On 3/30/2011 6:04 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
David Kastrup wrote: [...]
What rock have you been living under? The whole point of the
GPL (as opposed to, say, BSD style licenses) is that it is
firmly rooted in copyright ...
In context, copyright means that the owner
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> What rock have you been living under? The whole point of the GPL (as
>> opposed to, say, BSD style licenses) is that it is firmly rooted in
>> copyright ...
>
> In context, copyright means that the owner has exclusive right to
> copy
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> What rock have you been living under? The whole point of the GPL (as
> opposed to, say, BSD style licenses) is that it is firmly rooted in
> copyright ...
In context, copyright means that the owner has exclusive right to
copy in order to sell (permissions to make) c
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> The respective chances for success of copyright enforcement in court
>> are what causes the FSF to get copyright assignments ...
>
> Dear dak, you know quite well that Stallman has no balls to sue for
> copyright infringement because
On 3/30/2011 10:28 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
RJack writes:
As the SFLC and Erik Andersen are learning to their dismay, a
valid Copyright Office registration of an open source project such
as a version of BusyBox requires the registration of all the
*individual* contributors' work all the way ba
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> The respective chances for success of copyright enforcement in court
> are what causes the FSF to get copyright assignments ...
Dear dak, you know quite well that Stallman has no balls to sue for
copyright infringement because Stallman is in business of giving
"Copy
RJack writes:
> As the SFLC and Erik Andersen are learning to their dismay, a valid
> Copyright Office registration of an open source project such as a
> version of BusyBox requires the registration of all the *individual*
> contributors' work all the way back to the original author's initial
> c
As the SFLC and Erik Andersen are learning to their dismay, a valid
Copyright Office registration of an open source project such as a
version of BusyBox requires the registration of all the *individual*
contributors' work all the way back to the original author's initial
contribution. In order fo
RJack wrote:
[...]
> Now, the SFLC utterly ignores the circuit precedent and claims:
>
> "Further, once Best Buy made a distribution of BusyBox that did not
> comply with the license terms, the license terminated, and therefore any
> further act of copying or distributing BusyBox by Best Buy (eve
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:14:11 -0400, RJack wrote:
> The SFLC is eager to cite Second Circuit authority when it suits its
> purposes:
>
>
> But when it doesn't suit it purpose the SFLC chooses to utterly ignore
> Second Circuit precedent such as:
>
>
>
> The games have begun!
>
> Sincerely,
>
The SFLC is eager to cite Second Circuit authority when it suits its
purposes:
"...[T]he Second Circuit in Salinger abrogated the longstanding practice
of presuming irreparable harm based upon the plaintiff's prima facie
claim of copyright infringement... [T]he Second Circuit has approved of
thi
RJack wrote:
[...]
> The GPL's flaw is obvious. Neither including "(i) complete... source
> code..." nor "(ii) a ...written offer..." is grounded in one of the
> specific exclusive rights enumerated in the Copyright Act, thus
> these acts comprise contractual covenants and *cannot* give rise to an
On 3/24/2011 3:40 PM, RJack wrote:
On 3/24/2011 10:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
As they say:
"The GPL Is a License, not a Contract."
LMAO!
Seriously, I am very disappointed that Best Buy did not raise the
issue of copyright v. contract breach thus far.
It is instructive to look at the
On 3/24/2011 10:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
As they say:
"The GPL Is a License, not a Contract."
LMAO!
Seriously, I am very disappointed that Best Buy did not raise the
issue of copyright v. contract breach thus far. The language of Best
Buy's latest filing in 1:09-cv-10155-SAS Software F
As they say:
"The GPL Is a License, not a Contract."
LMAO!
Seriously, I am very disappointed that Best Buy did not raise the issue
of copyright v. contract breach thus far. The language of Best Buy's
latest filing in 1:09-cv-10155-SAS Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v.
Best Buy Co., Inc. et
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals published a decision on Dec. 10th,
2010, MDY INDUSTRIES v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT that could serve as an
excellent primer for open source license drafters.
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BwLbiGagMEFMODNkNjdlYjEtNDJkZC00Yjc3LTg3NmQtY2UyMjQwMjJhOGVi
This decis
16 matches
Mail list logo
