t really something that the involved parties can take into account
when settling.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
depend only on facts, not
> presentation.
Courts have no direct input device for facts.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>
>> > RJack wrote:
>> >>
>> >> RJack wrote:
>> >>
>> >> PACER:
>> >> SFLC just voluntarily dismissed GCI Technologie
they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!
>
>
> ROFL.
What took them so long?
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
> Yeah... except there's no right to authorize others to authorize.
Huh? Every transferable right can be passed to others. That includes
copyright, but not authorship.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
asily threaten your "standard of living"
even without legal costs.
The system has a problem when a favorable decision can threaten your
standard of living.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
well as by
> statutory and case law.
> ===
>
> This is not standard boilerplate language.
You might slap it on a boilerplate of something going to the scrapyard.
It's a silly and/or desperate defense.
--
David Kastrup
__
r since anybody can be taken to court by anybody over
whatever claim regardless how silly. What the court decides to do in
consequence is a different matter.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
to make use of the privileges granted to a party (namely a
licensee), he needs to keep the conditions for becoming so. It is his
choice.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
es_ apply, and you are not bound by the terms of the GPL.
If you, however, make use of the GPL, you become a party of the license
agreement. In that case, the Supreme Court ruling concerning
non-parties does no longer apply, and you _are_, as a party, bound by
the license t
RJack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> RJack writes:
>>
>>> That's a really brilliant tautology. "If I never use the GPL then
>>> the Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply"! Clever. Really clever.
>>
>> You are getting this backw
it for the results of the case. If the
plaintiff lack standing, there will be no reason for the defendants to
make the respective sources available under the GPL. Nor will there be
any reason for them to merely pretend doing so, as some of our more
desperate trolls claim to consider likel
haser agree a priori not to exercise his rights.
But if a copy of a work is acquired with permission of the author, short
of any contractual restriction that the recipient explicitly signifies
agreement with, the author has no say in the default provisions of
copyright.
--
David Kastrup
__
restrict sublicensing to identical
terms.
That BSD license fans get all green in the face when their works get
relicensed under copyleft licenses is supposed to be a _moral_ storm of
indignation, not a legal one.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discus
RJack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup wrote: [...]
>>>> BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical
>>>> terms.
>>>
>>> "Absent an explicit grant of
ot;
Not really. Darwin may be, but all the graphical folderol running on it
is rather descended (or written new) from older MacOS code not based on
BSD.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ect to the original
copyright. That's different from patents.
That might help your confusion.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Vereinbarung". But such a "Vereinbarung" is spelled
out in the license in question.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> You are confused. If I am the owner of a horse, I can authorize someone
>> else to sell it, even though ownership gives _me_ the exclusive right.
>>
>> The whole point of authorization is to enable som
prohibit adding additional conditions for further redistribution and
copying of new portions, even when those cover the resulting whole.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > http://www.lehrer-online.de/dyn/bin/366209-369076-1-uebertragung_von_nutzungsrechten.pdf
>> >
>> > "Inhabern ausschließlicher Nutzungsrechte vorbehalten
>> >
>> > Die Einräu
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > Under the German copyright act ONLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES CAN
>> > SUBLICENSE.
>>
>> Wrong. You still don't get it. Exclusive licensees _automatically_
>> receive the right to su
quot;(1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere
> Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. "
"additional usage rights". And the "Urheber" (author) has in the case
in question granted his "Zustim
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> > 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses
>> > are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense
>> > rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a l
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>
>> > RJack wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Substitute the words "tranfer of contractual interest" for "sub-license"
>> >> so that
atibility.
Yes, it is known that, for example, BSDL with advertising clause is GPL
incompatible. That was one motivator for them to drop this clause
eventually.
So sure: you can't take any BSDL style licensed stuff and integrate it
into work you distribute under the GPL. It depends on th
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> >> > Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html
>> >> > (§ 35 Einräumu
ons, as long as I _myself_ adhere to
the BSD licensing conditions.
> You can't make up your own copyright law -- the federal courts will
> refuse to enforce it.
I don't need to. That you pretend not to understand BSD licensing does
not mean that the courts don't.
--
Davi
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical
>> terms.
>
> It doesn't permit sublicensing at all you retard dak.
>
> http://books.google.de/books?id=OCGsutgMdPIC&pg=SA4-PA4
as
a whole" are hard to press when the material they cover is functionally
a drop-in replacement of existing non-free libraries. That makes "mere
aggregation" a really good defense.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ays.
> In the instant case Erik Andersen wasn't even the original author of
> BusyBox v.0.60.3.
Why then would defendant settle and publish?
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen writes:
> On 3/25/2010 10:05 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Licenses covering a work "as a whole" are hard to press
>> when the material they cover is functionally a drop-in
>> replacement of existing non-free libraries. That makes
>> "mere ag
versions for the API versioning.
It is a quite special case to explicitly load a shared executable (and
call its entry points) for which not particular headers were used in the
preparation of the binary. I do not even know the library/system call
for that.
--
David Kastrup
libraries.
Correction: for equivalents to already existing established libraries.
And the problem is not "poor fit", but "incentive for change".
> Renaming it to the Lesser GPL isn't likely to convince anyone old
> enough to remember, or intelligent enough to d
sponse other than profanity.
>
> One man's profanity is another man's prayer Hyman.
You have strange gods.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
rumpet of doom. After a few
years of that, the excitement wears off a bit.
> I wonder how the Blogosphere will react to the death of "copyleft".
I recommend learning the use of the subjunctive mode when you are
spilling one of your wet fantasies.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
RJack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> RJack writes:
>>
>>> I have been poking around in the source code for BusyBox, v.0.60.3.
>>> and unsurprisingly most every thing in the those command line
>>> utilities are substantially similar to the old BSD4.4-
Hyman Rosen writes:
> On 3/25/2010 11:30 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> It would appear that you are not familiar with the realities of dynamic
>> linking on UNIX-like operating systems. Dynamically linked libraries
>> (we are not talking about Windows DLLs here) are ca
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > (Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis)
>> >
>> > "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to sublicense
>> > is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v
is part back.
What changes is not the rights to the copyrightable work (those remain
with the author), but whether it legally constitutes an integral part of
a larger whole or not. When it can be usefully combined with different
other parts, this is definitely not t
e original copyright attributions remain intact.
Of course, when doing so, you can only (successfully) claim copyright
violation for those parts which were written/modified by you.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu
Nicolas Neuss writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> It does not get you "anything additional", but it gets you something
>> _less_: a proprietary product that uses your own code to draw your
>> user base away from you.
>
> This is quite understandable -
rld in which Richard Stallman was pretty much wrong
about everything, too.
But one has to make the best from what one actually got.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen writes:
> On 3/25/2010 2:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Hyman Rosen writes:
>>
>>> On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>>> it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the
>>>> rights to a work to change by the creation
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is
>
> Dak, please stop ignoring the facts:
>
> It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB
> contract.
>
>
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is
>> >
>> > Dak, please sto
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>> >>
>> >> > David Kastrup wrote:
>>
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> You did not understand a word of what you were replying to, again. The
>> whole point was that in the case of a _license_, as opposed to a
>> contract, any such stipulation of a _penalty_ is _invalid_, and _on
ting at Windmills. Even a dysfunctional mind is a terrible thing to
> waste.
So why are you wasting away in that manner?
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
e to annoy the judge enough to cause him to
omit dotting one i, pop, there goes the next round of appeal.
They'll manage to burn through all money until they have to declare
bankruptcy. Wait, they already did. And they _still_ manage to keep
burning through their creditors' money.
They r
by meeting the respective conditions. But he is also free to
chuck it in the bin and act like he never received it in the first
place.
That's one of its main points. It is also one of the main distractions
anti-GPL cranks tend to shout about in misleading ways.
--
David Kastrup
___
even having first contact with the court.
If their legal views were that unclouded, they would have avoided having
the matter of compliance move to a court in the first place.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
prehensibility would actually
benefit his goals. Whether he realizes that is a different question.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ch for "Terekhov", silly Hyman.
>>
>> The point of communication is to communicate.
>
> Here's the communication: STOP BEING UTTER IDIOT HYMAN!
I don't see him attempting to compete with you in that area.
--
David Kastrup
__
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>
>> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 4/8/2010 12:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> >> > Uh idiot Hyman...
>> >> > For i
sion under the same protection and licensing. Copyright protection
does not go away by changing a few lines, regardless of _who_ changed
the lines.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailma
; intercede?
There are a lot of death warrants being signed for free software, not
least of all in this group.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
issal. There is no way Best Buy Inc. will
> stipulate to dismiss without their counterclaim for a declaratory
> judgement being granted. The SFLC has finally had their bluff called
> by several defendants.
Yes, the same fairy tale as before. They'll crawl back into their hole
and by
o-peer transmission
to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However,
nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate
or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you
do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating
ion, and I consider it
likely that a "promise not to sue" would be considered invalid by
courts: the whole point of a contractual relation is putting something
on a legal footing, and letting a court check whether the conditions for
a "promise not t
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
> [... Pee Jays therom ...]
>
>> a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do
>
> What part of YOU INDICATE ACCEPTANCE don't you understand retard dak?
> ACCEPTANCE is a contract thi
ndants try making an exhaustive list of conceivable theories (even
conflicting ones) for why a complaint should be held invalid. They need
just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell
us when they choose to comply after all (a
RJack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>
>>> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>>> On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>>>> http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html
>>>> The First Sale doctrine ha
Hadron writes:
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>> [...]
>>> just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell
>>> us when they choose to comply after all (as they have consistently ended
>>
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Why would they make the source code available without necessity? Out of
>> court settlements are private. But the results speak for themselves.
>
> Like
>
> http://download.com
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Comply with a small number of clearly spelled out conditions, and you
>> are fine, breach, and you are in trouble. It's not a particularly hard
>> concept unless you are a troll.
>
> Samsung (several
binary
version available, not anything else.
That's been the state of affairs from the start. That you keep getting
confused in different manners does not "move the goalposts".
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
same people under the same conditions, exact version
matching appears pointless. Sufficient amounts of matching code should
do the trick.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
u can't come into compliance by putting up some arbitrary source.
Even if it happens that this arbitrary source is the one for which the
copyright has been registered.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> You can't come into compliance by putting up some arbitrary source.
>
> A source to what exactly do you want, idiot dak.
Since I have not acquired any binaries, there is nothing for me to want.
And that the defe
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> You can't come into compliance by putting up some arbitrary source.
>> >
>> > A source to
natics with an agenda, unless they
are talking politics.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ot;. It
demands access to versions _corresponding_ to the binaries. The
registration shows material for which infringement is claimed.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
pyright for the light arrangement of the
Eiffel tower.
I am not joking.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Yup. That's what makes the GPL relevant if you want to copy or
>> distribute when you have no other permission from the rights holder.
>
> "As a separate and distinct Twelfth Affirmative Defense a
ar like that, we'll have the case thrown out of
court without defendants getting into compliance, in no time at all.
Really, you _have_ to stop confusing either party's claims with the
verdict.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
nt rules than that of software licensed as
isolated pieces.
"Defeating gravity by stacking bricks" would be a similar title. Only
an utter moron would consider a title like that as a proposal for
antigravity devices.
> Yes, appears like a bunch
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> 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
>
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> That's actually why the FSF has to get copyright assignments for
>> "strategically important" software: they can't just reimport GPLed
>
> According to the FSF itself, the FSF uses copy
y
> (misuse, antitrust, and all that).
That sort of handwaving waffle got Wallace thrown out of court for
failure to state a claim.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>
>> > Correct statement is
>> >
>> >The GPL *ILLEGALLY* purports to establishes a pool of software
>> >
>> > because the GPL purports to
RJack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> How about moving the goalpost in your head from that lie? The GPL
>> does not demand access to the source code of "registered
>> versions". It demands access to versions _corresponding_ to the
>> binaries. T
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
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 hetero
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 improv
ite hard to figure out a deceptively suggested promise
that a defendant could claim to have relied on.
The GPL is very clear in its conditions, permissions and implications.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
The infringed work is "BusyBox".
>
> Yup. And because you say it is,
Because the complained says it is.
> black is white and up is down. (In the land of GNU)
It is not clear what kind of land you need in order to stop imagining
moving goal posts.
--
David Kastrup
ed IP licensing and litigation matters".
Well, _you_ are spending a great deal of time on that, too, and look
what kind of nonsense we get out of that.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
s.
It does not seem like he has anything left to do for which people would
remember him favorably.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
mplicit in a nonexclusive copyright license is the promise not to sue
> for copyright infringement.
A promise to licensees availing themselves of the license. Without any
attempt to honor the license conditions, it's for the court to determine
whether to consider the defendant as an unrelated
to do so. Compliance with license/contract obligations is
> almost always voluntary -- if you choose not to comply, then you don't
> have to. You merely have to compensate the non-breaching party for his
> expectancy interest. Hint: damages.
That's the case with a contract.
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 Licens
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
>
ged to be infringing were, therefore, lawfully made. "
You really have to stop confusing the arguments of either party as being
legally relevant before the court says so.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
tually distribute. Now what if downstream decides to
redistribute under different conditions, in violation of the license?
Are _you_ then responsible to make downstream _heed_ the license, by
suing for compliance?
I guess this fuzziness is what made that particular clause not survive
into GPLv3.
infringement. The
>> performance by the licensee is to copy and distribute in compliance
>> with the GPL. There is no partial performance.
>
> Ah! I know what! Let's just deny everything and mooove
> the goalposts!
robable they are), your "perfectly fine" thesis seems quite shaky.
So far you are batting zero in that respect, for all the years of your
trumpeting around here. That's not all that close to "perfect" unless
you are living in a fantasy world.
--
David Kastrup
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 a
he plaintiffs lack Article III standing.
And when your prediction does not come true, like always, what will you
then do? Just silently go away? Bluster about how wrong the court must
be and/or how wrong the defendants to come into compliance and not
revert to a higher court?
o a newer version of the source.
It has to be pointed out that the owners of old routers have the right
to the _corresponding_ source to _their_ routers as well. No idea about
the distribution structure of Verizon/Actiontec. Could be that they are
having compliance problems again right
1201 - 1300 of 1330 matches
Mail list logo
