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: 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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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