Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/9/2010 11:37 AM, RJack wrote: The claim processing rules dictated by 17 USC sec. 411(a) require the specific work be identified through registration with the Copyright Office. Stop making up nonsense Hyman. Tell it to the court:

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html See also "[LOL] Hey Alan, Pee Jay's mind is going to explode soon" thread here: Western Digital: "Plaintiffs claims are barred by the first sale doctrine." Westi

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/9/2010 11:51 AM, RJack wrote: You can only claim infringement for works that *you* own. Register *your* contribution and stop claiming rights to ownership of a derivative work as a whole. That's what registration of copyright means; it reflects the registrant's ownership of rights, but doe

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

RJack writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 4/8/2010 6:44 PM, RJack wrote: >>> You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier of >>> fact compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to identify >>> with an *alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury members to >>> compare? >> >>

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 11:37 AM, RJack wrote: The claim processing rules dictated by 17 USC sec. 411(a) require the specific work be identified through registration with the Copyright Office. Stop making up nonsense Hyman. Tell it to the court:

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: RJack writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/8/2010 6:44 PM, RJack wrote: You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier of fact compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to identify with an *alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury members to compare?

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > Like it happened every time so far. Like http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz you moron dak. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards re

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual sense. In particular, a copy of a GPL-covered work made for use does not become a copy whic

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/9/2010 12:44 PM, RJack wrote: That's one of the slickest out of context edits I've seen for a while What do you believe the full context communicates that the excerpt does not? You're a great fan of "provided that" and "may" aren't you Hyman? The court plainly states that the remedy fo

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/9/2010 12:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Like http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lis

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual sense. In particular, a copy of a GPL-covered work made for use does no

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 12:44 PM, RJack wrote: That's one of the slickest out of context edits I've seen for a while What do you believe the full context communicates that the excerpt does not? You're a great fan of "provided that" and "may" aren't you Hyman? The court plainly state

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 12:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Like http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link. Sometimes a claimed "victory" is just propaganda hype. Sincerely, RJack :)

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/9/2010 1:39 PM, RJack wrote: Yeah -- in a future action. So what? So if a court finds it cannot deal with a GPL copyright infringement claim because the particular infringed version isn't registered, the plaintiffs will register that version and bring the case again, just as the court sugg

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 1:39 PM, RJack wrote: Yeah -- in a future action. So what? So if a court finds it cannot deal with a GPL copyright infringement claim because the particular infringed version isn't registered, the plaintiffs will register that version and bring the case again, ju

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/9/2010 2:29 PM, RJack wrote: The GPL is preempted under U.S. copyright law The GPL functions properly under US copyright law. The preemption of state laws equivalent to copyright is irrelevant to the GPL. as well as being unenforceable under the common law of contracts. The GPL is not

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 2:29 PM, RJack wrote: The GPL is preempted under U.S. copyright law The GPL functions properly under US copyright law. The preemption of state laws equivalent to copyright is irrelevant to the GPL. as well as being unenforceable under the common law of contract

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/9/2010 2:54 PM, RJack wrote: You can't accept illegal terms... the law refuses to enforce them. Fortunately the terms of the GPL are legal. Oh beautiful estoppel! Wondrous are your ways! You maketh my code public domain! Oh fair estoppel! There is no estoppel with respect to the GPL si

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 2:54 PM, RJack wrote: You can't accept illegal terms... the law refuses to enforce them. Fortunately the terms of the GPL are legal. Oh beautiful estoppel! Wondrous are your ways! You maketh my code public domain! Oh fair estoppel! There is no estoppel with r

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/9/2010 3:46 PM, RJack wrote: Crank this Mr. Denier: "To apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the proponent must demonstrate: (1) a clear and unambiguous promise; (2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; and (3) an injury sustained in reliance o

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 3:46 PM, RJack wrote: Crank this Mr. Denier: "To apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the proponent must demonstrate: (1) a clear and unambiguous promise; (2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; and (3) an injury s

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/9/2010 4:32 PM, RJack wrote: Don't go to a real court Hyman. You'll find the court won't indulge your denials anymore than the federal courts listened to the Birther's claims of non-citizenship for Obama. ROFL. According to this paper,

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

RJack writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 4/9/2010 2:29 PM, RJack wrote: >>> The GPL is preempted under U.S. copyright law >> >> The GPL functions properly under US copyright law. The preemption of >> state laws equivalent to copyright is irrelevant to the GPL. >> >>> as well as being unenforceabl

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > According to this paper, > > the GPL is not a contract. "Part IV proposes that the GPL is a failed contract, which lacks only consideration. It advocates enforcing the license through state promissory estoppel law and the Copyright

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: [... Pee Jays therom ...] > a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do What part of YOU INDICATE ACCEPTANCE don't you understand retard dak? ACCEPTANCE is a contract thing, idiot. "Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 4:32 PM, RJack wrote: Don't go to a real court Hyman. You'll find the court won't indulge your denials anymore than the federal courts listened to the Birther's claims of non-citizenship for Obama. ROFL. According to this paper,

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html > > The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright > infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual > sense. In particular, a copy of a GPL-covered work made >

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: > [...] >> According to this paper, >> >> the GPL is not a contract. > > "Part IV proposes that the GPL is a failed contract, which lacks only > consideration. It advocates enforcing the license through state >

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > > [... Pee Jays therom ...] > >> a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do > > What part of YOU INDICATE ACCEPTANCE don't you understand retard dak? > ACCEPTANCE is a contract thing, idiot. Just because the GPL stat

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> >> On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> > http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html >> >> The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright >> infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual >> sense. In particular

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > [...] > >> According to this paper, > >> > >> the GPL is not a contract. > > > > "Part IV proposes that the GPL is a failed contract, which lacks only > > consideration. It ad

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > > > [... Pee Jays therom ...] > > > >> a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do > > > > What part of YOU INDICATE ACCEPTANCE don't you understand retard dak? > > ACCEPTANCE is a cont

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Like it happened every time so far. Like http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz you moron dak. Actually it's there somewhere... It's just that it's a *moving target* now: -

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell > us when they choose to comply after all (as they have consistently ended > up with so far)? Like http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz you moron da

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual sense. In particular, a copy of a GPL-covere

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] According to this paper, the GPL is not a contract. "Part IV proposes that the GPL is a failed contract, which lacks only consideration. It advocates enforcing the license through

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov writes: David Kastrup wrote: [... Pee Jays therom ...] a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do What part of YOU INDICATE ACCEPTANCE don't you understand retard dak? ACCEPTANCE is a contract thing, idiot. Just because

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual sense. In particula

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell >> us when they choose to comply after all (as they have consistently ended >> up with so far)? > > Like > > http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: [...] just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell us when they choose to comply after all (as they have consistently ended up with so far)? Like http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_rel

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

RJack writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> Alexander Terekhov writes: >> >>> Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright infringement of GPL-covered works

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: RJack writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright infringement of GPL-covered works, e

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > Why would they make the source code available without necessity? Out of > court settlements are private. But the results speak for themselves. Like http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz you moron dak. regards, alexande

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hadron writes: > Alexander Terekhov writes: > >> David Kastrup wrote: >> [...] >>> just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell >>> us when they choose to comply after all (as they have consistently ended >>> up with so far)? >> >> Like >> >> http://download.comtrend.c

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > Comply with a small number of clearly spelled out conditions, and you > are fine, breach, and you are in trouble. It's not a particularly hard > concept unless you are a troll. Samsung (several other 'humongous' defendants aside for a moment): "Defendant alleges tha

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> Why would they make the source code available without necessity? Out of >> court settlements are private. But the results speak for themselves. > > Like > > http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.t

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> Comply with a small number of clearly spelled out conditions, and you >> are fine, breach, and you are in trouble. It's not a particularly hard >> concept unless you are a troll. > > Samsung (several other 'humongous' defendants aside

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

RJack wrote: [...] > Hyman has Pee Jay and Eben Moglen on his side. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/FLOSS_Weekly_13:_Eben_Moglen_on_GPL_3.0 "[Leo Laporte:] So, are you, you’re an attorney, Eben? [Eben Moglen:] Yes, that’s correct, I went to law school and got a history Ph.D. after a career as

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > http://www.comtrend.com/na/privacy.htm> says LOL. "Firmware/Software License Agreement In accordance with the terms accompanying the file (or the license authorization which was supplied with the original product) one copy of the firmware/software may be downloaded.

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > Let's see the judge take them up on this and other allegations. I > rather expect them to come into compliance and drop out of the suit via > that way rather than a ruling. Yeah, like "Not Found The requested document was not found on this server. ---

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/10/2010 7:33 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright infringement of GPL-covered works Samsung and several other defendants disagree with you The defendants, as is proper, throw up every possible legal defense against the

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/10/2010 8:25 AM, RJack wrote: Just show us the settlement agreements Settlement agreements are often kept private, so it is not possible to show them. Instead, one simply has to look at the results after the suits end, which invariably is that the defendants comply with the GPL. __

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/10/2010 8:22 AM, Hadron wrote: What continually amazes me though is a certain claim about how > "so easy the GPL is to understand". This in the face of this > and similar threads and a pile of tangled legal activity. The GPL is easy to understand. The legal activity undertaken by the SFLC

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/10/2010 9:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "Not Found The requested document was not found on this server. It is also the case that says "Comtrend Corporation North America provides downloads by request only." so it may be that in order to get the G

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/10/2010 9:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "Not Found The requested document was not found on this server. It is also the case that says "Comtrend Corporation North America provides downloads by request only." so it may be that

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

RJack writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 4/10/2010 9:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >>> "Not Found The requested document was not found on this server. >> >> It is also the case that >> says "Comtrend Corporation North America provides downloads by >> re

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: RJack writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/10/2010 9:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "Not Found The requested document was not found on this server. It is also the case that says "Comtrend Corporation North America provides downloa

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/11/2010 3:23 PM, RJack wrote: So where's the link to "BusyBox v. 0.60.3" which the SFLC claims causes the infringement problems? The SFLC does not claim that BusyBox v. 0.60.3 causes the infringement problem. This can easily be seen by reading the complaint,

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/11/2010 3:23 PM, RJack wrote: So where's the link to "BusyBox v. 0.60.3" which the SFLC claims causes the infringement problems? The SFLC does not claim that BusyBox v. 0.60.3 causes the infringement problem. This can easily be seen by reading the complaint,

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/12/2010 7:45 AM, RJack wrote: It claims infringement of "BusyBox v. 0.60.3" causes the problem. > Who are people going to believe? You or their lyin' eyes? The SFLC does not claim that BusyBox v. 0.60.3 causes the infringement problem. This can easily be seen by reading the complaint,

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/12/2010 7:45 AM, RJack wrote: > > It claims infringement of "BusyBox v. 0.60.3" causes the problem. > > Who are people going to believe? You or their lyin' eyes? > > The SFLC does not claim that BusyBox v. 0.60.3 causes the > infringement problem. This can easily be

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/12/2010 10:37 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Now go read 17 U.S.C. § 501 That simply says that infringing copyright makes one a copyright infringer, and that a rights holder may sue. including § 411 That says that you have to register a work before you can bring a civil action about it.

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > > Hint: the only registered Busybox copyright allegedly owned by > > Plaintiffs (actually only Erik) according to the utter fraudulent > > registration is BusyBox v. 0.60.3. > > The complaint states >

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/12/2010 7:45 AM, RJack wrote: It claims infringement of "BusyBox v. 0.60.3" causes the problem. Who are people going to believe? You or their lyin' eyes? The SFLC does not claim that BusyBox v. 0.60.3 causes the infringement problem. This can easily be seen by reading

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/12/2010 10:37 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: There is nothing to "get". If the court finds that it cannot act because defendants have infringed upon a non-registered version, the plaintiffs can simply register that version and refile the claim. We know this from the Si

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen writes: > There is nothing to "get". If the court finds that it cannot act > because defendants have infringed upon a non-registered version, the > plaintiffs can simply register that version and refile the claim. We > know this from the SimplexGrinnell court decision. I should think

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/12/2010 11:25 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi From this search, it appears that Erik Andersen has only the one registration on 'BusyBox, v.0.60.3.'. Also, Denys Vlasenko has registered 'BusyBox.' and Rob Landley has registered 'BusyBox, v.1.00-r

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: Hyman Rosen writes: There is nothing to "get". If the court finds that it cannot act because defendants have infringed upon a non-registered version, the plaintiffs can simply register that version and refile the claim. We know this from the SimplexGrinnell court decisio

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/12/2010 11:35 AM, RJack wrote: Nope. You are lying about lying. The SFLC claims infringement of "BusyBox v. 0.60.3" causes the problem. No. The complaint alleges that defendants are infringing upon the copyri

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/12/2010 11:53 AM, RJack wrote: 17 USC Sec. 506. Criminal offenses... (e) False Representation. — Fortunately, there is no false representation involved here. "Perens claims that this lawsuit is being undertaken without his consent, even though the version of BusyBox disputed in the lawsu

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/12/2010 11:25 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi From this search, it appears that Erik Andersen has only the one registration on 'BusyBox, v.0.60.3.'. Also, Denys Vlasenko has registered 'BusyBox.' and Rob Landley has registere

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/12/2010 12:02 PM, David Kastrup wrote: I should think that it is sufficient if enough protected material from the registered version can be found in the distribution, whether or not there is an exact version match. The SimplexGrinnell case seems to imply otherwise. The court really wanted

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/12/2010 12:19 PM, RJack wrote: Erik Andersen doesn't own *any* version of BusyBox and you know it. Your mother should have washed your mouth out with soap more often when you were a little boy. Pinocchio nose. "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on yo

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/10/2010 9:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Yeah, like "Not Found The requested document was not found on this server. The links are working once more. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinf

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/12/2010 11:53 AM, RJack wrote: 17 USC Sec. 506. Criminal offenses... (e) False Representation. — Fortunately, there is no false representation involved here. "Perens claims that this lawsuit is being undertaken without his consent, even though the version of BusyBox d

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/12/2010 12:43 PM, RJack wrote: Your cited case is about statutes of limitations in compilations Regardless of what the case is about, it is nevertheless a fact that the court stated McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/10/2010 9:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Yeah, like > > "Not Found > > The requested document was not found on this server. > > The links are working once more. Said the idiot who is "insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do th

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: [... retard Hyman's quoting from Gaiman_v._McFarlane ...] > notices did. The significance of registration is that it is a > prerequisite to a suit to enforce a copyright. "More precisely, an application to register must be filed, and either granted or refused, befor

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/12/2010 12:43 PM, RJack wrote: Your cited case is about statutes of limitations in compilations Regardless of what the case is about, it is nevertheless a fact that the court stated McFarlane’s registrations no more r

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: >On 4/10/2010 9:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> >> Yeah, like >> "Not Found >> The requested document was not found on this server. > >The links are working once more. Indeed they are. ___ g

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/10/2010 9:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Yeah, like "Not Found The requested document was not found on this server. The links are working once more. So... I'll ask the question once more. Where is the link to "BusyBox 0.60.3" which was registered and claimed in the

Re: SFLC is SOL

On Mar 15, 6:03 pm, RJack wrote: > Rex Ballard wrote: > > And before ANY of that goes to a jury, both sides have to show their > >  cards to the Judge and to each other. > > Before ANY of this even goes to the discovery stage, the defendants > will file FRCP Rule 12 Motions to Dismiss challenging

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

RJack writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 4/10/2010 9:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >>> Yeah, like "Not Found The requested document was not found on this >>> server. >> >> The links are working once more. > > So... I'll ask the question once more. Where is the link to "BusyBox > 0.60.3" which

Re: SFLC is SOL

Rex Ballard writes: > On Mar 15, 6:03 pm, RJack wrote: >> Rex Ballard wrote: >> > And before ANY of that goes to a jury, both sides have to show their >> >  cards to the Judge and to each other. >> >> Before ANY of this even goes to the discovery stage, the defendants >> will file FRCP Rule 12 M

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/12/2010 1:10 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Regardless of what the case is about, it is nevertheless a fact that the court stated McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as di

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/12/2010 1:11 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: "More precisely, an application to register must be filed, and either granted or refused, before suit can be brought. 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). " Correct. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? As in the SimplexGrinnell case, if the court finds that it

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/12/2010 1:24 PM, RJack wrote: So... I'll ask the question once more. Where is the link to "BusyBox 0.60.3" which was registered and claimed in the SFLC lawsuit as the infringed work? The SFLC does not claim that BusyBox v. 0.60.3 is the infringed work. This can easily be seen by reading th

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > You can't come into compliance by putting up some arbitrary source. A source to what exactly do you want, idiot dak. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law.

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/12/2010 3:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: A source to what exactly do you want The exact source code used to build the binary which the defendants copy and distribute. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.o

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/12/2010 3:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > A source to what exactly do you want > > The exact source code used to build the binary which the > defendants copy and distribute. It costs money, silly Hyman. How much are you willing to pay? regards, alexander.

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> You can't come into compliance by putting up some arbitrary source. > > A source to what exactly do you want, idiot dak. Since I have not acquired any binaries, there is nothing for me to want. And that the defendants have to make the

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> You can't come into compliance by putting up some arbitrary source. > > > > A source to what exactly do you want, idiot dak. > > Since I have not acquired any binaries, there is nothing for me to want

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/12/2010 3:33 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: It costs money, silly Hyman. How much are you willing to pay? I'm not willing to pay anything, since I did not receive any binaries and have no particular use for them. Had I done so and wanted the source, I would expect to pay no more than the re

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> > [...] >> >> You can't come into compliance by putting up some arbitrary source. >> > >> > A source to what exactly do you want, idiot dak. >> >> Since I have not acquired any b

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/12/2010 3:33 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > It costs money, silly Hyman. > > How much are you willing to pay? > > I'm not willing to pay anything, since I did not receive > any binaries and have no particular use for them. . . IOW, you are admittedly just blowing

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > >> > >> Alexander Terekhov writes: > >> > >> > David Kastrup wrote: > >> > [...] > >> >> You can't come into compliance by putting up some arbitrary source. > >> > > >> > A source to what exactly do you want, idio

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/12/2010 4:01 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: blowing hot air People who copy and distribute GPL-covered works must abide by the terms of the GPL or they are infringing the rights of the copyright holders. It is the rights holders who are suing for infringement. __

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/12/2010 4:01 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > blowing hot air > > People who copy and distribute GPL-covered works must Sez who? I say that people who copy and distribute GPL-covered works must not regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the w

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/12/2010 4:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Sez who? The rights holders, by virtue of the license under which they allow the works to be copied and distributed. I say that people who copy and distribute GPL-covered > works must not You are not a rights holder of the work, and therefore

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/12/2010 4:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Sez who? > > The rights holders, by virtue of the license under which > they allow the works to be copied and distributed. Hyman, stop being utter idiot: the claim is of copyright/tort, not license/contract. regards, al

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >