Re: A simple question

On 2/22/2010 4:18 PM, RJack wrote: I was addressing the Jacobsen decision and "rights" of attribution. Me thinks *you're* confused. Moron. There is no right of attribution in the United States. It is simply that permission is required from rights holders to copy and distribute works, and attrib

Re: A simple question

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/21/2010 1:25 PM, RJack wrote: How can someone infringe on another's copyrighted work without violating one the specific exclusive rights as described in sections 106 through 122 and section 106(A)? The answer to this question could resolve many disagreements among open

Re: A simple question

On 2/22/2010 1:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, why you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum? Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License

Re: A simple question

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman, please formulate what is "enforceable copyright condition", you > > retard. > > Copying and distributing without permission from the rights > holders, with such permission expressed in the license they > may offer.

Re: A simple question

On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, please formulate what is "enforceable copyright condition", you retard. Copying and distributing without permission from the rights holders, with such permission expressed in the license they may offer. _

Re: A simple question

Hyman Rosen wrote: [... "enforceable copyright condition" ...] Hyman, please formulate what is "enforceable copyright condition", you retard. regards, alexander. P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds." Hyman Rosen The Silliest GPL 'Ad

Re: A simple question

On 2/22/2010 12:55 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: That's contract law claim, not tort. WHY ARE YOU BEING SUCH AN IDIOT HYMAN? Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License are enforceable copyright conditions, ... ___

Re: A simple question

Hyman Rosen wrote: [... choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance ...] That's contract law claim, not tort. WHY ARE YOU BEING SUCH AN IDIOT HYMAN? regards, alexander. P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds." Hyman Rosen T

Re: A simple question

On 2/22/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as violation of a renting license constitutes a trespass, you retard Hyman.

Re: A simple question

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > cranks who want to convince people that violation of a license > does not constitute copyright infringement. The only person I Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as violation of a

Re: A simple question

On 2/22/2010 12:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum, why? There is no conundrum, just twisting and spinning by anti-GPL cranks who want to convince people that vi

Re: A simple question

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Why do you believe that someone is claiming copyright infringement > outside of the enumerated rights of 17 USC 106? Even the FSF's wrong Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conund

Re: A simple question

On 2/21/2010 1:25 PM, RJack wrote: How can someone infringe on another's copyrighted work without violating one the specific exclusive rights as described in sections 106 through 122 and section 106(A)? The answer to this question could resolve many disagreements among open source license debater

Re: A simple question

Alan Mackenzie wrote: Hi, Rjack, In gnu.misc.discuss RJack wrote: I have a simple question. The United States Copyright Act, 17 USC sets out what comprises copyright infringement: "? 501. Infringement of copyright [ 24 lines of legal text snipped. ] The following doesn't se

Re: A simple question

Hi, Rjack, In gnu.misc.discuss RJack wrote: > I have a simple question. The United States Copyright Act, 17 USC sets > out what comprises copyright infringement: > "? 501. Infringement of copyright [ 24 lines of legal text snipped. ] The following doesn't seem to be a sim

A simple question

I have a simple question. The United States Copyright Act, 17 USC sets out what comprises copyright infringement: "§ 501. Infringement of copyright (a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provid