news:gnp2os$e4...@news.datemas.de... amicus_curious wrote: What irks me is that the victims of the SDLC are the little companies that use Linux the way that it was intended to be used and do not have the resources to waste on defending their otherwise clean c

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"David Kastrup" wrote in message news:85iqn36egq@lola.goethe.zz... "amicus_curious" writes: "Rahul Dhesi" wrote in message news:gnnqah$gv...@blue.rahul.net... "amicus_curious" writes: I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is the enforcement of meaningless requi

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

Rjack writes: > amicus_curious wrote: >> >> What irks me is that the victims of the SDLC Wait, where are the victims if the rant du jour is that the cases are all voluntarily dismissed with damage to the SDLC? Really, our trolls should try not to claim too many contradictory things at once. >>

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

Rjack wrote: What I see is an increasingly negative reaction to the SFLC tactics and growing support for projects that are developed under truly "free" open source licenses that do not attempt to control other people's contributions to projects. Whould you mind enumerating and detailing thes

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

amicus_curious wrote: What irks me is that the victims of the SDLC are the little companies that use Linux the way that it was intended to be used and do not have the resources to waste on defending their otherwise clean conduct. So they are pounced upon by the FSF/SDLC and made to pay homa

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious wrote: > "Alan Mackenzie" wrote in message > news:gnmr45$1qm...@colin2.muc.de... >> Would you format your paragraphs properly in future, please? >> In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious wrote: >>> So they [SFLC] didn't suddenly "become aware" of anything at al

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"amicus_curious" writes: > "Rahul Dhesi" wrote in message > news:gnnqah$gv...@blue.rahul.net... >> "amicus_curious" writes: >> >>>I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is the >>>enforcement of meaningless requirements >> >> The CAFC has ruled that these requirements are

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious wrote: > > "Rahul Dhesi" wrote in message > news:gnncnr$vo...@blue.rahul.net... >> "amicus_curious" writes: >>>That gives FOSS a bad name. Who wants to use stuff like that and risk >>>getting bitten by the looney tunes that think software is some kind of >>

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

amicus_curious wrote: What irks me is that the victims of the SDLC are the little companies that use Linux the way that it was intended to be used and do not have the resources to waste on defending their otherwise clean conduct .. Whould you mind enumerating and detailing these cases of co

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"Rjack" wrote in message news:tu2dnrufqjqs0qlunz2dnuvz_tfin...@giganews.com... amicus_curious wrote: "Hyman Rosen" wrote in message news:nuenl.22790$ug1.14...@newsfe16.iad... amicus_curious wrote: Note the fact that Verizon, the defendant, is not mentioned in this statement as having to

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

"Rahul Dhesi" wrote in message news:gnnqah$gv...@blue.rahul.net... "amicus_curious" writes: I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is the enforcement of meaningless requirements The CAFC has ruled that these requirements are not meaningless. -- They suggested that

Re: GCC and copyright registration

In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup wrote: > Rjack writes: > Since apparently we are not talking about either of those specific > situations, it is hard to see what your problem is. I don't think it's at all hard to see what RJack's problem is. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

Rahul Dhesi wrote: "amicus_curious" writes: I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is the enforcement of meaningless requirements The CAFC has ruled that these requirements are not meaningless. The CAFC opinion is advisory only and contrary to other circuits (includ