NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 31 March 2010 NJLUG: Revolution OS Movie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_OS [page was last modified on 17 March 2010 at 23:54]" also="http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409#"; edits=""> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:54:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Revolution OS screening. The New Jersey Linux User's gro

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/25/2010 2:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote: Hyman Rosen writes: On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate work after the original work has been created! Well, actually, let me ta

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/25/2010 2:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: derivative work != collective work (aka compilation aka "mere aggregation" in GNU-speak) Got it now? No, of course not. Daniel Wallace and you are both people who deliberately choose to misinterpret the GPL for your own purposes. Naturally, court

Re: GPL misappropriation

RJack writes: > I have been poking around in the source code for BusyBox, > v.0.60.3. and unsurprisingly most every thing in the those command > line utilities are substantially similar to the old BSD4.4-lite > tree. Not only are the defendants Best But et. al. not guilty of > infringing Erik And

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/25/2010 2:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > derivative work != collective work (aka compilation aka "mere > > aggregation" in GNU-speak) > > > > Got it now? > > No, of course not. Daniel Wallace and you are both people who > deliberately choose to misinterpret the

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/25/2010 3:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf The author of this seems not to realize that there is no right to copy and distribute works as part of a collective work without the authorization of the rights holders of the components. Given that incorrect

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Nicolas Neuss writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >> It does not get you "anything additional", but it gets you something >> _less_: a proprietary product that uses your own code to draw your >> user base away from you. > > This is quite understandable - I would not really like seeing Microsoft >

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/25/2010 3:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf > > The author of this seems not to realize that there is no > right to copy and distribute works as part of a collective > work without the authorization of the rights holders of >

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > There is no difficulty within copyright law for a rights > holder to say that "you may make and distribute standalone > copies provided you meet condition one, and you may make > and distribute copies of a collective work incorporating > the covered work provided you mee

Re: SFLC is SOL

On 3/22/2010 11:30 AM, RJack wrote: It is easily verified that neither link leads to the alleged infringed program source code. Of what use is a transparent lie? The source code for BusyBox is included in . _

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/25/2010 3:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf > > The author of this seems not to realize that there is no > right to copy and distribute works as part of a collective > work without the authorization of the rights holders of >

Re: CSRG archives

Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In gnu.misc.discuss RJack wrote: > > > If creators can prove they have authored some original code and > > properly register their that original code with the Copyright Office > > > > This is the bit I don't get yet. What's the purpose of having to > register co

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/25/2010 3:47 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Let the author http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm know about his "error piles upon error". I'm insufficiently motivated to bug someone about some mistake he made years ago. If he shows up here, I'll change my mind. By the way,

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/25/2010 4:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] There is no difficulty within copyright law for a rightshttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZS holder to say that "you may make and distribute standalone copies provided you meet condition one, and you may make a

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Raffael Cavallaro writes: > On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said: > >> Sure. >> >> And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me? > > My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements > regarding opening source code make it very unpopular

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Certainly the owner of a collective or derivative work gets > “to exercise the right to control” those works, and the owner > of each contribution gets “to exercise the right to control” > his or her contribution. (17 U.S.C. § 103[b].) > > so he's ce

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > You're a bit confused as usual, Hyman. http://www.ivanhoffman.com/tasini.html "The United States Supreme Court ruled that print publishers such as newspapers and magazines may not use material in online databases to wh

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/25/2010 5:15 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: It also means that as far as copyright law is concerned, compilation copyright can be licensed as its owner sees fit. Got it now? There is nothing to "get". The creator of the compilation owns the copyright to the arrangement of the works, but can

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen writes: > On 3/25/2010 2:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >> Hyman Rosen writes: >> >>> On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate work after the original work h

Re: SFLC is SOL

On 3/19/2010 2:38 PM, RJack wrote: This is the same pattern as Verizon (who also told them to kiss their ass) After the case against Verizon ended, Verizon made the GPL-ed sources properly available. Thus, a successful outcome for the SFLC. The SFLC will *never* voluntarily allow a federal ju

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Pascal Bourguignon writes: > And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me? Explain. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/25/2010 5:15 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > It also means that as far as copyright law is concerned, > > compilation copyright can be licensed as its owner sees fit. > > Got it now? > > There is nothing to "get". The creator of the compilation owns > the copyright

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB contract. http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf "The GPL grants

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

David Kastrup wrote: Hyman Rosen writes: On 3/25/2010 2:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote: Hyman Rosen writes: On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate work after the original wor

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is > > Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: > > It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB > contract. > > http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/jud

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is > > > > Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: > > > > It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB > > contract.

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> > [...] >> >> The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is >> > >> > Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: >> > >> > It's established by several courts in Germ

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > >> > >> Alexander Terekhov writes: > >> > >> > David Kastrup wrote: > >> > [...] > >> >> The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is > >> > > >> > Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: > >> >

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> >> >> Alexander Terekhov writes: >> >> >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> > [...] >> >> >> The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is >> >> > >> >> > Da

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > You did not understand a word of what you were replying to, again. The > whole point was that in the case of a _license_, as opposed to a > contract, any such stipulation of a _penalty_ is _invalid_, and _only_ > sustained damages can actually be claimed. Uh silly da

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> You did not understand a word of what you were replying to, again. The >> whole point was that in the case of a _license_, as opposed to a >> contract, any such stipulation of a _penalty_ is _invalid_, and _only_ >> sustained damages c

[Eben's Bullshiting Stunt March 18, 2010] "GNU GPL Version 3: The Law Making Process"

Hey GNUtians, any chance of a link to audio or video of that recent Eben's bullshiting stunt? TIA! http://www.osadl.org/Single-View.111+M55857da67f4.0.html - 09.20-09.40 GNU GPL Version 3: The Law Making Process Prof Eben Moglen, Columbia University, New York City 09.40-10.10 D

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > But until such a reasoning appears in the _ruling_ but just in one of a > count of charges . . . Uh silly dak. http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf "Nature of Suit: 190" http://directory.westlaw.com/scope/default.asp?db=DO

Re: [Eben's Bullshiting Stunt March 18, 2010] "GNU GPL Version 3: The Law Making Process"

http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2007/03/delusions_of_gr.html "Delusions of Grandeur: GPLv3 Is A License That Thinks It‘s a Regulation Having examined the latest draft of the Free Software Foundation’s General Public License version 3 (GPLv3) several times, and having looked over the Rati

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. " http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html "The Software is a collective work of Novell" Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective

Re: [Eben's Bullshiting Stunt March 18, 2010] "GNU GPL Version 3: The Law Making Process"

On 3/26/2010 1:29 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2007/03/delusions_of_gr.html Wow. A website dedicated to glorifying the denial of freedom to software users is whining about GPLv3. Shocking, just shocking. ___ gnu-

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html > > The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. " > > > > http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html > > "The Software is a collective work of Novell" >

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. " http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html "The Software is a collective work of Novell" Note that Red Hat's

Re: [Eben's Bullshiting Stunt March 18, 2010] "GNU GPL Version 3: The Law Making Process"

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/26/2010 1:29 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2007/03/delusions_of_gr.html Wow. A website dedicated to glorifying the denial of freedom to software users is whining about GPLv3. Shocking, just shocking. Oh woe is me! Harken! Dragons

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Forgot one bit. Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > > > On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html > > > The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. " > > > > > > http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective works aka compilations. How come that now it's called "a unified program"? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law? The "unified program"

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/29/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective works aka compilations. How come that now it's called "a unified program"? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law? T

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/29/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective > > works aka compilations. How come that now it's called "a unified > > program"? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL > > and/or

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 11:04 AM, RJack wrote: The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301 The GPL is a copyright license which authorizes certain actions based on the exclusive rights given to copyright holders by federal copyright law. The federal preemption of state copyright equivalence provisions is comp

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 10:11 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: IOW, it's "mere aggegation" just like in the GPLv2 Yes, the mere aggregation part is mere aggregation, just as the combined program part is the combined program part. The GPL grants permission for covered works to be copied and distributed as par

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 11:04 AM, RJack wrote: > The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301 The GPL is a copyright license which authorizes certain actions based on the exclusive rights given to copyright holders by federal copyright law. The federal preemption of state copyright equivalence provisions is comp

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 10:22 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: You must mean a derivative work of a GPL-covered work because the term "extension" is also not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law. Full stop once again for the same reason: the term "larger program" is also not defined in the GPL and/or copyri

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > > and is a misuse of copyright > > Misuse of copyright, when applied at all (its appearance is rare > as hen's teeth), is found in anti-competitive and anti-trust Not only. http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise15.html "The copyright misuse defense is simila

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/29/2010 10:11 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > IOW, it's "mere aggegation" just like in the GPLv2 > > Yes, the mere aggregation part is mere aggregation, just as the > combined program part is the combined program part. The GPL grants > permission for covered works t

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/29/2010 10:22 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > You must mean a derivative work of a GPL-covered work because the term > > "extension" is also not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law. > > Full stop once again for the same reason: the term "larger program" is > > al

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 10:39 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The courts have yet to analyze a copyleft provision for misuse, but the courts have addressed an analogous provision - the grantback. The Supreme Court held that though grant-back clauses can easily be u

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 10:44 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: To quote the FSF itself, the GPL itself rejects ANY (to repeat: ANY, ANY, ANY) automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL That's correct. It rejects any *automatic* aggregation of software copyrights. Instead, each case must be ex

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 10:44 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > To quote the FSF itself, the GPL itself rejects ANY (to repeat: ANY, > ANY, ANY) automatic aggregation of software > copyrights under the GPL That's correct. It rejects any *automatic* aggregation of software copyrights. Instead, each case must b

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: [... claiming that non-automatic aggregation isn't mere aggregation ...] > Instead, each case must be examined individually to see Where does the GPL say that "each case must be examined individually" silly Hyman? > which kind of aggregation LOL. It's mere aggegation stupi

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 11:53 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Where does the GPL say that "each case must be examined individually"? By specifying different kinds of permissions granted for different kinds of copying and distribution. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/29/2010 11:53 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Where does the GPL say that "each case must be examined individually"? > > By specifying ... You have nothing meaningful to quote from. Stop ignoring the facts Hyman. Recall that the FSF itself is on record: http://ww

To GNUtian dak: The GPL Contract Under Russian Law

http://www.ifross.org/artikel/russische-foederation-wirtschaftsministerium-wirksamkeit-gpl "Grundlage hierfür sieht es vor allem in Art. 1286 Pkt. 3 ZGB, wonach durch die Aufnahme von Nutzungshandlungen ein Vertragsschluss bewirkt werden kann. Damit ist das Wirtschaftsministerium eine weitere fö

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Misuse of copyright, when applied at all (its appearance is rare > as hen's teeth), is found in anti-competitive and anti-trust http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise15.html "The copyright misuse defense is similar to an antitrust claim, where a copyright owne

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

David Kastrup wrote: [... "the GPL is not a contract" baloney ...] > Really, you should stop quoting stuff ... How about the following quote, dak? http://www.ifross.org/artikel/russische-foederation-wirtschaftsministerium-wirksamkeit-gpl "Grundlage hierfür sieht es vor allem in Art. 1286 Pkt

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 12:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: You have nothing meaningful to quote from. On the contrary, all of my quotes are germane. Yours are lengthy, and none of them except those from like-minded cranks support your thesis in any way. Quoting from the FSF and the GPL while willfully fa

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 12:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "The copyright misuse defense is similar to an antitrust claim, where a copyright owner has misused the limited monopoly granted by the copyright. However, the Lasercomb decision made it clear that the copyright misuse defense is available even whe

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/29/2010 12:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > You have nothing meaningful to quote from. > > On the contrary, all of my quotes are germane. You quoted nothing in your message, silly Hyman. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox i

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/29/2010 12:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > "The copyright misuse defense is similar to an antitrust claim, where a > > copyright owner has misused the limited monopoly granted by the > > copyright. However, the Lasercomb decision made it clear that the > > copyrig

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 3:07 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On the contrary, all of my quotes are germane. You quoted nothing in your message. On other occasions. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/29/2010 3:07 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> On the contrary, all of my quotes are germane. > > You quoted nothing in your message. > > On other occasions. I lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of your s

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 3:07 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: whether the copyright is being used in a manner violative > of the public policy embodied in the grant of a copyright. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limi

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 3:29 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Recall that the FSF itself is on record: http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf Yes, you have quoted this many times. But I do not think this means what you (pretend to) think it means. What the FSF has said is correct, but none of what it sa

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > > copyright protection. As such, the GPL encourages, rather > than discourages, free competition... http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html "GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of c

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Fortunately the GPL carefully defines when a collective work > must as a whole be licensed under the GPL and when it need not To quote the FSF itself, the GPL itself rejects ANY (to repeat: ANY, ANY, ANY) automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL, you r

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 3:48 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] copyright protection. As such, the GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition... http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html "GNU will remov

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 3:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: To quote the FSF itself, the GPL itself rejects ANY (to repeat: ANY, ANY, ANY) automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL That's correct, there is no automatic aggregation of software copyright under the GPL. Any acceptance of the

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > the market based on what they offer. The GNU manifesto > does not say that it will prevent people from developing > operating systems, but that it will be unprofitable for > them to do so. > "It will be unprofitable for people to develop drugs. " "It will be unprofita

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/29/2010 3:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > To quote the FSF itself, the GPL itself rejects ANY (to repeat: ANY, > > ANY, ANY) automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL > > That's correct, there is no automatic aggregation of software > copyright u

[SFLC's Answer] Re: Best Buy countersues SFLC gang

[LMAO!] Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > "Best Buy Co., Inc. (“Best Buy”), erroneously sued in place of Best Buy > Stores, L.P. and BestBuy.Com, LLC, answers Software Freedom Conservancy, > Inc. and Erik Andersen’s (“Plaintiffs”) Original Complaint (“Complaint”) > as follows: > > [... snip answer .

SFLC admits the fraud on the copyright office, and the court

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf "Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program. " http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2&ti=1,2&Search%5FArg=busybox&Search%

Alexander Terekhov admits the fraud on the copyright office, and the court

Micoshaft Appil asstroturfing fraudster with a big girlie butt pounding the sock Alexander Terekhov wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Traffic Light Department of Marketing: > "Plaintiffs deny the allegations of Paragraph 6 of Best Buy's > Counterclaims to the extent they asser

Alexander Terekhov an asstroturfing internet terrorist?

Micoshaft Appil asstroturfing fraudster with a big girlie butt pounding the sock Alexander Terekhov wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Traffic Light Department of Marketing: > regards, > alexander. > > P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the > or

NYC LOCAL: Tuesday 30 March 2010 NYLUG Hackfest

From: NYLUG Announcements To: NYLUG Announcements Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:25:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nylug-announce] NYLUG Workshop / Hacking Society (Smalltalk, C++, Python) Tuesday March 30 6:00PM-8:00PM Reply-To: Announcements from NYLUG This is a reminder for the event detailed

Re: [SFLC's Answer] Re: Best Buy countersues SFLC gang

Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] > > 3. Best Buy is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of > > business at 7601 Penn Ave. South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. > > 3. Plaintiffs are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a > belief as to the truth of the allegations in Parag

Hey 7, your mind is a one bit processor with parity error

End of Message. 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 correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no scienc

SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

SCO lost its meaningless copyright suit with Novell yesterday. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100330152829622 Here is my old 29 Dec 2007 post to this group about SCO: * SCO, was a really stupid company that initially

Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

RJack, I must disagree with you that SCO's suit against Novell was moronic. As for the loss, consider that the loss in a jury trial was anticipated by SCO: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Novell-761.pdf "Plaintiff’s claim for specific performance should be tried to the Court" http://www.groklaw.ne

Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

RJack the stupid 1 wrote: > SCO lost its meaningless copyright suit with Novell yesterday. > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100330152829622 > > Here is my old 29 Dec 2007 post to this group about SCO: > > * > SCO, wa

Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

And verily, didst RJack hastily babble thusly: > SCO lost its meaningless copyright suit with Novell yesterday. > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100330152829622 > > Here is my old 29 Dec 2007 post to this group about SCO: > > **

Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:55:22 +0100, spike1 wrote: > You have absolutely no grasp of the history of SCO group. SCO didn't > begin with the release of SCO linux, they began as a LINUX distribution > called Caldera. For many years they were a SUCCESSFUL linux distribution > who aquired enough cash to

Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:17:21 +, RonB wrote: > Calera had early success as a desktop Linux Err... Caldera... with the "d." -- RonB Registered Linux User #498581 CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0 ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discus

Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

Alexander Terekhov wrote: RJack, I must disagree with you that SCO's suit against Novell was moronic. The thrust of my comment wasn't about SCO v. Novell being individual winners or losers. The copyrights are are old and irrelevant. A clean implementation would be child's play for a commercia

Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:18:05 + (UTC), RonB wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:17:21 +, RonB wrote: > >> Calera had early success as a desktop Linux > > Err... Caldera... with the "d." Caldera was actually a decent commercial distribution. It wasn't fancy, but it was well tested and did mor

Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote: And verily, didst RJack hastily babble thusly: SCO lost its meaningless copyright suit with Novell yesterday. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100330152829622 Here is my old 29 Dec 2007 post to this group about SCO: **

Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

RJack wrote: [...] > I noticed today that Versa Technology had two pro hac vice attorneys > approved and entered. This indicates they are not talking settlement > with the SFLC. I must agree with you, RJack. "03/30/2010 98 ORDER ADMITTING ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE. Attorney Paul Kim for Versa Tech

Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

And verily, didst RJack hastily babble thusly: > So what? Who gives a rat's ass? Not me. Why did you start the thread then? > Sincerely, Yeah... riiight. -- | spi...@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" | | Andrew Halliwell BSc |

Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote: And verily, didst RJack hastily babble thusly: So what? Who gives a rat's ass? Not me. Why did you start the thread then? U. It's about the futility of the "licensed at no charge" anti-intellectual property GPL and the "ancillary services" business mo

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/25/2010 3:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf The author of this seems not to realize that there is no right to copy and distribute works as part of a collective work without the authorization of the rights holders of the components. Given that incorrect

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/25/2010 3:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf The author of this seems not to realize that there is no right to copy and distribute works as part of a collective work without the authorization of the rights holders of the components. Given that incorrect

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 4:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "It will be unprofitable THAT'S AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY No, it's not. There is no public policy that it must be possible to profit in certain fields of endeavor. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 4:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/21_04_04.pdf This is a quote of one person's opinions, not of a decided case, so it needs to be understood in that light. "A licensor who contractually prohibited the combination of its software with other progr

Re: SFLC admits the fraud on the copyright office, and the court

On 3/29/2010 6:32 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "Plaintiffs deny the allegations of Paragraph 6 of Best Buy's Counterclaims to the extent they assert that Mr. Andersen alleges he is the author, developer and owner of “[all of] the” copyrights in BusyBox. Plaintiffs admit that they allege that Mr.

Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

On 3/31/2010 6:03 PM, RJack wrote: That business model is about to collapse for some companies. The business model of manufacturing automobiles and selling them to consumers has also collapsed for some companies. That some companies fail is not proof that their business model is wrong. Ability

Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:03:56 -0500, RJack wrote: > U. It's about the futility of the "licensed at no charge" > anti-intellectual property GPL and the "ancillary services" business > model built around it. That business model is about to collapse for some > companies. SCO tries a busine

Re: SFLC admits the fraud on the copyright office, and the court

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > notices did. The significance of registration is that it is a > prerequisite to a suit to enforce a copyright. Yes silly Hyman, but http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/intellectual-property-copyright/125937-1.html "Fraud on the Copyright Office. (The Law of the

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >