Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida

On 4/21/2010 9:28 AM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Where do you see any distribution to "all third parties"? You are just amazingly confused. "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 b

NYC LOCAL: Tuesday 27 April 2010 NYLUG: Squeak Hack Fest

From: NYLUG Announcements To: NYLUG Announcements Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:20:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nylug-announce] NYLUG Workshop / Hacking Society, (Smalltalk, C++, Python) TOMORROW April 27 6:00PM-8:00PM Reply-To: Announcements from NYLUG This is a reminder for the event detaile

Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida

Hyman Rosen writes: > On 4/21/2010 9:28 AM, RJack wrote: >> Hyman Rosen wrote: >>> Where do you see any distribution to "all third parties"? You are just >>> amazingly confused. >> >> "You must cause any work that *YOU DISTRIBUTE* or publish, that in whole >> or in part contains or is derived fro

Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/20/2010 10:41 PM, RJack wrote: And the rights holders are excluded as beneficiaries of the GPL contract. The distribution is to other "all third parties". What in the world are you talking about? "23. Under the License, Mr. Andersen grants certain permissions to other

Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida

On 4/20/2010 10:41 PM, RJack wrote: And the rights holders are excluded as beneficiaries of the GPL contract. The distribution is to other "all third parties". What in the world are you talking about? "23. Under the License, Mr. Andersen grants certain permissions to other parties to copy, mo

Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/20/2010 4:55 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract [1] Elements and Case Citations (1) Defendant and a third-party entered a valid contract; (2) Plaintiff is not a party to the contract; (3) The parties to the contract intended

Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida

Hyman Rosen writes: > You are very confused. I don't think he is confused at all. It's all quite deliberate. He's trolling. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.o

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen writes: > On 4/20/2010 3:27 PM, RJack wrote: >> Open your eyes. Your dream is over. > > When a court tells me so, then I'll worry. > When a crank does, not so much. > > So far, courts seem to like open licenses just fine. It is not a matter of liking them or not liking them. They de

Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/20/2010 5:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Because that's the right way to enforce third-party beneficiary > > contracts > > But the GPL is not a third-party beneficiary contract, > it's a simple copyright license. You are very confused. I'm not confused, you're

Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida

On 4/20/2010 5:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Because that's the right way to enforce third-party beneficiary contracts But the GPL is not a third-party beneficiary contract, it's a simple copyright license. You are very confused. ___ gnu-misc-discu

Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/20/2010 4:55 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > "Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract > > [1] Elements and Case Citations > > (1) Defendant and a third-party entered a valid contract; > > (2) Plaintiff is not a party to the contract; > > (3) The parties to t

Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida

On 4/20/2010 4:55 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract [1] Elements and Case Citations (1) Defendant and a third-party entered a valid contract; (2) Plaintiff is not a party to the contract; (3) The parties to the contract intended that the contract prim

[For Hyman The Retard] Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida

"Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract [1] Elements and Case Citations (1) Defendant and a third-party entered a valid contract; (2) Plaintiff is not a party to the contract; (3) The parties to the contract intended that the contract primarily or directly benefit plaintiff or a class

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/20/2010 4:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Think of not free > > As in beer, or as in speech? As in third-party beneficiary contract, you retard. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/20/2010 4:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Think of not free As in beer, or as in speech? If the former, there must be communication between the licensee and licensor, in order for money to be paid. Open licenses do not require contact. ___ gnu-m

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/20/2010 3:46 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Given that many proprietary licenses are offered to anyone with or > > without a copy of the covered work, the proprietary licenses are > > actually more open > > What is a proprietary license? Think of not free, you ret

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/20/2010 3:03 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Open licenses authorize actions otherwise prohibited by copyright law provided that persons using this authorization comply with provisions specified by the license. The licenses are open in the Do you r

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/20/2010 3:46 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Given that many proprietary licenses are offered to anyone with or without a copy of the covered work, the proprietary licenses are actually more open What is a proprietary license? ___ gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: [... open ...] > sense that they are generally offered to anyone who has a copy of > the covered work, . . . Given that many proprietary licenses are offered to anyone with or without a copy of the covered work, the proprietary licenses are actually more open, right you idiot

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/20/2010 3:27 PM, RJack wrote: Open your eyes. Your dream is over. When a court tells me so, then I'll worry. When a crank does, not so much. So far, courts seem to like open licenses just fine. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/20/2010 3:03 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Open licenses authorize actions otherwise prohibited by copyright law provided that persons using this authorization comply with provisions specified by the license. The licenses are open in the Do you really think that proprie

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/20/2010 1:25 PM, RJack wrote: There is *no* legal definition of what an "open" license is Open licenses authorize actions otherwise prohibited by copyright law provided that persons using this authorization comply with provisions specified by the license. At least t

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/20/2010 1:25 PM, RJack wrote: > > There is *no* legal definition of what an "open" license is > > Open licenses authorize actions otherwise prohibited by copyright > law provided that persons using this authorization comply with > provisions specified by the license.

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/20/2010 1:25 PM, RJack wrote: There is *no* legal definition of what an "open" license is Open licenses authorize actions otherwise prohibited by copyright law provided that persons using this authorization comply with provisions specified by the license. The licenses are open in the sense

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/20/2010 1:37 PM, RJack wrote: Publishing "copyright notices" and "tracking of modifications" do not require use of the rights in 17 USC sec. 106 and therefore no sec. 106 rights are violated by not doing so. Copying and distributing a work without adhering to the requirements in the grant

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/20/2010 1:10 PM, RJack wrote: This finding directly contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling that to infringe, an action must violate one of the "specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute". No, it's consistent with it - the violation was of the exclusiv

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/20/2010 9:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: With one court And how many court decisions have supported the crank point of view while addressing open licenses? Absolutely none. Nada. Zip. Nicht. There is *no* legal definition of what an "open" license is, other than t

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/20/2010 1:10 PM, RJack wrote: This finding directly contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling that to infringe, an action must violate one of the "specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute". No, it's consistent with it - the violation was of the exclusive right to copy and

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/20/2010 9:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: With one court And how many court decisions have supported the crank point of view while addressing open licenses? In 1984 the Supreme Court held: "An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflic

Re: Compliance detection tool

John Hasler wrote: [...] > I think that you would find that most lawyers would never cite an > overruled decision. Except in the case of the appellate court being the CAFC and the subject matter being NOT patents and NOT something claimed against the United States government you retard... especia

NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 21 April 2010 NYLUG: Richard Kreuter on NoSQL in general and MongoDB in particular

From: NYLUG Announcements To: NYLUG Announcements Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:45:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nylug-announce] NYLUG Presents: 4/21 @ 6:30PM Richard Kreuter on NoSQL and MongoDB, Relating to Non-Relational Databases Wednesday, April 21, 2010 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM IBM 590 Madison

Re: Compliance detection tool

David Kastrup writes: > Let's be fair. An overruled court decision (even if it does not > change the consequences, namely the necessity to comply) is better > than nothing. No, it's worse than nothing. With nothing you are only arguing against your opponent. With a overruled decision you are ar

Re: Compliance detection tool

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Hyman Rosen writes: >> >> > On 4/20/2010 10:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> >> Hyman Rosen wrote: >> >>> And how many court decisions have supported the crank >> >>> point of view while addressing open licenses? >> >> >> >> The distri

Re: Compliance detection tool

David Kastrup wrote: > > Hyman Rosen writes: > > > On 4/20/2010 10:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >> Hyman Rosen wrote: > >>> And how many court decisions have supported the crank > >>> point of view while addressing open licenses? > >> > >> The district court in that same case > > > > Whic

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: [... progress%20software.pdf ...] > As usual, your references undermine your case. This order You're simply too stupid to grasp the fact that the judge in MySQL case is applying the contract breach standard of review against which she evaluates the GPL claim, NOT copyright in

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen writes: > On 4/20/2010 10:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> Hyman Rosen wrote: >>> And how many court decisions have supported the crank >>> point of view while addressing open licenses? >> >> The district court in that same case > > Which was overruled. Let's be fair. An overrule

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/20/2010 10:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: And how many court decisions have supported the crank point of view while addressing open licenses? The district court in that same case Which was overruled. and MySQL court in http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/sar

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/20/2010 9:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > With one court > > And how many court decisions have supported the crank > point of view while addressing open licenses? The district court in that same case you retard and MySQL court in http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/d

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/20/2010 9:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: With one court And how many court decisions have supported the crank point of view while addressing open licenses? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/20/2010 5:37 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Only silly freetards would tolerate utter nonsense > > And courts. Don't forget courts. With one court being in a freetard blackout and spouting "Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both c

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/20/2010 5:37 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Only silly freetards would tolerate utter nonsense And courts. Don't forget courts. When it's court vs. crank, court wins. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/

Re: Compliance detection tool

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> > >> On 4/19/2010 5:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> > Just curious, in what sense is it "instructive"? > >> > >> One might otherwise believe that the anti-GPL crank position > >> is simply a different interpreta

Re: Compliance detection tool

Alexander Terekhov writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> >> On 4/19/2010 5:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> > Just curious, in what sense is it "instructive"? >> >> One might otherwise believe that the anti-GPL crank position >> is simply a different interpretation of law and circumstance >> in an "ag

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/19/2010 5:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > > Just curious, in what sense is it "instructive"? > > One might otherwise believe that the anti-GPL crank position > is simply a different interpretation of law and circumstance > in an "agree to disagree" sort of way. Only s

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/19/2010 5:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: Just curious, in what sense is it "instructive"? One might otherwise believe that the anti-GPL crank position is simply a different interpretation of law and circumstance in an "agree to disagree" sort of way. _

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen writes: > On 4/17/2010 6:03 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > shall be impeached > > Be sure to get back to me when that happens. > > Meanwhile, it's instructive to see you spewing your > hateful bile. Just curious, in what sense is it "instructive"? -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_K

Re: Compliance detection tool

RJack wrote: > The erroneous non-precedential Jacobsen decision is strictly limited > to the one past defendant in a nation of 310 million people. So... > what's your point? While it is not a binding precedent it is still a precedent which can and will be cited. Non-binding precedents are routine

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/19/2010 5:19 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: is utter nonsense. In the battle of 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: Compliance detection tool

On 4/18/2010 9:23 AM, RJack wrote: The erroneous non-precedential Jacobsen decision is strictly limited to the one past defendant in a nation of 310 million people. So... what's your point? That since the CAFC JMRI decision is correct and correctly reasoned, other courts in like circumstances w

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/17/2010 6:03 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > shall be impeached > > Be sure to get back to me when that happens. > > Meanwhile, it's instructive to see you spewing your > hateful bile. It is instructive to see you failing to grasp that "Thus, if the terms of the

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/17/2010 4:58 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The US Court of Appeals, the US Court of Appeals... c'mon Hyman, face the truth: the silly opinion that you so much love is a product of a district court level judge from New Jersey who managed to deliberately misread and misap

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/17/2010 6:03 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: shall be impeached Be sure to get back to me when that happens. Meanwhile, it's instructive to see you spewing your hateful bile. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/17/2010 4:58 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The US Court of Appeals, the US Court of Appeals... c'mon Hyman, face the truth: the silly opinion that you so much love is a product of a district court level judge from New Jersey who managed to deliberately misread and misapply California contrac

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak? I should think a lot more comfortably than you make friends. I should think that you are jobless, right? I'd th

Re: Compliance detection tool

RJack wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/16/2010 2:50 PM, RJack wrote: > >> The erroneous > > > > It will be "erroneous" when another court says it is. Right now, it's > > a valid decision of a court. > > The Supreme Court has already said it's erroneous. New Jersey district judge HOCHBERG

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/16/2010 3:40 PM, amicus_curious wrote: > > "Hyman Rosen" wrote in message > >> Unfortunately for you, a Supreme Court decision of 1992 > >> does not overrule a US Court of Appeals decision of 2008. > > > > Does too. > > Not until a higher court than the US Court of A

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > >> > How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak? > > >> I should think a lot more comfortably than you make friends. > > > I should think that you are jobless, right? >

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov wrote: > David Kastrup wrote: >> > How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak? >> I should think a lot more comfortably than you make friends. > I should think that you are jobless, right? I'd think you're friendless, too, eh? > regar

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/16/2010 3:40 PM, amicus_curious wrote: "Hyman Rosen" wrote in message Unfortunately for you, a Supreme Court decision of 1992 does not overrule a US Court of Appeals decision of 2008. Does too. Not until a higher court than the US Court of Appeals says so. Be sure to get back to me whe

Re: Compliance detection tool

"Hyman Rosen" wrote in message news:603yn.153497$ye4.99...@newsfe11.iad... On 4/16/2010 3:34 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: It will be "erroneous" when another court says it is. >> Right now, it's a valid decision of a court. The Supreme Court has already said it's erroneous. Unfo

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/16/2010 3:34 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: It will be "erroneous" when another court says it is. >> Right now, it's a valid decision of a court. The Supreme Court has already said it's erroneous. Unfortunately for you, a Supreme Court decision of 1992 does not overrule a US Court

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 2:50 PM, RJack wrote: The erroneous It will be "erroneous" when another court says it is. Right now, it's a valid decision of a court. The Supreme Court has already said it's erroneous. "In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992), we hel

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

On 4/16/2010 3:24 PM, RJack wrote: What is exactly your goal? To correct your incorrect statements. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 2:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize the value of moral rights. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html "Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

On 4/16/2010 3:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer." It is a bit more like moral rights of art than moral rights of artists. They're trying to keep people from buying the Mona Lisa and drawing a mustache on it, but it's hard to write a

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/16/2010 2:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize > >> the value of moral rights. > > > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html > > > > "Under VARA, moral rights aut

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

On 4/16/2010 2:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize the value of moral rights. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html "Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a "work of visua

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/16/2010 2:50 PM, RJack wrote: The erroneous It will be "erroneous" when another court says it is. Right now, it's a valid decision of a court. strictly limited to the one past defendant in a nation > of 310 million people And how many decided cases are there that reflect your erroneous

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 2:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: An invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL) is always an invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL). The GPL is not a contract but a copyright license, and it is copyright infringement to copy and distribute GPL-covered

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/16/2010 2:30 PM, RJack wrote: > > Yup. "Only the author of a work of visual art...". > > You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize > the value of moral rights. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html "Under VARA, moral rights a

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 2:36 PM, RJack wrote: Virtually all open source licenses are unenforceable due to lack of Article III standing. Open source licenses in general are only useful for defenses against copyright infringement suits. That's false, as we can see from this court decisio

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link. Sometimes a GNUtian is a moron. Other times he is just a fool. Sincerely, RJack :) _

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 1:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards. Since they have so far gained compliance from every defendant whose case has ended, one can only imagine how much more good for the GPL could be accomplished by competent lawyers of ave

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] These are lawyers. SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards. I'll second that motion. All in favor say aye. aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye a

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/16/2010 2:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: An invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL) is always an invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL). The GPL is not a contract but a copyright license, and it is copyright infringement to copy and distribute GPL-covered works without compl

Re: Compliance detection tool

On 4/16/2010 2:36 PM, RJack wrote: Virtually all open source licenses are unenforceable due to lack of Article III standing. Open source licenses in general are only useful for defenses against copyright infringement suits. That's false, as we can see from this court decision:

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: And what would such hallucination-motion say to the court to > justify the request to amend the complaint silly Hyman? Well, they could say "we forgot". Or they could say that b

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

On 4/16/2010 2:30 PM, RJack wrote: Yup. "Only the author of a work of visual art...". You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize the value of moral rights. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 12:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.oblon.com/files/news/514.pdf "under the “Registration Approach,” only after the Register of Copyrights actually approves the application and issues a registration, or notifies the copyright applicant that the appli

Re: Compliance detection tool

Hyman Rosen wrote: Software development company Loohuis Consulting and process management consultancy OpenDawn have released a new binary analysis tool that is designed to detect Linu

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/16/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz > > Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link. An invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL) is always an invalid/void/unenfor

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 10:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective and subject to dismissal."; Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195, 1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). If the court requires that each specific v

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 6:34 PM, RJack wrote: The value of a nonexclusive copyright license like the GPL > is called its "contractual interest". Something like this: SANTA CLARA, CA January 16, 2008 Sun Microsystems,

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/16/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lis

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/16/2010 1:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards. > > Since they have so far gained . . . http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer progra

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/16/2010 1:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards. Since they have so far gained compliance from every defendant whose case has ended, one can only imagine how much more good for the GPL could be accomplished by competent lawyers of average intelligence. P

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > These are lawyers. SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course co

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/16/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: And what would such hallucination-motion say to the court to > justify the request to amend the complaint silly Hyman? Well, they could say "we forgot". Or they could say that because the infringers

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/16/2010 12:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> The court may also give them the option of registering and > >> then amending the complaint. > > > > Sez who? > > The Supreme Court: > > Feder

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/16/2010 12:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: The court may also give them the option of registering and then amending the complaint. Sez who? The Supreme Court: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) declares that lea

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > The court may also give them the option of registering and > then amending the complaint. Sez who? regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen The Silliest

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/16/2010 12:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.oblon.com/files/news/514.pdf "under the “Registration Approach,” only after the Register of Copyrights actually approves the application and issues a registration, or notifies the copyright applicant that the application is rejected, is

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/16/2010 10:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > "A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective > > and subject to dismissal."; Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195, > > 1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). > > If . . . http://www.ob

The birth of a virus scanner against the GPL virus

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > "Developed with funding from the Linux Foundation and the NLnet Foundation, the binary analysis tool is distributed under the permissive Apache license. " LOL.

Compliance detection tool

Software development company Loohuis Consulting and process management consultancy OpenDawn have released a new binary analysis tool that is designed to detect Linux and

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/16/2010 10:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective and subject to dismissal."; Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195, 1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). If the court requires that each specific version of a work be

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/15/2010 6:26 PM, RJack wrote: > > To institute the Best Buy et al suit, the plaintiff was required by > > statute to identify the allegedly infringed work's registration: > > > > "§ 411 · Registration and civil infringement actions > > (a) Except for an action brought

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

On 4/15/2010 6:34 PM, RJack wrote: The value of a nonexclusive copyright license like the GPL > is called its "contractual interest". Something like this: SANTA CLARA, CA January 16, 2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: JAVA)

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 6:26 PM, RJack wrote: To institute the Best Buy et al suit, the plaintiff was required by statute to identify the allegedly infringed work's registration: "§ 411 · Registration and civil infringement actions (a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the autho

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > > Undisputed fact 2) No court has ever granted *any* relief requested by > > any BusyBox plaintiff -- ever. > > This is because the defendants agree to comply with the GPL, > and therefore there is no further matter for the court to > decide. This is exactly how the GPL

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >