Re: A simple question

Hi, Rjack, In gnu.misc.discuss RJack wrote: > I have a simple question. The United States Copyright Act, 17 USC sets > out what comprises copyright infringement: > "? 501. Infringement of copyright [ 24 lines of legal text snipped. ] The following doesn't seem to be a simple question at all:

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

The comedy continues to unroll. Uh retarded crackpot free softies. LOL! http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=1294 "A big legal victory for open source Date: February 21st, 2010 Author: Jack Wallen Category: General Tags: Software, GPL, Victory, Open Source, Tools & Techniques, Manag

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

Alexander Terekhov writes: > The comedy continues to unroll. Uh retarded crackpot free softies. LOL! http://www.pvponline.com/2008/06/30/interlude-the-adventures-of-lolbat/> -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

Alexander Terekhov wrote: The comedy continues to unroll. Uh retarded crackpot free softies. LOL! http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=1294 "A big legal victory for open source Date: February 21st, 2010 Author: Jack Wallen Category: General Tags: Software, GPL, Victory, Open Source,

Re: A simple question

Alan Mackenzie wrote: Hi, Rjack, In gnu.misc.discuss RJack wrote: I have a simple question. The United States Copyright Act, 17 USC sets out what comprises copyright infringement: "? 501. Infringement of copyright [ 24 lines of legal text snipped. ] The following doesn't seem to be a sim

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

On 2/19/2010 5:02 PM, RJack wrote: No, no Hyman, it's Judge vs. Judge: "The condition that the user insert a promin,ent notice of attr noibution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather, Defendants’ alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have constituted a breach of the no

Re: A simple question

On 2/21/2010 1:25 PM, RJack wrote: How can someone infringe on another's copyrighted work without violating one the specific exclusive rights as described in sections 106 through 122 and section 106(A)? The answer to this question could resolve many disagreements among open source license debater

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > work without adhering to its license, violating the exclusive rights > of the author under 17 USC 106. Hyman, why you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum? regards, alexander. P.S. "I'm

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

On 2/22/2010 12:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, why you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum? There is no conundrum, just twisting and spinning by anti-GPL cranks who want to convince people that violation

Re: A simple question

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Why do you believe that someone is claiming copyright infringement > outside of the enumerated rights of 17 USC 106? Even the FSF's wrong Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conund

Re: A simple question

On 2/22/2010 12:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum, why? There is no conundrum, just twisting and spinning by anti-GPL cranks who want to convince people that vi

Re: A simple question

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

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

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

Miles Bader wrote: > [In a typical silly net flamewar, one might explain it as simple > pigheadedness and unwillingness to admit error (AFAICT, these are the > common driving forces), but he's been spewing his bile so frequently, > and for so long, it seems like there must be _some_ reason ... d

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Victor Tarabola Cortiano wrote: >> [In a typical silly net flamewar, one might explain it as simple >> pigheadedness and unwillingness to admit error (AFAICT, these are the >> common driving forces), but he's been spewing his bile so frequently, >> and for so long,

Re: A simple question

On 2/22/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as violation of a renting license constitutes a trespass, you retard Hyman.

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

Alexander Terekhov writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: > [...] >> cranks who want to convince people that violation of a license >> does not constitute copyright infringement. The only person I > > Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright > infringement in pretty much the same wa

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

Hyman Rosen wrote: [... choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance ...] That's contract law claim, not tort. WHY ARE YOU BEING SUCH AN IDIOT HYMAN? regards, alexander. P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds." Hyman Rosen T

Re: A simple question

Hyman Rosen wrote: [... choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance ...] That's contract law claim, not tort. WHY ARE YOU BEING SUCH AN IDIOT HYMAN? regards, alexander. P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds." Hyman Rosen T

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

On 2/22/2010 12:54 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: That's contract law claim, not tort. WHY ARE YOU BEING SUCH AN IDIOT HYMAN? Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License are enforceable copyright conditions, ... ___

Re: A simple question

On 2/22/2010 12:55 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: That's contract law claim, not tort. WHY ARE YOU BEING SUCH AN IDIOT HYMAN? Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License are enforceable copyright conditions, ... ___

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

On 2/22/2010 12:14 PM, Victor Tarabola Cortiano wrote: How do one "steals" free software? By not complying with the conditions its rights holders have specified for permitting its copying and distribution. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-di

Re: A simple question

Hyman Rosen wrote: [... "enforceable copyright condition" ...] Hyman, please formulate what is "enforceable copyright condition", you retard. regards, alexander. P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds." Hyman Rosen The Silliest GPL 'Ad

Re: A simple question

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

Hyman Rosen wrote: [... "enforceable copyright condition" ...] Hyman, please formulate what is "enforceable copyright condition", you retard. regards, alexander. P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds." Hyman Rosen The Silliest GPL 'Ad

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

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

Re: A simple question

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

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

Re: A simple question

On 2/22/2010 1:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, why you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum? Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

On 2/22/2010 1:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum, why? Having determined that the terms of the Artistic

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

On 2/22/2010 1:42 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: What matters is that the terms and conditions in the GPL are legally valid, and have now been tested in an appeals court in the United States of America. That was the Artistic License, not the GPL, but good enough.

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

Victor Tarabola Cortiano writes: > How do one "steals" free software? BY making off with copies (i.e., tangible property) belonging to someone else. Copyright infringement is not theft (and no, that does not mean it is not illegal nor is a judgement as to whether it is right or wrong). -- John H

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

Hyman Rosen wrote: > On 2/22/2010 1:42 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> What matters is that the terms and conditions in the GPL are legally >> valid, and have now been tested in an appeals court in the United States >> of America. > That was the Artistic License, not the GPL, but good enough. Ah, t

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

John Hasler wrote: > Copyright infringement is not theft (and no, that does not mean it is > not illegal nor is a judgement as to whether it is right or wrong). That was my point :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://l

Re: A simple question

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/21/2010 1:25 PM, RJack wrote: How can someone infringe on another's copyrighted work without violating one the specific exclusive rights as described in sections 106 through 122 and section 106(A)? The answer to this question could resolve many disagreements among open

Re: A simple question

On 2/22/2010 4:18 PM, RJack wrote: I was addressing the Jacobsen decision and "rights" of attribution. Me thinks *you're* confused. Moron. There is no right of attribution in the United States. It is simply that permission is required from rights holders to copy and distribute works, and attrib

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/22/2010 1:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum, why? Having determined that the te

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

Alan Mackenzie wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, please formulate what is "enforceable copyright condition", ... Copying and distributing without permission from the rights holders, with such permission expressed i

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

On 2/22/2010 4:33 PM, RJack wrote: the entirely unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all Yes. And the use here is copying and distribution, which infri

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

On 2/22/2010 4:36 PM, RJack wrote: “uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all." -- {CAFC) The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in the absence of any license agr

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

RJack wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Alan is a poet and using poetic license... I have a good sense of rhythm, balance, and flow, yes. :-) > Sincerely, > RJack -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-di

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/22/2010 4:33 PM, RJack wrote: the entirely unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all Yes. And the use here is copying and di

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

On 2/22/2010 5:06 PM, RJack wrote: I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel violated CAFC rules. Court vs. crank. You can tell me a hundred times more, but nothing you tell me changes the fact that the so-called "valid" opinion is overturned. _

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

RJack wrote: > Hyman Rosen wrote: > I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel > violated CAFC rules. If you were correct, a single time would suffice. Here's the *valid* opinion: [ ] Sorry, Rjack, by definition the opinion of that appeals court is the valid one.

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/22/2010 5:06 PM, RJack wrote: I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel violated CAFC rules. Court vs. crank. You can tell me a hundred times more, but nothing you tell me changes the fact that the so-called "valid" opinion is overturned. 1)

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

Alan Mackenzie wrote: RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel violated CAFC rules. If you were correct, a single time would suffice. With Hyman listening? ROFL. Here's the *valid* opinion: [ ] Sorry, Rjack, by definit

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

On 2/22/2010 5:30 PM, RJack wrote: 1) The erroneous Jacobsen decision, having been voluntarily settled, can't be overturned. The original decision was overturned and remanded. That's the one you're quoting. 2) The erroneous Jacobsen decision can never be used as precedent in any federal court

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Here is what Judge White said, in his decision post CAFC: Under t

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

On 2/22/2010 6:15 PM, RJack wrote: Show me the exclusive right to attribution in the Copyright Act There is no exclusive right to attribution. There is the exclusive right to authorize copying and distribution. Such authorization may be conditional on the copier performing certain actions, and

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Here is what Judge White said, in his decision post CAFC:

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/22/2010 6:15 PM, RJack wrote: Show me the exclusive right to attribution in the Copyright Act There is no exclusive right to attribution. There is the exclusive right to authorize copying and distribution. Such authorization may be conditional on the copier performing

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > report of Michael A. Einhorn).)2 Because there are facts Oh yeah, report from Michael A. Einhorn. http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/369-6.pdf (Case3:06-cv-01905-JSW Document369-6 Filed 11/13/09 Page 5 of 146) "SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. Open source software i