Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: 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 requir

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 stat

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" someo

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 ex

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 u

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 th

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 feder

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! ___

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 leg

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 lis

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 limit

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 a

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 wor

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 You.. can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You can be a millionaire.. and never pay tax

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 so

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

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

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

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

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 nee

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

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? > >

Re: Settlements

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 conditi

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

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 i

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 > >>

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

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

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.or

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

Re: Settlements

RJack writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> RJack 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,

Re: Settlements

David Kastrup wrote: RJack 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

Re: Settlements

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

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

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. Bu

Re: Settlements

RJack 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? >> >

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 in

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