Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 2:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: An invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL) is always an invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL). The GPL is not a contract but a copyright license, and it is copyright infringement to copy and distribute GPL-covered

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link. Sometimes a GNUtian is a moron. Other times he is just a fool. Sincerely, RJack :) _

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 1:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards. Since they have so far gained compliance from every defendant whose case has ended, one can only imagine how much more good for the GPL could be accomplished by competent lawyers of ave

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] These are lawyers. SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards. I'll second that motion. All in favor say aye. aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye a

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/16/2010 2:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: An invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL) is always an invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL). The GPL is not a contract but a copyright license, and it is copyright infringement to copy and distribute GPL-covered works without compl

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: And what would such hallucination-motion say to the court to > justify the request to amend the complaint silly Hyman? Well, they could say "we forgot". Or they could say that b

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 12:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.oblon.com/files/news/514.pdf "under the “Registration Approach,” only after the Register of Copyrights actually approves the application and issues a registration, or notifies the copyright applicant that the appli

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/16/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz > > Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link. An invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL) is always an invalid/void/unenfor

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 10:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective and subject to dismissal."; Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195, 1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). If the court requires that each specific v

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/16/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lis

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/16/2010 1:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards. > > Since they have so far gained . . . http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer progra

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/16/2010 1:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards. Since they have so far gained compliance from every defendant whose case has ended, one can only imagine how much more good for the GPL could be accomplished by competent lawyers of average intelligence. P

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > These are lawyers. SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course co

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/16/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: And what would such hallucination-motion say to the court to > justify the request to amend the complaint silly Hyman? Well, they could say "we forgot". Or they could say that because the infringers

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/16/2010 12:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> The court may also give them the option of registering and > >> then amending the complaint. > > > > Sez who? > > The Supreme Court: > > Feder

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/16/2010 12:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: The court may also give them the option of registering and then amending the complaint. Sez who? The Supreme Court: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) declares that lea

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > The court may also give them the option of registering and > then amending the complaint. Sez who? regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen The Silliest

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/16/2010 12:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.oblon.com/files/news/514.pdf "under the “Registration Approach,” only after the Register of Copyrights actually approves the application and issues a registration, or notifies the copyright applicant that the application is rejected, is

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/16/2010 10:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > "A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective > > and subject to dismissal."; Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195, > > 1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). > > If . . . http://www.ob

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/16/2010 10:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective and subject to dismissal."; Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195, 1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). If the court requires that each specific version of a work be

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/15/2010 6:26 PM, RJack wrote: > > To institute the Best Buy et al suit, the plaintiff was required by > > statute to identify the allegedly infringed work's registration: > > > > "§ 411 · Registration and civil infringement actions > > (a) Except for an action brought

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 6:26 PM, RJack wrote: To institute the Best Buy et al suit, the plaintiff was required by statute to identify the allegedly infringed work's registration: "§ 411 · Registration and civil infringement actions (a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the autho

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > > Undisputed fact 2) No court has ever granted *any* relief requested by > > any BusyBox plaintiff -- ever. > > This is because the defendants agree to comply with the GPL, > and therefore there is no further matter for the court to > decide. This is exactly how the GPL

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen writes: > On 4/15/2010 3:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> Click on >> http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz > > That link is currently broken, presumably because it has not > yet been updated to point to a newer version of the source

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 3:57 PM, RJack wrote: Undisputed fact 1) There has never been a link to "BusyBox v. 0.60.3" published by any BusyBox defendant in an SFLC suit -- ever. No one is obligated to distribute the source to BusyBox v. 0.60.3 unless they are distributing that versio

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 4:38 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: This is because the defendants agree to comply with the GPL, See "COUNTERCLAIMS" in http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-Answer.pdf That case is still in progress. To date, after each case brought by the SFLC has ended, the defendan

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > This is because the defendants agree to comply with the GPL, See "COUNTERCLAIMS" in http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-Answer.pdf regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law.

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 3:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Click on http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz That link is currently broken, presumably because it has not yet been updated to point to a newer version of the source. __

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 3:57 PM, RJack wrote: Undisputed fact 1) There has never been a link to "BusyBox v. 0.60.3" published by any BusyBox defendant in an SFLC suit -- ever. No one is obligated to distribute the source to BusyBox v. 0.60.3 unless they are distributing that version of the binary. They ar

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 1:30 PM, RJack wrote: Why believe your lyin' eyes when you've got Hyman Rosen and his powerful cognitive abilities at your service? Hyman can, through sheer mental concentration, turn fantasy into reality. Upward points downward and white magically becomes black

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/15/2010 3:42 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > The (incomplete) sources are provided by/from actiontec.com, > > not verizon.net > > Links to the downloadable sources are on a Verizon web page, >

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 3:42 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The (incomplete) sources are provided by/from actiontec.com, > not verizon.net Links to the downloadable sources are on a Verizon web page,

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/15/2010 3:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Go tell Verizon that "Verizon is obligated..." > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp > > The GPL-compliant sources are provided by Verizon at >

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/15/2010 3:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > You could have googled for busybox if you really wanted the source code. > > Verizon is obligated to provide the exact version of GPL-covered > sources used to build the binaries which they distribute. This > obligation e

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 3:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Go tell Verizon that "Verizon is obligated..." http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp The GPL-compliant sources are provided by Verizon at

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 3:03 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: How did you come across that link Googled for Verizon and GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing li

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 3:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: You could have googled for busybox if you really wanted the source code. Verizon is obligated to provide the exact version of GPL-covered sources used to build the binaries which they distribute. This obligation exists regardless of whether the so

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/15/2010 3:03 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >> > > > > How did you come across that link > > Googled for Verizon and GPL. You could have googled for busybox if

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/15/2010 2:44 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Note that actiontec.com is not verizon.net as in > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp > > Ho

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 2:44 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Note that actiontec.com is not verizon.net as in http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp is, however, a Verizon web page. As A

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/15/2010 1:56 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Then why did you refer to the author as he/him > > Because I blindly assumed the author was male. You blindly assume a lot of things. Stop it. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox incl

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/15/2010 1:57 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz > > Sometimes a broken link is a broken link. Looking directly > at

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 1:57 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz Sometimes a broken link is a broken link. Looking directly at , we can see that there is a link for actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 1:56 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Then why did you refer to the author as he/him Because I blindly assumed the author was male. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-dis

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/15/2010 1:30 PM, RJack wrote: > > Why believe your lyin' eyes when you've got Hyman Rosen and > > his powerful cognitive abilities at your service? Hyman can, > > through sheer mental concentration, turn fantasy into reality. > > Upward points downward and white magica

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/15/2010 1:09 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> The web page says ... > > > > Referring to www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf you said that > > http://www.sapnakumar.org/IMG_2030.JPG/IMG_2030-full;init_.JPG > > is 'he'. > > The article at

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 1:30 PM, RJack wrote: Why believe your lyin' eyes when you've got Hyman Rosen and his powerful cognitive abilities at your service? Hyman can, through sheer mental concentration, turn fantasy into reality. Upward points downward and white magically becomes black. It's like having you

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 1:09 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: The web page says ... Referring to www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf you said that http://www.sapnakumar.org/IMG_2030.JPG/IMG_2030-full;init_.JPG is 'he'. The article at does not refer to th

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] The web page says ... Referring to www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf you said that http://www.sapnakumar.org/IMG_2030.JPG/IMG_2030-full;init_.JPG is 'he'. But http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/print.asp?PID=4715 and http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/k

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > The web page says ... Referring to www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf you said that http://www.sapnakumar.org/IMG_2030.JPG/IMG_2030-full;init_.JPG is 'he'. But http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/print.asp?PID=4715 and http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/kumar/ says that 'he' is

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 12:39 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Without checking/verification all you say regarding "GPL-compliant sources" is just hot air out of your ass. The web page says that it's the source code used to build the firmware. I don't see what motivation Verizon would have to lie about it, w

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/15/2010 11:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp > > The GPL-compliant sources for this firmware are found at Without checking/verification all you say regarding "GPL-compliant sources" is just hot air out of your

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 11:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp The GPL-compliant sources for this firmware are found at

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 5:45 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: See http://www.terekhov.de/Samsung-Answer.pdf for TWENTY (20) reasons why it is perfectly fine to 'steal' GPL'd work. Several additional reasons to the ones listed by Samsung can be found here: http://www.terekhov.de/Versa-Ans

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> you are living in a fantasy world. > > > > *You* are living in a fantasy world (where copyright licenses are not > > contracts and etc. GNU moronity), silly dak. > > Since you are the one batting zero

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/15/2010 11:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> The normal process of serving files involves making copies > >> of the files being served, and those copies may be lawfully > >> made only by complying with the GPL. > > > > Sez who? > > 17 USC 10

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 11:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: The normal process of serving files involves making copies of the files being served, and those copies may be lawfully made only by complying with the GPL. Sez who? 17 USC 106

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/15/2010 11:05 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >> On 4/15/2010 10:14 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >>> "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a > >>> particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any > >>> person authorize

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 11:05 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On 4/15/2010 10:14 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the aut

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 11:05 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1559052&cid=31231918 Pursuing a case to conclusion takes time, effort, and money regardless of the correctness of the claims in the case. ___ gnu-misc-discuss ma

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/15/2010 10:14 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a > > particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any > > person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of > > t

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/15/2010 5:45 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > See http://www.terekhov.de/Samsung-Answer.pdf > > for TWENTY (20) reasons why it is perfectly fine to 'steal' GPL'd work. > > Several additional reasons to the ones listed by Samsung can be found > > here: http://www.terek

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 10:14 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwis

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 8:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: The defendants offer files for download from their websites. Their web servers create fresh copies with each download, assuming conventional operation. Those may be created and distributed only in compliance with the GPL. Yeah,

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/15/2010 5:45 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: See http://www.terekhov.de/Samsung-Answer.pdf for TWENTY (20) reasons why it is perfectly fine to 'steal' GPL'd work. Several additional reasons to the ones listed by Samsung can be found here: http://www.terekhov.de/Versa-Answer.pdf Katzer had lo

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/14/2010 7:55 PM, RJack wrote: > > Sorry Sweetheart. Sometimes you just don't get to pick and choose like > > you wish. > > But fortunately, in the case of copyright 17 USC 106 > guarantees that you do. "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/14/2010 7:55 PM, RJack wrote: Sorry Sweetheart. Sometimes you just don't get to pick and choose like you wish. But fortunately, in the case of copyright 17 USC 106 guarantees that you do. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/14/2010 3:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> The files distributed by the defendants are not first-sale > >> copies, so 17 USC 109 is irrelevant. > > Sez who? > > The defendants offer files for download from their websites. > Their web server

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> you are living in a fantasy world. > > *You* are living in a fantasy world (where copyright licenses are not > contracts and etc. GNU moronity), silly dak. Since you are the one batting zero in the real world, I am not all too worried

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > you are living in a fantasy world. *You* are living in a fantasy world (where copyright licenses are not contracts and etc. GNU moronity), silly dak. "The main difference to the variants of communism typical Americans associate with the devil, however, is that partic

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Alexander Terekhov writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> >> On 4/14/2010 5:45 PM, RJack wrote: >> > The GPL license *willfully* misleads people. >> >> Anti-GPL cranks claim to be misled by the GPL, >> because they want to steal the work of other >> people without compensating those people in the >> w

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/14/2010 5:45 PM, RJack wrote: > > The GPL license *willfully* misleads people. > > Anti-GPL cranks claim to be misled by the GPL, > because they want to steal the work of other > people without compensating those people in the > way they have chosen. See http://www.

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 5:45 PM, RJack wrote: The GPL license *willfully* misleads people. Anti-GPL cranks claim to be misled by the GPL, because they want to steal the work of other people without compensating those people in the way they have chosen. Sorry Sweetheart. Sometimes you

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/14/2010 5:45 PM, RJack wrote: The GPL license *willfully* misleads people. Anti-GPL cranks claim to be misled by the GPL, because they want to steal the work of other people without compensating those people in the way they have chosen. ___ gnu-m

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 5:30 PM, RJack wrote: Sounds like a Marxist dream-come-true to me. 1) Dangle promises of copyright permissions. 2) Steal the rights of those who accept the offer. The GPL explicitly and in great detail spells out the obligations which must be assumed for being

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/14/2010 5:30 PM, RJack wrote: Sounds like a Marxist dream-come-true to me. 1) Dangle promises of copyright permissions. 2) Steal the rights of those who accept the offer. The GPL explicitly and in great detail spells out the obligations which must be assumed for being permitted to copy and

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 3:51 PM, RJack wrote: Ah! I know what! Let's just deny everything and mooove the goalposts! The GPL is a perfectly straightforward copyright license, trivially easy to comply with. It is only the people who want to avoid the obligations of the

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

RJack writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 4/14/2010 2:46 PM, RJack wrote: >>> contract obligations that are to be performed after partial >>> performance by the other party are not treated as conditions >> >> The obligation by the licensor is not to sue for infringement. The >> performance by the

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/14/2010 3:51 PM, RJack wrote: Ah! I know what! Let's just deny everything and mooove the goalposts! The GPL is a perfectly straightforward copyright license, trivially easy to comply with. It is only the people who want to avoid the obligations of the GPL while still copyin

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 2:46 PM, RJack wrote: contract obligations that are to be performed after partial performance by the other party are not treated as conditions The obligation by the licensor is not to sue for infringement. The performance by the licensee is to copy and distribut

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/14/2010 3:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: The files distributed by the defendants are not first-sale copies, so 17 USC 109 is irrelevant. Sez who? The defendants offer files for download from their websites. Their web servers create fresh copies with each download, as

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/14/2010 3:16 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > 17 USC 109 > > The files distributed by the defendants are not first-sale > copies, so 17 USC 109 is irrelevant. Sez who? regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the ori

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/14/2010 3:16 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: 17 USC 109 The files distributed by the defendants are not first-sale copies, so 17 USC 109 is irrelevant. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/14/2010 2:46 PM, RJack wrote: > > contract obligations that are to be performed after partial > > performance by the other party are not treated as conditions > > The obligation by the licensor is not to sue for infringement. That's correct. > The performance by th

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 2:35 PM, RJack wrote: ". . . provided that you also meet *all* of these conditions:. . ." Condition 2(b) adds the qualification "work that you distribute or publish". The phrasing might be a bit awkward, but the meaning is clear. Language cleanup was one of

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/14/2010 2:46 PM, RJack wrote: contract obligations that are to be performed after partial > performance by the other party are not treated as conditions The obligation by the licensor is not to sue for infringement. The performance by the licensee is to copy and distribute in compliance wi

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/14/2010 2:35 PM, RJack wrote: ". . . provided that you also meet *all* of these conditions:. . ." Condition 2(b) adds the qualification "work that you distribute or publish". The phrasing might be a bit awkward, but the meaning is clear. Language cleanup was one of the reasons for GPLv3, o

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 10:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Compliance with (enforceable) obligations stated in the GPL requires copyright permission (i.e. the copyright holder's promise not to sue under copyright) as a *precondition* to compliance/licensee's performance. No, that is

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 10:20 AM, RJack wrote: Now, how do you cause a derivate work *that you have not yet* received permission to create to be licensed to all third parties? Remember the "event" must occur BEFORE permission to modify, copy and distribute is granted. This is known as

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/14/2010 10:20 AM, RJack wrote: > > Now, how do you cause a derivate work *that you have not yet* received > > permission to create to be licensed to all third parties? Remember the > > "event" must occur BEFORE permission to modify, copy and distribute is > > granted.

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > conditions which are applied as the copy is made and distributed. Could you please elaborate on this GNUjurisprudence concept, retard Hyman? regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/14/2010 10:20 AM, RJack wrote: Now, how do you cause a derivate work *that you have not yet* received permission to create to be licensed to all third parties? Remember the "event" must occur BEFORE permission to modify, copy and distribute is granted. This is known as an "impossible conditi

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/14/2010 10:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Compliance with (enforceable) obligations stated in the GPL requires copyright permission (i.e. the copyright holder's promise not to sue under copyright) as a *precondition* to compliance/licensee's performance. No, that is false. The conditions

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/14/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://law.scu.edu/FacWebPage/Neustadter/e-books/abridged/main/commentary/Promises%20and%20condtions.html > > > > "A portrait artist promises to paint a portrait of Bill Gates to be hung > > in the lobby of the Microsoft

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 8:05 AM, RJack wrote: Supporters of the GPL license as well as the SFLC claim that section 2(b) is a "condition" to the license: "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any p

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

David Kastrup wrote: [... dodging the question ...] Stop moving the goalposts, silly dak. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/14/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://law.scu.edu/FacWebPage/Neustadter/e-books/abridged/main/commentary/Promises%20and%20condtions.html "A portrait artist promises to paint a portrait of Bill Gates to be hung in the lobby of the Microsoft office tower in which Bill works. In

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/14/2010 8:05 AM, RJack wrote: > > Supporters of the GPL license as well as the SFLC claim that section > > 2(b) is a "condition" to the license: > > "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > > whole or in part contains or is derived from the

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

On 4/14/2010 8:05 AM, RJack wrote: Supporters of the GPL license as well as the SFLC claim that section 2(b) is a "condition" to the license: "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be lic

Re: Time to put up or shut up!

RJack writes: > Supporters of the GPL license as well as the SFLC claim that section > 2(b) is a "condition" to the license: > "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any > part thereof, to be licensed as a

  1   2   >