Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 4:23 PM, RJack wrote: Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. It is you who are incapable of und

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: > > RJack writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > > The GPL legally establishes a heterogenuos pool of software. > > > > The GPL legally establishes a heterogeneous pool of whacked out, > > delusional nut-jobs. "The GPL legally establishes a heterogeneous pool of whack

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> > >> On 4/13/2010 2:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >> > Copies lawfully made fall under 17 USC 109 > >> > >> Certainly. > > > > Right, to wit: > > > > http://www.terekhov.de/Samsung-Answer.pdf > > > > "As a se

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> if you choose not to comply with > >> licensing conditions, the license just does not apply. > > > > I'm just curious, what "automatically terminate" does > > > >

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> A promise to licensees availing themselves of the license. Without any > > > > Uh retard dak. > > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > > > > "by [blah-blah], you indicate your acceptance of this

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 4:23 PM, RJack wrote: > > Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and > > operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, > > you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. > > It is you who are

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 4:23 PM, RJack wrote: > > Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and > > operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, > > you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. > > It is you who are

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 4:22 PM, RJack wrote: > > Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and > > operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, > > you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. > > It is you who are

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 4:21 PM, RJack wrote: > > Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and > > operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, > > you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. > > It is you who are

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 4:19 PM, RJack wrote: > > Since you and DAK are incapable of understanding the meaning and > > operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, > > you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. > > It is you who are in

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 4:16 PM, RJack wrote: > > Provided infringement occurs. This is not the case with the GPL. > > Infringement occurs when GPL-covered code is copied and > distributed without compliance with the GPL. > > > Since you and DAK are incapable of understanding the me

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 4:14 PM, RJack wrote: > > Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and > > operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, > > you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. > > It is you who are

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> >> On 4/13/2010 2:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> > Copies lawfully made fall under 17 USC 109 >> >> Certainly. > > Right, to wit: > > http://www.terekhov.de/Samsung-Answer.pdf > > "As a separate and distinct Twelfth Affirmative Defense an

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> if you choose not to comply with >> licensing conditions, the license just does not apply. > > I'm just curious, what "automatically terminate" does > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> A promise to licensees availing themselves of the license. Without any > > Uh retard dak. > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > > "by [blah-blah], you indicate your acceptance of this License" > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offe

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 4:23 PM, RJack wrote: Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. It is you who are incapable of understanding it, as demo

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 4:23 PM, RJack wrote: Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. It is you who are incapable of understanding it, as demo

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 4:22 PM, RJack wrote: Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. It is you who are incapable of understanding it, as demo

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 4:21 PM, RJack wrote: Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. It is you who are incapable of understanding it, as demo

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 4:19 PM, RJack wrote: Since you and DAK are incapable of understanding the meaning and operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. It is you who are incapable of understanding it, as demons

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 4:16 PM, RJack wrote: Provided infringement occurs. This is not the case with the GPL. Infringement occurs when GPL-covered code is copied and distributed without compliance with the GPL. Since you and DAK are incapable of understanding the meaning and operation of a "condition p

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 4:14 PM, RJack wrote: Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. It is you who are incapable of understanding it, as demo

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 3:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) The copies made and distributed by the defendants in this case are not first-sale copies, and therefore the first-sale doctrine does not give them permission to do so in violation of the GPL. Since you and

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 3:50 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) The copies made and distributed by the defendants in this case are not first-sale copies, and therefore the first-sale doctrine does not give them permission to do so in violation of the GPL. Since you and

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 2:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) The copies made and distributed by the defendants in this case are not first-sale copies, and therefore the first-sale doctrine does not give them permission to do so in violation of the GPL. Since you and

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 1:34 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html "by [blah-blah], you indicate your acceptance of this License" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance#Communication_of_acceptance "It may be implied from the construction of the

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 1:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: I'm just curious, what "automatically terminate" does http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf then talking about, in your view, oh paragon of GNUtardiness dak? What it says:

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 12:32 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The contract laws recognize a concept called "efficient breach" which *encourages* breach of (enforcable) obligations if it's economically efficient to do so. However, copyright law provides for injunctions to prevent ongoing

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 12:02 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Implicit in a nonexclusive copyright license is the promise not to sue for copyright infringement. But it is only an anti-GPL crank who would believe that he could accept the

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 3:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) The copies made and distributed by the defendants in this case are not first-sale copies, and therefore the first-sale doctrine does not give them permission to do so in violation of the GPL.

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 3:50 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) The copies made and distributed by the defendants in this case are not first-sale copies, and therefore the first-sale doctrine does not give them permission to do so in violation of the GPL.

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 2:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) > > The copies made and distributed by the defendants in > this case are not first-sale copies, and therefore http://www.terekhov.de/Samsung-Answer.pdf "As a separate and distinct Twelfth Affirmative

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 2:23 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > How could one possibly lose something that > > "the license just does not apply" > > The SFLC's position is that once a GPL-covered work has > been copied and distributed in violation of the GPL, the > infringer no longe

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 11:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > With a license, however, the terms and covenants of the license > > establish the applicable rules. > > Precisely. And the contract laws (not the copyright act) provide remedies for breach of established (enforcable/va

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 2:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Copies lawfully made fall under 17 USC 109 > > Certainly. Right, to wit: http://www.terekhov.de/Samsung-Answer.pdf "As a separate and distinct Twelfth Affirmative Defense and each claim for relief alleged therein, Def

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 2:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) The copies made and distributed by the defendants in this case are not first-sale copies, and therefore the first-sale doctrine does not give them permission to do so in violation of the GPL.

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 2:23 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: How could one possibly lose something that > "the license just does not apply" The SFLC's position is that once a GPL-covered work has been copied and distributed in violation of the GPL, the infringer no longer has permission to copy and distribu

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 2:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Copies lawfully made fall under 17 USC 109 Certainly. Those are not, however, the ones which were copied and distributed by the defendants in this case. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 1:34 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > > "by [blah-blah], you indicate your acceptance of this License" > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance#Communication_of_acceptance > > "It may be implied from the cons

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 1:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > I'm just curious, what "automatically terminate" does > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf > > then talking about, in your view, oh paragon of GNUtardiness dak? > > What it sa

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 1:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) > > The works copied and distributed by the defendants are not > first-sale copies. Copies lawfully made fall under 17 USC 109 (fair use copies are also lawfully made but distribution of such copies i

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 1:34 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html "by [blah-blah], you indicate your acceptance of this License" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance#Communication_of_acceptance "It may be implied from the construction of the contract that the offer

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 1:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: I'm just curious, what "automatically terminate" does http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf then talking about, in your view, oh paragon of GNUtardiness dak? What it says:

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 1:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) The works copied and distributed by the defendants are not first-sale copies. They are being created and distributed in violation of the license agreement. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > A promise to licensees availing themselves of the license. Without any Uh retard dak. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html "by [blah-blah], you indicate your acceptance of this License" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance#Communication_of_acceptance

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > if you choose not to comply with > licensing conditions, the license just does not apply. I'm just curious, what "automatically terminate" does http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf then

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 12:32 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > The contract laws recognize a concept called "efficient breach" which > > *encourages* breach of (enforcable) obligations if it's economically > > efficient to do so. > > However, copyright law provides for injunctions t

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 12:32 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The contract laws recognize a concept called "efficient breach" which *encourages* breach of (enforcable) obligations if it's economically efficient to do so. However, copyright law provides for injunctions to prevent ongoing infringement, so it

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> >> On 4/13/2010 12:02 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> > Implicit in a nonexclusive copyright license is the promise not to sue >> > for copyright infringement. >> >> But it is only an anti-GPL crank who would believe that >> he could accept th

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> >> On 4/13/2010 11:30 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> > And the contract laws (not the copyright act) provide remedies for >> > breach of established (enforcable/valid) rules you idiot. >> >> Copyright is its own law, and specifies the nature

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 12:02 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Implicit in a nonexclusive copyright license is the promise not to sue > > for copyright infringement. > > But it is only an anti-GPL crank who would believe that > he could accept the permissions of a license but not it

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 12:02 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Implicit in a nonexclusive copyright license is the promise not to sue for copyright infringement. But it is only an anti-GPL crank who would believe that he could accept the permissions of a license but not its obligations. _

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 11:30 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > And the contract laws (not the copyright act) provide remedies for > > breach of established (enforcable/valid) rules you idiot. > > Copyright is its own law, and specifies the nature of > infringement and penalties for

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 11:30 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: And the contract laws (not the copyright act) provide remedies for breach of established (enforcable/valid) rules you idiot. Copyright is its own law, and specifies the nature of infringement and penalties for it, including for injunctions to pre

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen writes: > On 4/13/2010 10:43 AM, RJack wrote: >> Yes, this is true. The GPL clearly spells out illegal requirements >> for permission to copy and distribute, and therefore there is >> promissory estoppel available. > > The requirements of the GPL are perfectly legal and > appropriate.

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 11:08 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: If the plaintiff loses for that reason, they will simply register the work and refile the claim. After paying defendants attorneys fees and going bankrupt in the process? Be sure to get back to me when that happens. _

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 11:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: With a license, however, the terms and covenants of the license > establish the applicable rules. Precisely. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listi

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 10:49 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > In essense, a plaintiff without a registration will still lose, > > just for different reasons. > > If the plaintiff loses for that reason, they will simply > register the work and refile the claim. After paying defend

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 10:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > The contract laws recognize a concept called "efficient breach" which > > *encourages* breach of (enforcable) obligations if it's economically > > efficient to do so. > > That's fine. The copyright infringers will then b

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 10:49 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: In essense, a plaintiff without a registration will still lose, > just for different reasons. If the plaintiff loses for that reason, they will simply register the work and refile the claim. ___ gnu-mis

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 10:43 AM, RJack wrote: Yes, this is true. The GPL clearly spells out illegal requirements for permission to copy and distribute, and therefore there is promissory estoppel available. The requirements of the GPL are perfectly legal and appropriate. Only an anti-GPL crank would belie

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 10:40 AM, RJack wrote: The SFLC lawsuit claims that BusyBox 0.60.3 is the infringed work, as can easily be seen by reading the complaint, . The plaintiffs are required to make available with specificity

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

RJack wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > > > > It is possible that the court will decide it does not have > > subject-matter jurisdiction over the versions which the defendants > > are copying and distributing because those versions are not > > registered. > > That is no longer good law. It is n

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 10:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The contract laws recognize a concept called "efficient breach" which *encourages* breach of (enforcable) obligations if it's economically efficient to do so. That's fine. The copyright infringers will then be enjoined from committing further inf

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: >On 4/13/2010 9:37 AM, RJack wrote: > >> The plaintiffs are required to make available with specificity (i.e. >> non-moving target) the registered version (v. 0.60.3) of the BusyBox >> source code used to create the binary which they allege is copied and >> distributed, not the

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 10:10 AM, RJack wrote: The GPL allows copying and distribution through promissory estoppel. No, this is false. The GPL clearly spells out the requirements for permission to copy and distribute, and therefore there is no promissory estoppel - anyone availing them

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 10:09 AM, RJack wrote: Samsung isn't infringing copyrights. It is, by copying and distributing GPL-covered software without complying with the GPL. So... I'll just ask the question once again. Where is the link to "BusyBox 0.60.3" which was registered and then

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Notice "was licensed" in > > It is only anti-GPL cranks (and lawyers who need to raise > every possible defense) who believe that one may accept the > permissions of a license while refusing its obligations. Hot, hot, h

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 10:10 AM, RJack wrote: The GPL allows copying and distribution through promissory estoppel. No, this is false. The GPL clearly spells out the requirements for permission to copy and distribute, and therefore there is no promissory estoppel - anyone availing themselves of the licens

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 10:09 AM, RJack wrote: Samsung isn't infringing copyrights. It is, by copying and distributing GPL-covered software without complying with the GPL. So... I'll just ask the question once again. Where is the link to "BusyBox 0.60.3" which was registered and then claimed as the infr

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

RJack writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 4/13/2010 7:34 AM, RJack wrote: >>> So... I'll just ask the question once again. Where is the link to >>> "BusyBox 0.60.3" which was registered and then claimed as the >>> infringed work in the SFLC's Comtrend Corp. lawsuit? >> >> The SFLC lawsuit does not

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 10:06 AM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: The infringed work is "BusyBox". Yup. And because you say it is, black is white and up is down. (In the land of GNU) That is the claim stated in the lawsuit. Whether the claim is valid is a separate matter from whether it is the claim. __

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: It is possible that the court will decide it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the versions which the defendants are copying and distributing because those versions are not registered. That is no longer good law. It is now a claim processing requirement. http

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

RJack writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 4/13/2010 9:34 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >>> Hyman Rosen wrote: It's easy to read the first-sale doctrine, but fortunately it does not apply to the copying and distribution carried out by the defendants in this case. >>> >>> Sez who? >>

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Notice "was licensed" in It is only anti-GPL cranks (and lawyers who need to raise every possible defense) who believe that one may accept the permissions of a license while refusing its obligations. __

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 9:34 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: It's easy to read the first-sale doctrine, but fortunately it does not apply to the copying and distribution carried out by the defendants in this case. Sez who? The GPL, of course, which does not allow co

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 7:45 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hello SFLC, this is Samsung calling. Please be advised that we've made 1 (ONE) BILLION copies of GPL'd material copied verbatim and/or with modifications. Please contact us within 3 (THREE) BUSINESS DAYS if you think that our cop

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 9:34 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> It's easy to read the first-sale doctrine, but fortunately > >> it does not apply to the copying and distribution carried > >> out by the defendants in this case. > > > > Sez who? > > The GPL, of c

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 7:34 AM, RJack wrote: So... I'll just ask the question once again. Where is the link to "BusyBox 0.60.3" which was registered and then claimed as the infringed work in the SFLC's Comtrend Corp. lawsuit? The SFLC lawsuit does not claim that BusyBox 0.60.3 is the

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 9:30 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Absent a license > > Notice a problem here? Notice "was licensed" in "Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claim for copyright infringement is barred under at least the provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), as Defendant was

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 9:37 AM, RJack wrote: The SFLC lawsuit claims that BusyBox 0.60.3 is the infringed work, as can easily be seen by reading the complaint, . It is silly for you to continually lie about what an easily rea

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 9:34 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: It's easy to read the first-sale doctrine, but fortunately it does not apply to the copying and distribution carried out by the defendants in this case. Sez who? The GPL, of course, which does not allow copying and distributi

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 9:30 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Absent a license Notice a problem here? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 7:45 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hello SFLC, this is Samsung calling. Please be advised that we've made 1 (ONE) BILLION copies of GPL'd material copied verbatim and/or with modifications. Please contact us within 3 (THREE) BUSINESS DAYS if you think that our copies are infringing.

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 7:34 AM, RJack wrote: So... I'll just ask the question once again. Where is the link to "BusyBox 0.60.3" which was registered and then claimed as the infringed work in the SFLC's Comtrend Corp. lawsuit? The SFLC lawsuit does not claim that BusyBox 0.60.3 is the infringed work, as c

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/12/2010 7:55 PM, RJack wrote: Title 17 USC § 301 Preemption of state laws equivalent to copyright is irrelevant to the GPL, which is a copyright license authorizing others to practice some of the exclusive rights of the copyright holders, as per federal copyright la

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 4:53 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > You can't read 17 U.S.C. 109(a) yourself > > It's easy to read the first-sale doctrine, but fortunately > it does not apply to the copying and distribution carried > out by the defendants in this case. Sez who? Samsung

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/13/2010 2:41 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > SFLC's claim of copyright infringement is baseless and frivolous > > It is neither. Erik Anderson is a copyright holder on BusyBox, > and the defendants are infringing on his copyright by copying > and distributing BusyBo

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 4:53 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: You can't read 17 U.S.C. 109(a) yourself It's easy to read the first-sale doctrine, but fortunately it does not apply to the copying and distribution carried out by the defendants in this case. ___ gnu-m

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 4:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: The GPL legally establishes a heterogenuos pool of software. Hey dak, how come that the FSF claimed in court that the GPL is NOT A POOLING LICENSE (and is merely "a vertical agreement between the licensee and the licensor of

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/13/2010 2:41 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: SFLC's claim of copyright infringement is baseless and frivolous It is neither. Erik Anderson is a copyright holder on BusyBox, and the defendants are infringing on his copyright by copying and distributing BusyBox in violation of the terms of its

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > > > >> You really have to beat your habit of quoting attempted defenses as if > >> they were of any legal importance. > > > > Samsung (calling SFLC): > > Wow, now you are quoting imagined sneers. Talk a

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

On 4/12/2010 7:55 PM, RJack wrote: Title 17 USC § 301 Preemption of state laws equivalent to copyright is irrelevant to the GPL, which is a copyright license authorizing others to practice some of the exclusive rights of the copyright holders, as per federal copyright law. So... I'll ask the

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] > >> You really have to beat your habit of quoting attempted defenses as if >> they were of any legal importance. > > Samsung (calling SFLC): Wow, now you are quoting imagined sneers. Talk about an improvement. > Got it now, silly Hyman

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

RJack writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > The GPL legally establishes a heterogenuos pool of software. > > The GPL legally establishes a heterogeneous pool of whacked out, > delusional nut-jobs. You are not that heterogeneous. -- David Kastrup ___

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> That sort of handwaving waffle got Wallace thrown out of court for >> failure to state a claim. > > Wallace's case was dismissed because Chief Judge Eaterbrook is of > opinion that > > *** FOSS is junk *** > > "People willingly pay for

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Hadron wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > > > Samsung (calling SFLC): > > > > Hello SFLC, this is Samsung calling. Please be advised that we've made 1 > > (ONE) BILLION copies of GPL'd material copied verbatim and/or with > > modifications. Please contact us within 3 (THREE) BUSINESS D

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

Alexander Terekhov writes: > > Samsung (calling SFLC): > > Hello SFLC, this is Samsung calling. Please be advised that we've made 1 > (ONE) BILLION copies of GPL'd material copied verbatim and/or with > modifications. Please contact us within 3 (THREE) BUSINESS DAYS if you > think that our copies

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > >> No, you are confused again. The GPL gives you permission to pass copies > > > > Read 17 USC 109, idiot. > > > > Western Digital: > > > > "Plaintiffs claims are barred by the first sale doctrine." > > > > Westinghouse: > > > > "Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are ba

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

David Kastrup wrote: The GPL legally establishes a heterogenuos pool of software. The GPL legally establishes a heterogeneous pool of whacked out, delusional nut-jobs. It's the glue that binds zealots into a tightly packed socialist amalgam. Crazies of every order are bound in an unenforceable

  1   2   3   >