David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... GPL _software_ copies ...]
But it is a hurdle that one can't blame Easterbrook for.
Wallace's claim has absolutely nothing to do with software COPIES
(material objects), retard.
Who said it
Can someone explain how a copyrighted computer program can infringe a
software patent ?
17 USC 102(b) states:
“In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship
extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,
concept, principle, or discovery,
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship
extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,
concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which
John Hasler wrote:
rjack quotes:
For computer programs, _if_ the patentable process is embodied
inextricably in the line-by-line instructions of the computer program, [
] then the process merges with the expression and precludes copyright
protection.
Note the underlined word.
A software
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Qua, 2006-11-22 às 15:05 -0500, rjack escreveu:
You should assume that the Free Software Foundation will claim that all
of your source code plus your wife and kids, supplemented by the family
pets, has been released under the GPL to be used and abused by all who
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-881.pdf (and Linux derivative^Wderived
work as whole.)
He he.
I like footnote 9 about New York law on preambles and other pefatory
language in a contract aiding its interpretation. :-)
regards,
alexander.
IBM argues throughout its
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-881.pdf (and Linux derivative^Wderived
work as whole.)
He he.
I like footnote 9 about New York law on preambles and other pefatory
language in a contract aiding its interpretation. :-)
regards,
alexander.
IBM submits on p23:
David Kastrup wrote:
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IBM submits on p23:
Section 2 grants a licensee such as SCO the right to create and
distribute derivative works . . . –-- provided that the derived work
“as a whole” (which in this case included the Linux Kernel) must be
licensed
First:
Eben Moglen: Yeh, I also make lawyers, I teach something called Law
and The Information Society, I'm not too keen on cyberspace. I'm the
general counsel of the Free Software Foundation, and I'm trying to
report on the revolution which is destroying intellectual property. Of
which I am
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Do you know where could I find a link with a tutorial about GPL
licensing? For me official document is very difficult to read, i
dont understand anything.
Try the GPL FAQ,
GNU moron's Torah. Law of Stallman.
regards, alexander.
P.S. Hey
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Dom, 2006-12-03 às 11:27 +, Aragorn escreveu:
On Saturday 02 December 2006 13:42, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra stood up and
addressed the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
[...]
Oh, and don't pay attention to Alexander, remember this is a GNU
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
You must be confusing this group with some other group. Free
software isn't a economic model. The GPL is a copyright license,
that protects users freedom to run, study, improve and distribute
software, and has nothing to do with Communism/Capitalism, free
software
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Dom, 2006-12-03 às 12:26 -0500, rjack escreveu:
I'm the general counsel of the Free Software Foundation, and I'm trying
to report on the revolution which is destroying intellectual property.
Of which I am entirely in favour.
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/texts/eben
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1950825836;fp;2;fpid;1
-
In opening the seminar, the Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre's executive
director, David Vaile, said the purpose of the event was not to reach a
consensus but to ventilate issues surrounding
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.builderau.com.au/blogs/betaliving/viewblogpost.htm?p=339270743
-
GPLv3 would prevent MS/Novell
By Chris Duckett | 2006-12-04 14:07:36
Print this | E-mail this | Leave a comment
According to the Free Software Foundation's general counsel, Eben
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.builderau.com.au/blogs/betaliving/viewblogpost.htm?p=339270743
-
GPLv3 would prevent MS/Novell
By Chris Duckett | 2006-12-04 14:07:36
Print this | E-mail this | Leave a comment
According to the Free Software Foundation's general counsel, Eben
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Ter, 2006-12-05 às 22:21 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels escreveu:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:48:46 +
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A government GRANTED and TEMPORARY MONOPOLY right is not property.
So land cannot be property by your definition.
John Hasler wrote:
Joseph S. writes:
However, I have one problem with GPL: it talks of source code, linking,
calling, mixing/combining free/non-free code and finally free/non-free
documents. But nobody seems to be talking of concepts, ideas and layouts.
For good reason. The GPL is a
The FOSS community has gone to great length to promote the specter of a
strawman to be greatly feared -- the computer software patent.
It appears that a computer “software patent” is a term that has entered
the World without benefit of the federal courts or Congress. A Google
search
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Any idea what makes arch legal GNU beagle Eben one of the world's
leading experts on copyright law as applied to software, rjack?
regards,
alexander.
--
Don't Buy Harry Potter Books
-- http://www.stallman.org
Any idea what makes arch legal GNU beagle Eben one
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
rjack wrote:
[...]
One must be careful to define Component[] in context.
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2006/2pet/6invit/2005-1056.pet.ami.inv.html
Although the court of appeals correctly held that software can be a
component
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
rjack wrote:
[...]
Its information content is transferred from disc to disc without a
single molecule being transferred—just as the information in this Brief
is transferred to a photocopy without a single molecule being
transferred. RMS
Sorry if it was not clear
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I find it rather interesing that this recent instance of a penumbra
blah-blah filed by the SFLC is basically copy and paste from Eben's
SFLC underling Dan of PubPat brief in LabCorp v. Metabolite.
Lee Hollaar wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The application of U.S. Patent Law should properly be restricted to U.S.
territorial jurisdictions (importation) unless by International accord.
Since the provision in question, 35 USC 271(f) has been a part
rjack wrote:
Lee Hollaar wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] rjack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lee Hollaar wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] rjack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The application of U.S. Patent Law should properly be restricted to
U.S. territorial jurisdictions (importation
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[http://www.softwarefreedom.org/publications/msvatt.pdf]
Toward the end, arch legal GNU beagle Eben eloquently states:
Thus, this Court's precedent repeatedly sets out that software, which
is nothing more than a set of instructions -- an algorithm -- to be
performed
, but
because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license
permits.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
With legal acumen honed to this exceptional degree, his pronouncements
should be taken
very seriously.
rjack
___
gnu-misc
expression
itself in certain circumstances. Codified at 17 U. S. C. §107, the
defense provides: . . .”, Eldred V. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003).
The GPL3's patent-busting abilities are a figment of Moglen's fertile
imagination.
rjack
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Lee Hollaar wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lee Hollaar wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is utterly laughable is the fact that a purported copyright
license like the GPL3 *cannot* effect matters concerning patents
If there is a single way (or maybe a very, very limited way) of
expressing an idea, it is said that the idea and the expression
have merged and therefore the expression is not protectable by
copyright.
That has nothing to do with whether there is a patent that covers a
method that can be
patents and computer programming. Their efforts amount to
nothing more than one great SPAM conspiracy in the open source world.
Sadly, it amazing how many people like Bruce Perens spew GPL3 nonsense
concerning patents.
rjack
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Your credibility was ruined long ago, and is only gone even deeper by
faking your email in order to get spam-bots onto my mail server.
STOP FAKING YOUR FROM ADDRESS
You DO NOT come from com.1407.org
Rui
The address [EMAIL PROTECTED] is faked to prevent GNU
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 11:27 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
I see From: rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] reading via Usenet. If I was receiving
the
mailing list I would see From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] but I would not be
disturbed because I know how my email software works.
My
.
rjack
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
. contract to perpetrate or induce a tort (GPL3)
rjack
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
in house intelligence bureau
Tuesday described President Bush's nominee for United Nations ambassador
as a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy whose attempt to
intimidate a mid-level analyst raises real questions about his
suitability for high office.
rjack
David Kastrup wrote:
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
David Kastrup writes:
An illegal document? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the
GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be
pornography or similar.
Well, the doofuses at SCO claimed
rjack wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...]
Contracts fall into contract law. Copyright licenses fall into
copyright law.
Repeating Moglen's idiocy doesn't make it less idiocy. Copyright law
establishes property rights. Licensing of that property fall
The seminal decision “Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control
Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004)” reveals the over-reach
of Linux operating system authors when claiming GPL license control over
most of the functional source code contained in the Linux operating
system. Likewise
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12554/1090/
--
is the FSF about to pardon Novell?
By Sam Varghese
Thursday, 31 May 2007
Has the Free Software Foundation, like many others, chosen the path of
least resistance and decided to bend with the
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 13:51:34 -0500 rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can write a POSIX compliant shell that shares not one line of
code with another POSIX compliant shell. You can write a C++ compiler
that is structurally completely different from another C
.”); Lexmark International, Inc.
v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004).
And then claimed ... a program performs the same well-defined function
as another program... obtains copyright protection?
rjack
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:04:19 -0500
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you maintain that both versions were identical after applying
trivial obfuscation?
I never claimed any such thing.
Here's part of my initial post in this thread
of Microsoft.
rjack
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
end unless these projects seek
out a corporate patent sugar daddy to protect them.
Microsoft is TERRIFIED of the thought of software patents in the hands
of the little guy.
rjack
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
infanticide.
Evil. Evil. Evil.
rjack
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
to three years of protection. Innovation might truly be spurred
in computer software.
rjack
protection
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
in a poorly drafted
copyright license.
A scope limiting term is generally defined as a term that would violate
copyrights in the absence of any license at all.
rjack
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
material without paying the customary price.” Id.
“[[A] use that has no demonstrable effect upon the potential market for,
or the value of, the copyrighted work need not be prohibited in order to
protect the author’s incentive to create.”)
rjack
, the wife, the kids and the family pet, let
commercial developers stew in their own pot for believing GPL nonsense.
rjack
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
not be patented in isolation but only claimed
when incorporated as a step in conjunction with other claims to form a
truly patentable process.
rjack
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc
' -- depending upon which court you ask.
rjack
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
You have to admit it. Microsoft's lawyers are real morons.
Just think about it. They are probably making $250,000 a
year. The top tax bracket is 37.6 percent. Now you have to
assume since they are really stupid that they don't know
about tax shelters and the like. So that leaves them paying
rjack wrote:
You have to admit it. Microsoft's lawyers are real morons.
Just think about it. They are probably making $250,000 a year. The
top tax bracket is 37.6 percent. Now you have to assume since they
are really stupid that they don't know about tax shelters and the
like. So that leaves
also become GPL licensed
works. Such is the power of the GPL, only a shaman from the Ug!atia
tribe of southern Ethiopia can undo its control over you.
rjack
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu
not being
a contract are just that -- legal nonsense.
rjack
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
If you think the model train decision tied open source supporters
panties in a knot, just wait until they realize the impact of the
First Circuit's decision in:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2237.01A
rjack
___
gnu-misc
The SFLC is using threats of copyright infringement prosecution under
the GPL as a tactical matter to force Monsoon Multimedia to comply with
a contractual covenant.The SFLC will never allow a federal court to
examine the GPL on its merits.
If the suit goes forward (which I seriously doubt) the
The original licensors of GPL’d BusyBox software have no standing to sue
for material breach of the GPL license.
The SFLC complaint drafted against Monsoon Media claims in part:
“8. Under the License, Plaintiffs grant certain permissions to other
parties to copy, modify and redistribute
Tim Smith wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Failing to distribute source code is a contract breach and not a
violation of a work's permitted use under copyright law. There is
obviously no provision under U.S. copyright law to *force* a party who
has
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Failing to distribute source code is a contract breach and not a
violation of a work's permitted use under copyright law. There is
obviously no provision under U.S. copyright law
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
were widely touted as proof of its efficacy. One of these days
someone who is anti-GPL will find it advantageous enough to finally
swat that annoyance.
You mean, like Daniel anti-GPL lunatic
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
You sure aren't any better, all one sees from you is infact the same
stupid garbage as from Terekhov and rjack. Please just stop
responding to the trolls.
Please just stop responding to the trolls.
That's why email clients have kill-filters.
Terekov and rjack
Kenneth P. Turvey wrote:
I'm looking for examples of software licenses that allow the end user
to redistribute copies under the GPL after a specified amount of time
has passed. I think that Ghostscript used to be licensed like this,
but I can't seem to locate the old license.
Does anyone have
mike3 wrote:
So does this mean the author cannot authorize the user to do
something else without giving up ownership?
That is correct.
17 USC sec. 106 states:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this
title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of
Mike Cox wrote:
Where can I find this GNU GPL FAQ? Is it normative? Legaly binding?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
It is legally binding in all courts exercising jurisdiction under the
the authority of the GNU Republic.
Again, is mere dynamic linking the same as incorporating
From the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit:
“Although the United States Copyright Act, ... grants exclusive
jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts, those courts
construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant state law to
interpret them. Kennedy
John Hasler wrote:
KomsBomb writes:
2, The source code can't be used in commercial program. That's to say,
the source code can't be used to make any profit in both source code or
binary form.
Then it isn't Free Software and so you are off-topic here.
Since the GPL is unenforceable under US
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:20:20AM -0400, rjack wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
KomsBomb writes:
2, The source code can't be used in commercial program. That's to say,
the source code can't be used to make any profit in both source code or
binary form.
Then it isn't
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 07:42:53PM -0400, rjack wrote:
Eben then further states:
“In the case of the GPL, no one is bound to anything in
particular unless she redistributes the software, modified or
unmodified.”
This is *not* true. No one can be bound
Mike Cox wrote:
On Oct 14, 3:08 am, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[bah, google groups seems broken]
Mike Cox writes:
In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is
legal too unless contractually prohibited but he also seems to think
the GPL is not a contract so
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Note that the GPLv2 does not acknowledge First Sale when it states
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
the Program or its derivative works.
The GPL (and Herr Professor Moglen) is attempting to redefine
what a condition means with
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
rjack wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I hope than Monsoon folks will take an opportunity to trash Moglen's
nonsensical GNU legal theory myths in federal court.
The GPL myth gives rise to another problem.
That problem is legal standing. A license such as the GPL
Geza Giedke wrote:
The case of GPL-violation by Monsoon Multimedia that was discussed
here recently has been settled out of court.
So what's new? On 21 Sept I stated:
The SFLC is using threats of copyright infringement prosecution under
the GPL as a tactical matter to force Monsoon
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is D.O.A. under a F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss in a US
federal court.
Seems to work though, doesn't it?
-- Richard
The GPL and Linux keeps Micro$oft out of hot water with the Antitrust
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL and Linux keeps Micro$oft out of hot water with the Antitrust
Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Empowering Micro$oft to
maintain its hegemony in the U.S. software market without D.O.J
Google just announced the end of the GPL and the Free Software
Foundation's viral FUD.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=428
I wonder what Eben Moglen thinks now that the excellent Apache 2.0
license was chosen by Google to end the GPL-Linux blather.
James White wrote:
I'm sorry, but I just couldn't read much past this totally asinine
statement:
Nobody should be able to stop you from writing any code that want,
***and GPLv3 protects this right for you***.
When were the GPL folks given the right to write and establish what
IS the LAW?
James White wrote:
The most relevant 2 paragraphs, since you apparently weren't even able to
read that far.
Neutralizing Laws That Prohibit Free Software - But Not Forbidding
DRMYou're probably familiar with the Digital Restrictions Management
(DRM) on DVDs and other media. You're probably also
Microsoft's general manager of Windows Server marketing and platform
strategy Bill Hilf and InformationWeek:
InformationWeek: In order to participate in communities like that, how
do you cut through the muddle of the Richard Stallmans of the world and
overcome the popular resistance, and
The SFLC has filed an infringement suit captioned “ERIK ANDERSEN, an
individual, and ROB LANDLEY, an individual v. HIGH-GAIN ANTENNAS, L.L.C.”
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/nov/20/busybox/highgainantennas.pdf
The SFLC alleged in the complaint in part:
8. Under the License,
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
If either case filed is heard before a judge, it would be the first time
that a GPL infringement lawsuit has gone to trial in the U.S.
The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER allow their bluff to be called by going to
trial. If they did, the Court (perhaps sua sponte) would
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/nov/20/busybox/xterasys.pdf
(SFLC's COMPLAINT)
Plaintiffs’ copyrights are ...
LOL.
Adopted as sig.
regards,
alexander.
--
Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market
value is impossible to assess
Tim Smith wrote:
On 2007-11-21, rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The designated donee beneficiaries of the GPL are obviously all third
parties. Clearly the plaintiffs are parties to the GPL contract and
cannot be a member of the class all third parties. Therefore the
plaintiffs can suffer
Tim Smith wrote:
On 2007-11-24, rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
On 2007-11-21, rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The designated donee beneficiaries of the GPL are obviously all third
parties. Clearly the plaintiffs are parties to the GPL contract and
cannot be a member
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
See also:
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/158.pdf
(Artistic License is a contract)
the Court finds that Plaintiff's claim properly sounds in contract
The Court ruled in the JMRI case (supra):
Although the state claims are subject to dismissal on the merits
mike3 wrote:
On Dec 5, 6:57 am, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 05/12/2007, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it is enough to feed the trolls with a reference.
I don't think OP was trolling.
Look up his posting history in this
mike3 wrote:
On Nov 24, 9:19 am, rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
On 2007-11-21, rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The designated donee beneficiaries of the GPL are obviously all third
parties. Clearly the plaintiffs are parties to the GPL contract and
cannot be a member
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Hmm, so does this mean that the reason why GNU deserves credit
in the _name_ and not somewhere else is because GNU's contribution
is so significant -- they pretty much built most of the rest of the
system?
The GNU project deserves credit not only because the
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
So what reasons do you assume for the many GPL cases that get settled
out of court for defendants with big pockets and plaintiffs with small
ones?
The notion of suing people to force them to publish
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
On 2007-12-08, Bruce Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL's track record has been and continues to be 100% enforceable.
I've never seen a US case involving the GPL come to a verdict.
Of course there are the German cases, but given the different legal
system you
John Hasler wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
There are many reasons why defendants prefer to settle even if they
believe that their lawyers will win in court.
David Kastrup wrote:
Most involving deep pockets and continued litigation.
Often the defense convinces the plaintiff that if they
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
rjack wrote:. . .
BTW, on Groklaw, for the brief time, there was a reply to PJ's comment. . .
and now it's been censored out. Amazing.
PJ, although pretending that she is a journalist is simply a party
propagandist for the Free Software Foundation. When
Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 11:03:56PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://scofacts.org/groklaw.html
Not a single mention of the FSF.
http://linux-blog.org/index.php?/archives/29-Groklaw-and-Censorship.html
Likewise.
You don't need to mention the Free Software
Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 07:10:41PM -0500, rjack wrote:
You don't need to mention the Free Software Foundation to be a
propagandist for them. Simply promoting the GPL and glorifying the
crackpot idea of copyleft is sufficient.
Why are you on this mailing list?
Why did
John Hasler wrote:
Noah Slater writes:
Why are you on this mailing list?
He's a troll. He evidently enjoys insulting people.
Just ah' trollin' along
singin' ah' song
day by day.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 08:29:12PM -0500, rjack wrote:
Why did the duck cross the road?
To troll the mailing list, evidently.
Nope. He was tied to the chicken.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
you
suppose Eben Moglen is related to George Bush?
regards,
rjack
--- Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332,
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the
relevant state law
something developed with Microsoft’s visual
studio MS-###. I understand the people who made Linux possible by
building GCC deserve credit and I accept that, but only to an extent.
Sincerely,
rjack
--- Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332,
grants exclusive jurisdiction
under the definition of trolling. What delicious self-referential irony.
Trollers and trollees alike entwined in an orgasmic, communicative and
collaborative embrace.
Regards,
rjack
--- Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332,
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement
1 - 100 of 1255 matches
Mail list logo
