Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Just in: 04/26/2011 194 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Emmett J. McMahon, dated 4/25/2011, re: Counsel for the defendant Best Buy Co., writes to request a pre-motion conference regarding a motion to strike Plaintiffs' claim for actual damages and any additional profits of [Best Buy] incurred as the result of infringement. ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. A premotion conference will be held on May 6 at 2:30. So Ordered. (Pre-Motion Conference set for 5/6/2011 at 02:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/25/2011) (lnl) (Entered: 04/26/2011) The letter: http://www.terekhov.de/194.pdf Best Buy says that Plaintiffs have suffered no damages at all. (And rightly so.) That's the there are no damages when stealing from a charity since they are not intending to make a profit anyway argument. Let's see whether the judge buys that. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Just in: 04/26/2011 194 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Emmett J. McMahon, dated 4/25/2011, re: Counsel for the defendant Best Buy Co., writes to request a pre-motion conference regarding a motion to strike Plaintiffs' claim for actual damages and any additional profits of [Best Buy] incurred as the result of infringement. ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. A premotion conference will be held on May 6 at 2:30. So Ordered. (Pre-Motion Conference set for 5/6/2011 at 02:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/25/2011) (lnl) (Entered: 04/26/2011) The letter: http://www.terekhov.de/194.pdf Best Buy says that Plaintiffs have suffered no damages at all. (And rightly so.) That's the there are no damages when stealing from a charity since they are not intending to make a profit anyway argument. Let's see whether the judge buys that. Stealing something (including intangibles) with positive market value results in damages (charity or no charity is irrelevant). Best Buy says that market value of Andersen's contributions to BusyBox v0.60.3 is ZERO because the copyright owners in the entire BusyBox program have intentionally made it freely available (zero price to obtain) to anyone and his dog Like a soup kitchen. It's really simple, dak. Well, given your awful track record at predicting really simple things, let's just wait for the judge's verdict on that. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: 9th Cir. License Primer
RJack u...@example.net writes: As the SFLC and Erik Andersen are learning to their dismay, a valid Copyright Office registration of an open source project such as a version of BusyBox requires the registration of all the *individual* contributors' work all the way back to the original author's initial contribution. In order for a complex and evolving derivative work as a whole to be registered, each recursive, preexisting version must also be registered -- a virtually impossible task when multiple authors are involved see for example: [...] The chances of a GPL project's enforcement in a federal court is dead long before the judge ever reads the GPL. The respective chances for success of copyright enforcement in court are what causes the FSF to get copyright assignments for key pieces of GNU software, pretty much from the start of when the GPL has been designed. So it is not exactly news for them or the SFLC that distributed copyright makes for rougher sailing. There is no indication so far, however, that anything is going amiss here. That the situation leaves more to fantasize about for our resident legal nincompoops (as witnessed by their quite-worse-than-random prediction track records) until the case closes is not actually cause for worry. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: 9th Cir. License Primer
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] The respective chances for success of copyright enforcement in court are what causes the FSF to get copyright assignments ... Dear dak, you know quite well that Stallman has no balls to sue for copyright infringement because Stallman is in business of giving Copyright vs. Community speeches. Imagine the publicity... BREAKING NEWS: Copyright IS NOT AGAINST Community anymore, Stallman finally buys into copyright, hallelujah!!! What rock have you been living under? The whole point of the GPL (as opposed to, say, BSD style licenses) is that it is firmly rooted in copyright in order to be able to _enforce_ copyleft. The FSF rarely sues because the prospective defendants tend to prefer getting into compliance (and the FSF's tendency to keep their ts crossed is not likely the least reason). Nowadays, most GPL compliance suits are from GPL licensors different from the FSF themselves. When was the last large-scale GCC violation (for example) you remember? Objective C was one, Motorola signal processors were another. Things started to look ugly, and the companies got their act together after varying amount of pressure, and came into compliance. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Question - Best forums to start an free project
RJack u...@example.net writes: On 3/22/2011 8:43 AM, Hiram wrote: Hello, I would like to know if you know of some forums or mailing lists where I can submit a message to START a free application project. I'm interested in developing a new integrated development environment and have some ideas on what to focus and what features to develop. However, I would like to exchange these ideas and try to start programming a new IDE and publish it somewhere but I'm kind of very lost. Discussions in this group are centered around a legally unenforceable but vexatious license known as the GPL. As you can see, this group has its resident trolls. I think it strongly depends on where the focus of your IDE is supposed to be, what language it is supposed to be written in, what language supposed to support etc etc. In the GNU world, Emacs is mostly used as an IDE. Of course, it has quite a number of quirks, having evolved for 30 years. So the question is whether you can raise lots of interest for your project. Eclipse is also rather well-known. GNOME/KDE might have their own preferred things. And so on. Basically the question is who would be interested in your software for what purpose. And in general: if you have not even gotten to the point proof of concept code, it will be very hard to interest anybody in joining your project rather than starting his own. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
RJack u...@example.net writes: On 2/2/2011 9:47 AM, RJack wrote: Uh... buh bye SFC and Erik Andersen: ---Filed 02/01/11--- ANSWER OF PHOEBE MICRO, INC. Uh, that's the reply of the defendant, not a court order. Let's see how much of it remains after being filtered through the judge before starting to party... -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
RJack u...@example.net writes: On 2/3/2011 10:59 AM, David Kastrup wrote: RJacku...@example.net writes: On 2/2/2011 9:47 AM, RJack wrote: Uh... buh bye SFC and Erik Andersen: ---Filed 02/01/11--- ANSWER OF PHOEBE MICRO, INC. Uh, that's the reply of the defendant, not a court order. Let's see how much of it remains after being filtered through the judge before starting to party... Oh Yea of little faith! That defendant reply agrees with all of my prior assertions in posts concerning the Best Buy Inc. debacle. Given your track record, that should worry them. Since my reasoning is infallible, the end surely draws nigh. Doubtless. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: sort file without sort first line or first two lines ?
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
moonhkt moon...@gmail.com writes:
On Jan 21, 10:00 pm, Barry Margolin bar...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
In article
fda30a91-58d9-4a6c-9b1d-b229c8a66...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
moonhkt moon...@gmail.com wrote:
How to sort file without sort first line or first two lines ?
Text file as below
MTH NUM
JAN A 1
APR C
FEB B 1
MAR D 1
Expect Output
MTH NUM
JAN A 1
FEB B 1
APR C
MAR D 1
{ head -1 file; tail -2 file | sort +k 2; } sortedfile
Tried, Not worked.
You'll need tail -n +2 file here.
Or do something like
cat file | { IFS= read -r x; echo $x; sort +k 2; } sortedfile
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: sort file without sort first line or first two lines ?
moonhkt moon...@gmail.com writes:
On Jan 21, 10:00 pm, Barry Margolin bar...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
In article
fda30a91-58d9-4a6c-9b1d-b229c8a66...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
moonhkt moon...@gmail.com wrote:
How to sort file without sort first line or first two lines ?
Text file as below
MTH NUM
JAN A 1
APR C
FEB B 1
MAR D 1
Expect Output
MTH NUM
JAN A 1
FEB B 1
APR C
MAR D 1
{ head -1 file; tail -2 file | sort +k 2; } sortedfile
Tried, Not worked.
You'll need tail -n +2 file here.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license v license v /license/
RJack u...@example.net writes: On 1/11/2011 5:41 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Why do you think it is that BSD Unix has not held its own in competition with GNU/Linux? One acronym: IBM. IBM could not successfully compete with Windows NT with their AIX line running on the WinTel PC. Microsoft had screwed over IBM and their OS/2. IBM jumped on the Linux bandwagon big time during the SCO debacle with RCU, JFS, NUMA etc... This stimulated peripheral driver development for PC hardware. The GPL was good at suppressing new commercial competition which pleased both IBM and Microsoft. So the GPL _did_ please commercial developers, to the degree where IBM chose to jump on the Linux bandwagon. As far as I can tell, the points you mention (RCU, JFS, NUMA etc) concern just the Linux kernel and not the GNU userland. So it is really the (GPLed) Linux kernel and not the GNU project that is the focus of IBM according to you. How does this jibe with the GPL supposedly scaring commercial developers? Apple, for example, went proprietary with the freedom provided by BSD contributions in XNU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU Look at Apple now: And. . . Boom: Apple Worth More Than Microsoft. http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100526/apple-worth-more-than-microsoft/ Uh, Microsoft is not really somebody promoting GNU or GPLed software. Apple is earning most of its income via gadgets with embedded operating systems (certainly not via MacOS). And IBM is doing better than ever. Capitalism Always Wins ! A loaded gun also always wins. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license v license v /license/
Kari Laine klai...@gmail.com writes: Ok alexander, I bite, let's discuss about the FSF. I don't know enough about it. I know the good software they made possible. I gather I donated some money to them back in (don't remember the year). Do you mean they stole my money to get FAT. Or what exactly is your point of GNG Site? I find sharing quite a many viewpoints of Mr. RMS . There are some witch I don't. And there are some opinions he has told that have hurt the Open Source movement - my personal opinion. But without FSF we probably wouldn't have Linux. At least it won't be as functional as it is today. Hm? Linux is just a kernel. Granted, it has a compilation dependency on GCC, but other than that, its development has been largely independent of the FSF. But it's not really much fun if you try not running any GNU software on it. I've seen some server that has been built in that manner: Linux, but a BSD userland above it. Shows that Linux works without GNU just fine. But not my idea of the best I can get. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourtof Appeals
RJack u...@example.net writes: Alexander and I attempted to explain multiple times that the Federal Circuit was wrong in Jacobsen v. Katzer. You should really find an easier topic than law to comment about. I'm afraid the subtleties of the law are too difficult for you. The subtleties of the law are interpreted _relevantly_ by the courts, not Alexander and you. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL and groupthink
Lusotec nom...@nomail.not writes: [Rjack's off again] How very ridiculous, equalling GPL to communism. Do you even know what communism is? If you compare the writings of the founding fathers of communism with the actions of existing communist parties and governments, you'll find it hard to believe that _anybody_ knows what communism is. Definitely a moving target that can be located almost anywhere nowadays, except where it was supposed to be. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL and groupthink
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com writes: David Kastrup writes: If you compare the writings of the founding fathers of communism with the actions of existing communist parties and governments, you'll find it hard to believe that _anybody_ knows what communism is. That applies to any political ideology whose advocates have ever achieved political power. Well, it is hard to argue against the prevailing philosophical direction in political power being cynicism. Most governments declare ideals quite in line with that ancient school of thought, and the execution is quite in line with the modern meaning of that word. Basically, we seem to deal with a universal equation power + philosophy - mockery -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO vt...@c3sl.ufpr.br writes: Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. Bullshit. Linux and GPL is only growing. The BSDs are dying. Its a shame because BSD is a GREAT system. Or Shut up and Hack. Come to this list when PCC is good enough to be on OpenBSD by default. PCC doesn't need more hackers. PCC and the BSD's need more donations and support from commercial vendors for drivers. BSD and PCC needs friendly people and hackers, not useless whiners pieces of shit like you. That probably counts as friendly. Anyway, one sales theory of BSD fans is that it is more business-friendly, so why the lack of donation and support? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
RJack u...@example.net writes: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: OK I'm so fucking tired of this. I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux. BSD is free. GPL is free. Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. A few people told RMS when he started. Now it is a whole hissing and yelling bunch. That they bother is the best proof that they are wrong. And they know it. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: OK I'm so fucking tired of this. I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux. BSD is free. GPL is free. Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. A few people told RMS when he started. Now it is a whole hissing and yelling bunch. That they bother is the best proof that they are wrong. And they know it. There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe the GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that copyright permissions be licensed at no charge to all third parties. More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its permissions. And that's what counts, regardless of where you think your nut-jobs may be hanging out. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: OK I'm so fucking tired of this. I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux. BSD is free. GPL is free. Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. A few people told RMS when he started. Now it is a whole hissing and yelling bunch. That they bother is the best proof that they are wrong. And they know it. There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe the GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that copyright permissions be licensed at no charge to all third parties. More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its permissions. Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. You are changing the topic: of course you are free to ignore the terms of the GPL and it explicitly says so itself. What you are not free to do is ignore its terms _while_ making use of its permissions. I await with 'bated breath for your documentation. You are changing the topic, namely judges who *do* believe. So please name a few judges who believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored _while_ making use of its permissions. You won't find any. And that's the point. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 5/5/2010 8:11 AM, RJack wrote: Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I await with 'bated breath for your documentation. Sure, here you are: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510 PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MYSQL AB, et al., Defendants. ORDER SARIS, District Judge. ... With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof [...] I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the breach. ^^ Yes, the case was about alleged contract breach, you retard. NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MORON. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf (COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)) COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License) ^^ I read Count VIII here, so let us look at the other counts: COUNT I (Federal Trademark Infringement) COUNT II (Federal Unfair Competition: False Designation) COUNT III (Violation of Federal Trademark Dilution Statute) COUNT IV (Common Law Trademark Infringement) COUNT V (Breach of Contract) [not the GPL, but rather a trade agreement] COUNT VI (Unjust Enrichment) COUNT VII (Quantum Meruit) Count VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License) Count IX Violation of M.G.L.c. 93A§11 The relief asks for: A(iv): Progress/NuSphere violated the GPL License and thus, their rights under the GPL were automatically terminated. B Primarily and permanently enjoin (iii) Progress/Nusphere from copying, modifying, sublicensing or distributing the MySQL program. D Award compensatory and _punitive_ damages [...] (punitive damages for contract violation of a contract without punitive terms?) I mean, you are pretty much cherry-picking again, aren't you? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] You won't find any. And that's the point. Since it is YOU GNUtians who are crying copyright violation, copyright violation... which is a tort and on a large scale it is even a crime, IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE THE CLAIM YOU IDIOT. Well, I didn't find any. And you don't find any even though you wish you would. And all those that wish they'd find such a judge don't. So yes, we have More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its permissions. And that's what counts, regardless of where you think your nut-jobs may be hanging out. Now of course this is not mathematical evidence since obviously, judges being not bound by logic but only by their own choices (which usually include not being displaced for incompetence). So there is no proof but merely statistics. And the statistics so far support your opinion with a staggering 0%. You are still waiting for your outlier to appear that you can then declare the only existing verdict. The way you argue, that will be enough to proudly parade this around long after it has been overturned. So far, you are batting exactly zero. Should you ever get a single hit, you'll declare your batting average to be 1.0 for all future. And probably even believe it. But you are not there yet. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] If she considers a breach ... She did NOT rule that there was a breach, you retard. She ruled quite the opposite: With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MYSQL has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. You are confusing the decision about the preliminary injunction with the ruling. And you _did_ forget again what the discussion was about. But I admit that you did not use moron or idiot in your reply. *HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED*, YOU IDIOT. Ah well, at least not in its first sentence. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I gave him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored (I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ... source code ... didn't cure the breach.) None of your twisting She is simply saying that the GPL provision of automatic termination on a slightest breach is UNENFORCEABLE you idiot. Do you still remember what we were talking about? We were talking about the non-existence of judges who are of the opinion that you can make use of the GPLs permissions without heeding its terms. If she considers a breach likely healed because the terms _have_ been heeded after substantial delay, does that mean that she thinks one needs not heed the terms? I have no doubt that you'll form a sentence containing idiot or moron as a reply, but please do try to remember what the topic was. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: For stupid dak, in English now. Here's a typical shoplifting statute. As usual, nothing relevant here. You do remember that we were talking about the legal _meaning_ of an act being established after the fact, because you can't determine the possible intent of the act after additional things have happened? As applied to licensing and licensing conditions, where you are unable to grasp that not adhering to licensing conditions without any presumption of honoring them implies that the license is effectively nullified rather than breached, even though this fact is established _after_ any copies may have already been made that _would_ be legal _if_ the licensing conditions were honored. Your quotes do nothing whatsoever to counter that. Instead they show a mad obsession with an example I gave, without actually countering them. For example, pretty much all of your quotes state that intent of theft can be assumed established when some ware is _concealed_, something which happens _after_ the ware is _taken_, when the _crime_ consists of _taking_ the ware with the intent of misappropriating it. So yes, we have the separation between the time of the crime, and the time of sufficient factual evidence establishing the intent constituting an ingredient of the crime. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Uh retard dak. You wrote: But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of knowing whether I had merely been employing my pocket because I was running out of space in my hands or because I intended to steal something. That's not an evidence to rebutt presumption of intent to consummate a theft, stupid. In terms of German law, according to BGH: http://www.gutefrage.net/frage/ist-das-ladendiebstahl Sobald ein Täter eine Ware in seine Kleidung oder in eine mitgeführte Tasche gesteckt hat, ist sein Gewahrsam begründet und damit der Diebstahl vollendet. Got it now? And, BTW, Gewahrsam above isn't confinement but rather http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewahrsam as in http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besitz In that case, the wording would need to be ist deren Gewahrsam begründet. German grammar has grammatic gender, Ware is feminine. And even if we were assuming that whoever wrote that merely got the gender wrong, you'd have to say dessen rather than sein in order to indicate that the possessive pronoun is not referring to the subject of the sentence but to the object. And the particular sentence makes little enough sense: As soon as a perpetrator puts an item into his clothes or a carried bag, his confinement is justified, and thus the theft is completed. That's shaking the order and dependencies of the acts up rather absurdly. LMAO!!! Whatever. When quoting isolated sentences, you better pick those with grammar reflecting what you consider their meaning. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Whatever. When quoting isolated sentences, you better pick those with grammar reflecting what you consider their meaning. LOL. Dak are you really sure that your German is more correct than the German of http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de? If the meaning is the one you think it is and we are talking about that particular sentence, _and_ your attribution to the BGH as source is accurate (for which I don't see any evidence but consider possible), yes. Figuring out that the grammatic gender in this sentence does not match your interpretation is something that primary school should teach any reasonably apt pupil. Since the sentence makes more sense given your interpretation rather than the one implied by its grammar, I will agree that _if_ it originated from the BGH, it is likely that it was _intended_ to mean what you think, and that the judges (or scribes) failed in the grammar rather than the logic department. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] particular sentence, _and_ your attribution to the BGH as source is accurate (for which I don't see any evidence but consider possible), BGH Beschluss vom 06.10.1961 (2 StR 289/61) NJW 1961, 2266; BGHSt 16, 271 http://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGHDatum=06.10.1961Aktenzeichen=2%20StR%20289%2F61 I will agree that _if_ it originated from the BGH http://www.google.com/#hl=ensource=hpq=%22sein+Gewahrsam%22 It is actually slightly different (we are talking about single tense/plural tense). The actual intended meaning would likely be der Übergang in seinen Gewahrsam or sein Gewahrsam der Waren anzunehmen. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Dak, the ruling I cited is part of http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsexamen for prosecutors and counsels (both may become judges). Good thing they won't become Grammarians. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
RJack u...@example.net writes: The SFLC has finally bought itself a shit-load of trouble. Because defendents write up a defense? That's not really that remarkable. 13. Best Buy requests a jury trial on all issues triable of right by a jury. Juries don't interpret the law but decide on questions of fact finding. There is not much leeway for finding here as long as plaintiffs did not ask for punishment of willful violation, but for compliance. But Best Buy does not state being in compliance, but rather not being affected by BusyBox copyrights. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendant/Counterclaimant Best Buy prays for judgment in its favor against Plaintiffs/Counterclaimants as follows: 1. Dismissing Plaintiffs’ cause of action with prejudice and on the merits; 2. Declaring that Best Buy has not infringed the alleged copyrights in BusyBox; 3. Awarding Best Buy its costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred in connection with this matter; and 4. Awarding such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable. . . . This means that the SFLC cannot file a vouluntary dismissal without the permission of Best Buy Inc. There is no such thing as filing an unvoluntary dismissal. And of course, once Best Buy agrees to settle, both parties will file a joint request for dismissal because of having agreed on settlement terms. You'll be hollering about voluntary dismissals on the side of the SFLC and foaming at your mouth. But that's the way this stuff works. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: the alleged license at issue in this case and/or certain provisions contained therein are illegal, unconscionable and barred by public policy as well as by statutory and case law. They'll have a fun time a) proving that statement b) telling the court what other permission short of the alleged license they have for copying and distribution. That's pretty much the usual clueless first response. Exactly. Which is why it is hailed by our usual clueless first responders. Now we'll just have to wait for the huzzahs when both parties file for dismissal in the course of which the sources are made available under the GPL (never mind how illegal, unconscionable and whatever else that would be). Or until the court actually issues a ruling, and we'll get the usual hissy fits here about drunken judges and claims that they are in conflict with the Superior Court or whatever other histrionics we are used to seeing from our resident cranks. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa asserts joint ownership/indispensable party defense
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (JOINT OWNERSHIP) On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because other third parties jointly created the alleged copyright at issue and those third parties are joint copyright owners of the alleged copyright at issue in this action. That could be a defense if both a) all copyrighted portions were of joint copyright ownership b) defendants could show having permission from other joint copyright owners FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (INDISPENSABLE PARTIES) On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because there are indispensable parties that have not been joined in this lawsuit, including the other authors and/or owners of the alleged copyright at issue. Again, that requires that all copyrighted portions are of joint copyright ownership. As I said: we'll get our resident cranks to post all court filings of the defendants under huzzah! yes!, all filings of plaintiffs under LOL!, celebrate coming the defendants under compliance and a filed settlement as a defeat of the plaintiffs, and a prospective court ruling (if the defendants don't get a clue in time for the verdict) as absurd, the product of drunk judges and in conflict with the Supreme Court or whoever else. It's not like we have not seen this spectacle before. And time and again. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: RJack wrote: [...] b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies. That's Versa's tenth defense. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (ESTOPPEL) On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. Yeah, that one is hilarious as well. Dear court, how could we assume that we had license conditions to heed when making use of a license? They promised we could use their software under GPL, that certainly must be enough to stop them from asking us to heed it. We'll see how much of the defendants beliefs survives in court. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: We'll see how much of the defendants beliefs survives in court. You betch'a. No more voluntary dismissals. That's all that real folks have ever asked for -- a court ruling concerning the GPL on the merits. You won't see that this time either. If we make it through an actual court ruling, the outcome will be either that there was copying without permission (which is a ruling on the merits of copyright), or that the defendants would do better to come into compliance with any purported license they claim to have been given, GPL or not. Or a defendant can show that he is not in fact distributing the software. So, hopefully, we'll really see. The topic will be copyright. The GPL is what helps the defendants out of the court, not what brings them into it. So it is not likely there will be much to see. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
RJack u...@example.net writes: If you are so smart at interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, why are you so dumb at grasping doctrines like preemption and promissory estoppel? They don't apply where there is no preemption and no promissory estoppel. Could it be that you actually know the GPL is preempted and thus GPL code is quasi-public domain due to promissory estoppel? If the GPL is invalid, there is no other license for copying and modification. It is nonsensical to at once claim it being invalid, then using promissory estoppel claims as an excuse to take its permissions without heeding the conditions under which they are given. You can't pull it out of your hat only when you need it and ignore it otherwise. Perhaps your feigned ignorance is just stubbornness (like Hyman Rosen)? There is no ignorance feigned. If repeating obvious statements to cranks purporting not to get them is stubbornness, I might be guilty of that. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. Yeah, that one is hilarious as well. Dear court, how could we assume that we had license conditions to heed when making use of a license? They promised we could use their software under GPL, that certainly must be enough to stop them from asking us to heed it. We'll see how much of the defendants beliefs survives in court. Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow some proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a real operating system. Microsoft hates the thought that folks will understand the GPL is unenforceable. That's the reason Microsoft embraced the GPL -- it suppressed new competition. Perhaps the Linux kernel will continue to be improved under a free (free as in freedom) license such as BSD or Apache. You should keep away from the keyboard during your wet dreams. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: Any merits of the case aside, it would seem to me that Moglen, et al has bitten off a rather large chaw. Fortunately, it is not the job of the court to put any merits of the case aside. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/9/2010 8:45 AM, RJack wrote: Once the GPL is invalidated http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf You've already lost. You might as well cite to the law of Zimbabwe Hymen. The case is filed in the Second Circuit. The CAFC has no precedental value anywhere in the federal system. I hope and pray that the SFLC cites to the CAFC. It will be a real treat to see a federal district court judge rolling on the floor laughing before dismissing the case. Tsktsktsk. Remember: stay off the keyboard when having wet dreams. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point? You are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually have to make sense. What's your rhetorical focus? Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it. Well, that's half of the story. Linux has been written to support a preexisting GNU userland. And that userland has a tradition of being popular and freely available quite before Linux. And BSD became freely available only some time after GNU/Linux. The GNU userland is unpopular among BSD developers because, well, they are BSD developers. And because their kernel of choice already comes in one package with a userland. So quite a lot of popularity of GNU/Linux comes from GNU, and not necessarily just because GNU is GPLed. If, for some currently inconceivable reason, Linux was relicenced under what you call a free as in freedom licence, many developers would cease development. The Linux kernel developers tend not to be all too religious about licensing. Well, they do, but they call their religion pragmatism. This might leave a mere rump, scarcely larger than the groups which maintain the BSD kernels. I doubt it. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point? You are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually have to make sense. What's your rhetorical focus? Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it. Well, that's half of the story. Linux has been written to support a preexisting GNU userland. And that userland has a tradition of being popular and freely available quite before Linux. And BSD became freely available only some time after GNU/Linux. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The University of California at Berkeley has a long history of pioneering software development and software distribution models. Having existed in some form since the early 1980s, the BSD licence can claim to be the oldest of the open source licences. We are not talking about the age of the BSD license(s), but the time when a complete BSD type operating system became available freely. USL v. BSDi was settled just in 1993. URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it. Well, that's half of the story. Linux has been written to support a preexisting GNU userland. And that userland has a tradition of being popular and freely available quite before Linux. What is the reason for that popularity (amongst developers), if it's not the GPL. Quality. It was traditional for UNIX utilities to dump core when fed random garbage. And availability. GNU utilities ran on more than just UNIX systems. GPL vs. BSD license was one of the few big differences between the projects way back then. Uh, not even at Linux birthtime (1991) there was a complete freely available BSD system. But there already was a GNU userland under DOS/Windows and some other systems. Life saver. And BSD became freely available only some time after GNU/Linux. Yet how does that explain why Linux is so much more popular amongst developers than a BSD kernel? BSD became freely available at a very early stage of the development of GNU/Linux, early enough to catch up on its merits. Still not with a GNU userland. The GNU userland is unpopular among BSD developers because, well, they are BSD developers. And because their kernel of choice already comes in one package with a userland. The BSDs include some GNU stuff, Not the normal userland. It already has one. just as GNU/Linux includes some BSD licensed stuff. But there is no preexisting GNU alternative for that which it includes BSD licensed. So quite a lot of popularity of GNU/Linux comes from GNU, and not necessarily just because GNU is GPLed. Would you argue that GNU would have become just as popular (amongst its developers), had it been licensed under something like the BSD licence? I would doubt that very much. Speculative history. We won't find out. Well there's little prospect of that experiment taking place, thankfully. Yup. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
RJack u...@example.net writes: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Well there's little prospect of that experiment taking place, thankfully. The GPL is gasping for breath Alan. It'll soon be DEAD. Get over it Alan. Copyleft style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law. Quite right, since they are no contracts and the recipient did not sign them. And the GPL says so itself. But that does not change that _copyright_ stays enforceable, and while that is the case, a license like the GPL which gives conditions for additional permissions is likely welcome to the recipients of software. Once copyright falls, the GPL is a piece of toilet paper, while the licenses like shrink-wrap and click-through which require the recipient to agree to obnoxious restrictions on the rights that would properly be his under copyright, will still be able to affect people who did agree to be bound in that manner. You may, perhaps, continue to extol the virtues of the GPL under the patchwork of laws of Europe but it's dead in the USA. Stay away from your keyboard during your wet dreams. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/9/2010 11:50 AM, RJack wrote: ... but that's not relevant. Neither is your analogy. You're wrong about that (naturally). The original conversation was On 3/2/2010 10:43 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft. The relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register. Uh stupid dak. You're mistaken. As usual, Terekhov was wrong, and the Colorado case is an example which demonstrates this. Borrowing a DVD from a library is a legal act. Borrowing a DVD from a library and failing to return it . . . Uh moron Hyman. Let comrade dak translate the following for you: Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO) No need to bother. It is utterly irrelevant to anything discussed so far. Not that this should surprise anybody... -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/9/2010 12:20 PM, RJack wrote: Sadly Hyman, you demonstrate your inability to understand the difference between a violation of a criminal statute and a civil breach of contract. Copying GPL-covered works without honoring the conditions of the GPL is copyright infringement, not a civil breach of contract. Depends on whether the defendant declares to have availed himself of the GPL as a license or not. Violation of license terms is held to similar standards in court as violation of contract terms. Of course, if no intent of honoring the license can be established, we are talking about copyright infringement. But that situation is not so dissimilar with contracts when one of the parties can be shown to have had no intent of honoring its obligations. So yes, there are some similarities. There are also some differences. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/9/2010 12:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO) I'm insufficiently motivated to learn German just to pick apart your undoubtedly incorrect arguments in that language. No argument there, just a verbatim quote from a law utterly unrelated to the discussion (repossession). He probably fed the wrong keywords to his quote regurgitating engine. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Uh moron Hyman. Let comrade dak translate the following for you: Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO) No need to bother. It is utterly irrelevant to anything discussed so far. Not that this should surprise anybody... Uh moron dak. Ordnungshaft, da Ordnungsgeld nach § 890 ZPO nicht beigetrieben werden konnte Yup, like I said. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Uh moron Hyman. Let comrade dak translate the following for you: Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO) No need to bother. It is utterly irrelevant to anything discussed so far. Not that this should surprise anybody... Uh moron dak. Ordnungshaft, da Ordnungsgeld nach § 890 ZPO nicht beigetrieben werden konnte Yup, like I said. Uh retard dak. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14516247 And so forth and so on. Nothing even remotely connected with the topic of discussion. You post another insult, and another utterly different link unrelated to the discussion. I have my doubts that among all your insults you yourself remember what you were trying to argue for or against. But we are not going to find out since you are just going to continue in this utterly inane manner. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: RJack wrote: RJack wrote: PACER: SFLC just voluntarily dismissed GCI Technologies Corp. Uh, where is the SFLC's fucking press release triumphing yet another GPL 'settlement victory'? In the meantime http://www.cortex-pro.com/hdc_3000.php?t=3 is still in breach. It would be rather unusual for a settlement not to entail reasonable deadlines for enacting the settlement. There is no doubt you'll act hysterical in the mean time, but that is not 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
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote: On 3/10/2010 11:33 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: the complainant sumits his complaint in ordinary English You make the same error as those who advocate writing computer programs in ordinary English. You need lawyers to handle lawsuits like you need programmers to write programs, because in each case experience and expertise are required to achieve good results. If that is the case (and it appears to be so at the moment), then the system is badly broken. Results should 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
Re: SFLC is SOL
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: RJack wrote: RJack wrote: PACER: SFLC just voluntarily dismissed GCI Technologies Corp. Uh, where is the SFLC's fucking press release triumphing yet another GPL 'settlement victory'? In the meantime http://www.cortex-pro.com/hdc_3000.php?t=3 is still in breach. It would be rather unusual for a settlement not to entail reasonable deadlines for enacting the settlement. LOL. And how much time that would take, silly dak? See? You are already getting hysterical, as predicted. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/10/2010 3:03 PM, RJack wrote: The Copyright Act's pass-through permissions provision eh? No, the license's pass-through permission. The Copyright Act gives rights holders the exclusive right to authorize others to copy and distribute covered works. Yep you're right. The Act just doesn't authorize *non-rights* holders to authorize others to copy and distribute covered works. But the rights holders may authorize others. 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
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote: On 3/11/2010 3:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: In the system I envisage, such wouldn't normally be necessary, except in complicated cases. There is already small-claims court for very small cases. Depends on where you are. But your emphasis on very is apt for anywhere I've lived. But generally both sides in a dispute will want the most able advocates they can get, and they will continue to want that no matter what system is in place to adjudicate disputes. I disagree. Generally, both sides in a dispute want the dispute settled rapidly and cheaply enough that an adverse decision won't risk their standard of living. How cheap is cheap enough? I'd say, say, 10% of the value of the claim. Anything above that, the system's broken. Rapidly enough? Well, I can't see why a typical case couldn't be resolved in ~6 weeks. It was in times past. If the value of the claim is $20, 10% pays a lot of attorneys. And adverse decisions can easily 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
Re: SFLC is SOL
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/16/2010 10:05 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Read a bit more than a couple of introductory paragraphs Nothing else you quote at all supports the notion that preemption has anything to do with the GPL. That's not surprising, since preemption has nothing to do with the GPL. That is a dangerous position! http://www.technollama.co.uk/a-licence-or-a-contract this argument would seem to suggest that any user of copyright works can be taken to court, and only then they can prove that they actually had a licence to use the work. Imagine the same paragraph above being said by Bill Gates and not by Eben Moglen, and you will get why this is such a dangerous position! This makes no sense. Assuming that user of works means someone who is copying and distributing them, then he is subject to infringement claims, to which he can use a license as a defense. This is equally true for rights held by Bill Gates or Eben Moglen and is entirely unsurprising. Why would this be considered dangerous? In particular 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
Re: SFLC is SOL
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/16/2010 10:05 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Read a bit more than a couple of introductory paragraphs Nothing else you quote at all supports the notion that preemption has anything to do with the GPL. That's not surprising, since preemption has nothing to do with the GPL. GPLv2: 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 whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Supreme Court: [I]t goes without saying that a contract cannot bind a non-party. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. 534 U.S. 279, 122 S.Ct. 754, 151 L.Ed.2d 755. But for those who want to have it said explicitly, the GPL spells it out: 9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies. You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-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 a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so. The GPL is not a contract, in particular not a binding contract. It is a license. The recipient does not become licensee under the GPL automatically, but by accepting the terms for modification and redistribution. Once he does that, he is bound by them. It goes without saying that a contract or license cannot bind a non-party. Copyright, however, will bind non-parties to such an agreement. The recipient may, at his choice, become a party. If he wants 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
Re: SFLC is SOL
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/16/2010 11:42 AM, RJack wrote: GPLv2: 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 whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Supreme Court: [I]t goes without saying that a contract cannot bind a non-party. The GPL sets conditions for acquiring permission to copy and distribute a covered work. No non-parties are bound by the GPL unless they choose to acquire the permissions offered by the GPL. This is consistent with the quotes. 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 backwards. The Supreme Court talks about non-parties here. If you, as recipient of software, don't make use of the GPL, you are a non-party. So the Supreme Court ruling concerning non-parties _does_ 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 terms. The difference between a contract and a license is that with a license, you have the choice to be considered a party, or a non-party. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net 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 backwards. The Supreme Court talks about non-parties here. If you, as recipient of software, don't make use of the GPL, you are a non-party. So the Supreme Court ruling concerning non-parties _does_ 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. Who am I supposed to believe? You or my lyin' eyes? ROFL. I think that the lying happens later in the processing chain. Anyway, if you have access to a brain, I recommend that you switch it on. That way, you avoid the need to believe anybody else. Sincerely, Unlikely. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/16/2010 12:46 PM, RJack wrote: Plaintiffs Humax, Western Digital, JVC, Versa and Best BUy correctly asserted that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the GPL claims. No, they are incorrect in their claim. Fortunately, we can just wait 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 likely. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/16/2010 12:45 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The ownership interests translators to works licensed under the GPL might have in their translations are seriously limited, given that any distribution of those translations must be done under the terms of the GPL. Yes, choosing to create a work based on GPL-covered work limits how that work may be copied or distributed. That is a choice the author makes. The same choices apply to the use of any other work - the conditions placed upon those works by their rights holders must be obeyed if the work is to be used. Actually, copyright does grant rights to the legal purchaser of copyrighted media: copyrighting the media binds the copyright owner to the provisions of copyright. Shrinkwrap licenses and their ilk try to make the purchaser 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 ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote: That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it. BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed under the same terms. Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron Hyman. Seems like you don't understand the difference between copyleft and weak permissive licenses. BSDL licensed material does not 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-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical terms. Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to sublicense is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). What about Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights do you not understand? Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English language involving the use of the word exclusive in: § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:. . . What about and to authorize did you not understand? leaves you incapable of understanding that under U.S. copyright law the term 'sublicense can mean transfer of ownership or transfer of contractual interest. There is *no* exclusive right for an owner to authorize someone who is not the owner of a copyright to license a work again. (It wouldn't be an exclusive right would it?) 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 someone to act in one's behalf. It-just-ain't-gonna-happen. Nada, nope, zilch, not, nein!! Just because you pretend not to understand common concepts your absurd protestations do not gain any plausibility. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: On 2010-03-23 09:11:03 -0400, Hyman Rosen said: It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for normal definitions of is. Mac OS X *is* descended from 4.4 BSD for normal definitions of is. 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
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: RJack wrote: [...] Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English language Best of dak's moronity this week thus far: as opposed to patents, copyright applies to rights connected with physical copies. Perhaps you should make yourself acquainted with the concept of cleanroom reimplementation. The whole purpose of which is avoiding to get in contact with original code. If a cleanroom implementation incidentally creates identical code, it is not subject 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
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: For silly dak, info in German... http://www.patente-stuttgart.de/index.php?page=literaturpage2=aufsatzlizenz1 Eine weitere Lizenzart ist die Unterlizenz. Hierbei leitet der Lizenznehmer sein Benutzungsrecht von einem anderen Lizenznehmer ab, der seinerseits mit dem Patentinhaber einen Lizenzvertrag geschlossen hat und zur Vergabe von Unterlizenzen berechtigt ist. Eine nicht exklusive Lizenz berechtigt ohne gesonderte Vereinbarung nicht zur Vergabe von Unterlizenzen. [...] ohne gesonderte 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
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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 someone to act in one's behalf. Uh retard dak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_attorney is not http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sublicense Authorizations can be different in scope and character. Are you sure you know what point you are trying to make? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] http://www.lehrer-online.de/dyn/bin/366209-369076-1-uebertragung_von_nutzungsrechten.pdf Inhabern ausschließlicher Nutzungsrechte vorbehalten Die Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten ist allerdings dem Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes vorbehalten (§ 31 Abs. 3 UrhG); einfache Nutzungsrechte berechtigen demgegenüber nicht zur Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten. So where is the problem? It says that giving somebody right to use is Under the German copyright act ONLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES CAN SUBLICENSE. Wrong. You still don't get it. Exclusive licensees _automatically_ receive the right to sublicense. A non-exclusive licensee does not _per_ _se_ have the right to sublicense. But if the license terms _grant_ him sublicensing possibilities, he can certainly make use of him. You can license people to exercise almost any right you have, except for _personal_ rights, those bound to the originator. Like the claim of authorship. For example, the MIT License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, is VOID regarding sublicensing under the German law. _Exactly_ because non-exclusive licensees do not get the right to sublicense automatically, these terms are granting something which the licensee otherwise could not do. You are getting it backwards. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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 sublicense. Not automatically, dummkopf dak. http://www.it-recht-kanzlei.de/index.php?id=%2Fviewcid=3278title=Unterlizenzierung+von+Nutzungsrechten Urteil vom LG Leipzig Aktenzeichen: 05 O 1408/06, 5 O 1408/06 Entscheidungsdatum: 13. November 2006 Leitsätze Mit der Übertragung des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes erwirbt der Lizenznehmer gemäß §§ 31 Abs. 3, 35 UrhG nicht das Recht, seinerseits ohne Zustimmung des Urhebers Unterlizenzen an Dritte zu erteilen. [...] So you cite conflicting opinions (the second from an actual verdict) whether or not an exclusive usage right automatically includes the right to sublicense. That's nice, or less nice. But it still does not say anything about the situation where a licensee is _explicitly_ granted the right to modify and redistribute under conditions allowing placing the modified whole under different licenses meeting specified restrictions. _Both_ of your quotes are talking about an _automatic_ grant. The second actually restricts this further: Ein Recht zur Lizenzierung von Dritten muss deshalb zwischen dem Urheber und dem Inhaber des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes ausdrücklich vereinbart werden Which says that sublicensing has to _either_ explicitly arranged for (like the BSDL licenses do, allowing the propagation of copies to third parties under given conditions) oder es muss sich jedenfalls aus den Umständen des Vertragsschlusses eindeutig ergeben, dass von Seiten des Urhebers ein solches Recht dem Inhaber des Nutzungsrechtes eingeräumt werden soll. _or_ the circumstances of the contract formation have to make it unambiguous that the author intends to give such a right to the recipient of the usage rights. So you manage to quote a source that lists _several_ possibilities for arranging the bestowment of sublicensing rights to an exclusive licensee. There is nothing here that would inherently be different with regard to non-exclusive licensees. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: RJack wrote: [...] Substitute the words tranfer of contractual interest for sub-license so that you will no longer sound utterly confused DAK. Are you having a problem understanding the concept of transfer of contractual interest when it concerns a non-exclusive copyright license? Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte) (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 Zustimmung, given certain conditions. You are really masterful at digging up quotes contradicting your claims. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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 licensee). The GPL is used for distributing the work as a whole. The GPL just can't apply to the BSDL licensed material because the BSDL doesn't grant sublicensing rights you idiot. Again: as opposed to patents, copyright applies to rights connected with physical copies. The BSDL grants permission to distribute physical copies with derived contents, as long as the conditions of the BSDL are met. Distributing such a copy under the GPL meets the conditions of some BSDL style licenses. There is no sublicensing of the original copy involved here, since obviously we are not talking about the original physical copy. We are talking about the creation and distribution of copies with derived content, under conditions permitted by the BSDL style license attached to the original copy. Do you get it now? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: RJack wrote: [...] Substitute the words tranfer of contractual interest for sub-license so that you will no longer sound utterly confused DAK. Are you having a problem understanding the concept of transfer of contractual interest when it concerns a non-exclusive copyright license? Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte) (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 Zustimmung, given certain conditions. Uh idiot dak. It says that EXCLUSIVE licensee can sublicense ONLY if (iff) the author gives consent to sublicense. Yes, we got that (it contradicts your first quote, but then it would seem that the authority of the second is better). But you are still barking up the wrong tree. What you claim is that the author can't explicitly grant a non-exclusive licensee the right to sublicense. That's not supported by either of your quotes, and it does not even make sense. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hey stupid dak, here's a nice post on sublicensing. Hth. http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=296845cid=20592673 (IANAL, but I actually agree with Theo) ... Here are specific points I would make: 1) While the BSDL and related licenses clearly do not have the intent to force sharing of code, they clearly *do* have the intent to provide the downstream recipients of the original elements of that code with the rights listed in the license. So Theo is right that you cannot simply wrap the BSDL in the GPL. That is nonsensical since the BSDL is not a strong copyleft license. I mean, you can wrap it in Microsoft EULAs. 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 licensee). The GPL is used for distributing the work as a whole. Its conditions comply with those of the BSDLed parts inside. It is funny that you then quote an article that _differentiates_ between various BSDL licenses according to their GPL compatibility. 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 the license variant in question. Some are compatible. Some not. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte) (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 Zustimmung, given certain conditions. Uh idiot dak. It says that EXCLUSIVE licensee can sublicense ONLY if (iff) the author gives consent to sublicense. Yes, we got that (it contradicts your first quote, but then it would seem that the authority of the second is better). § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG doesn't contradict http://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id=1715 (LG Köln, Beschluss vom 09.04.2008 - Az. 28 O 690/07), silly dak. Your _first_ quote. Not your next to last one. But you are still barking up the wrong tree. What you claim is that the author can't explicitly grant a non-exclusive licensee the right to sublicense. That's true, according to § 31 Abs. 3 i.V.m. § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG, you retard. Not at all. Again you are confusing _implicit__ grants with the _possibility_ to _explicitly_ grant rights to sublicense. It seems like understanding something simple as that does not come to you as easily as shouting insults. Though to be fair: it's been a long time since you came up with variety in that department either. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote: That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it. BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed under the same terms. Only the *owner* of code licensed under the BSD license may change that license. It's an *exclusive* right. Licenses are not attached to code, but to transactions. If I receive code under the BSD license, that gives me permission to pass it on under a number of other licenses. That does not change the copyright ownership. § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:. . . Yes, and he authorizes me to distribute code licensed under BSD to me under different terms and conditions, 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. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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=OCGsutgMdPICpg=SA4-PA42lpg=SA4-PA42dq=sublicensing+explicit+grantsource=blots=JRQwZdnHUlsig=0b5RXRLLp2OXrNixaZ502i6Sd8Qhl=deei=So6oS47SHqT20wStr_XrDQsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=8ved=0CCYQ6AEwBw#v=onepageq=sublicensing%20explicit%20grantf=false (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. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). What about Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights do you not understand? Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Note that nothing is being said about adding conditions, or distributing with a more restrictive set of conditions. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/25/2010 9:44 AM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: It's ironic because the FSF is the creator of the GPL, and even they recognized that the GPL was a poor fit for libraries which is why they created the Library (now Lesser) GPL. The FSF does not believe that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries. They believe that when there are good non-free alternatives to free libraries, they should use the LGPL for the free libraries so that users will have at least some freedom. When there are no good non-free versions available, they will use the GPL to maximize freedom for users. More pragmatically: they want their licenses to be taken seriously. That involves being able to go after violations in court and/or settlements with good chances of success. 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 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
Re: SFLC is SOL
RJack u...@example.net writes: Just for once Hyman, try to read the Complaint. Andersen claims (falsely) that he owns BusyBox, v.0.60.3 -- that's exactly what he re4gistered with the Copyright Office. His claim to ownership of BusyBox, v.0.60.3 is the *only* thing that gives the court jurisdiction to hear infringement claims. You can't register Donald Duck with the Copyright Office and then claim infringement over Daffy Duck. The complaint is not relevant for a settlement out of court anyway. The past misconduct can't be cured by distributing complaint source with non-corresponding newer binaries. You're probably best know in this group as the guy who likes to Mooove the goalposts -- keep trying Hyman. Just keep trying. The goalpost is compliance with the GPL when distributing software. As always. 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
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 aggregation a really good defense. This is completely wrong. The legal council of the FSF is, as far as I can concern, of different opinion than you are, and this opinion influences what kind of work they decide to release under what kind of license. So whether or not you agree with their reasoning, it is part of the decisions they make with regard to licensing. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/25/2010 11:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Static linking is mere aggregation of (sub)programs with relocation and symbol resolution done earlier than in the case of dynamic linking. No, static linking results in a combined work since the elements are chosen with intention and by design, much as would be the case for stories in an anthology. Mere aggregation corresponds to shipping a pile of books in one box. 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 carefully versioned and tend to become incompatible with their predecessors pretty regularly. That's why you need to compile a program using dynamic libraries with the corresponding header 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 ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: On 2010-03-25 09:51:04 -0400, Hyman Rosen said: The FSF does not believe that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries. The release of the Library GPL is an implicit recognition of the fact that the GPL is a poor fit for 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 do a little research. A name is a name. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Mining the Blogosphere
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: It's also no surprise that an anti-GPL crank faced with the contradiction of opposing FSF socialism but favoring copying and distribution against the wishes and rights of copyright holders has no response 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
Re: Mining the Blogosphere
RJack u...@example.net writes: It is amazing to watch the communication strategy that Free Software advocates utilize in promoting their socialist goals. The FSF and SFLC have created an efficient network of Astroturf sites that is dedicated to promoting their goals. Moglen, Perens, Khun, Lessig and a growing list of advocates routinely pop up and utter some pronouncement concerning the undefined concept known as open source or F/L/OSS. These utterances are then picked up and amplified throughout the Blogosphere and quickly assume an aura of invincible truth. Feel free to do the same. Oh, you already do. Could there be a reason why nobody picks _your_ utterances up? The fanfare and sheer volume of internet posts surrounding the announcement that the SFLC had filed suit against Best Buy and thirteen other corporations was impressive. I Googled [sflc best buy infringement] and received 67,400 hits (an unscientific but relevant search). Obviously the announcement was considered an important development. Best Buy countersued for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. A judgment of non-infringement in favor of Best Buy would utterly demolish the myth of Richard Stallman's copyleft principle. A lot of judgments happen one way or the other without earth-shattering consequences. So there is even less reason to get all excited over hypothetical judgments. So, how many blogs have noted this fact? fact as a term for describing hypothetical consequences for a hypothetical event is definitely not the normal use of the word. One poster to these news groups, amicus curious, aptly pointed out that the SFLC was probably going to be able to walk away with propaganda victories through voluntary dismissals until some company found it financially worthwhile to end the SFLC's legal charades. It appears that circumstance is well nigh at hand. It's not like you would tire sounding that trumpet 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
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 carefully versioned and tend to become incompatible with their predecessors pretty regularly. That's why you need to compile a program using dynamic libraries with the corresponding header versions for the API versioning. That's irrelevant. If you do not copy and distribute the library as part of the program, then the license of the library cannot affect the right to copy and distribute the program. If the program can't be compiled (and successfully prelinked) without inclusion of the corresponding library headers, it is somewhat strange to argue that the creation of the binaries is an act independent from the library, just because the _binaries_ of the library are loaded at a later point of time. You may be ferociously defending your own legal theories, but as long as nobody wants actually to rely on such a theory to a degree where he is willing to let himself be taken to court over it, that's academical. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). What about Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights do you not understand? Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without Redistribution and use in source and binary forms is NOT a grant of sublicensing rights, you silly dak. Redistribution is again covered by a license. Once we are talking about modified material, a licensing choice for the resulting work is made by the redistributor. Please note that your example regarding patents is utterly irrelevant, since patents are applicable when the resulting product works using the patented method, regardless how that came about. In contrast, copyright covers an actual chain of derivation. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 of a separate work after the original work has been created! Well, actually, let me take this 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 the case. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
RJack u...@example.net 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-lite tree. Not only are the defendants Best But et. al. not guilty of infringing Erik Andersen's source code but BusyBox has appropriated code from the BSD tree and tried to put it illegally under the GPL. You should try rereading that BSD license. Appropriating and releasing under the GPL is perfectly covered by the BSD license as long as the 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.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Nicolas Neuss lastn...@kit.edu writes: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org 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 - I would not really like seeing Microsoft use my code. However, when I was in search for a license for code of mine -Femlisp, a PDE solver written in Common Lisp- I stood before the question which license to choose[*]. A commercial license did not make much sense, because the code was (and is) not yet commercially valuable. However, I wanted to retain at least some possibility of providing enhanced value (in the form of additional features) within a commercial setting. A GPL license would make this business model impossible for everyone - _including me_ as soon as other people would start contributing relevant portions of code under the GPL. Therefore, I decided in favor of the (modified) BSD license. That does not keep other people from contributing relevant portions of code under the GPL, if they so desire. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said: Sure. And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me? My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many commercial developers, and therefore whenever possible, they choose non-GPL alternatives. That's perfectly fine since what makes the source code unpopular with the commercial developers also stops them from contributing back. So there is no loss. In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in terms of getting code open sourced. Users who need to keep their source closed either won't use it, or will use in in a way that allows them not to open the source (e.g., Paul Graham's viaweb and their use of the GPL CLISP). 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. Meanwhile, users of LLGPL or BSD, etc. licensed code frequently open source whatever they are able as contributions back to the relevant project. Giving users the choice of what they will and won't open source results in more users, and just as many open source contributions. The real world tends to disagree by example. Yes, I'd prefer a world 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
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/25/2010 2:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote: Hyman Rosenhyro...@mail.com 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 of a separate work after the original work has been created! Well, actually, let me take this 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 the case. No, that's not it at all. I was wrong because the author of a license can put in any conditions he wants, The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is extending the rights a user will normally have, so that agreement to the license can be assumed without prejudicing the software user. So the GPL takes care not to go further than copyright does. But permission to copy and distribute a library cannot affect the right to copy and distribute a separate work when that work does not contain the library. The courts ultimately determine the meaning of separate and contain. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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. http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor the right to copy, ... Germany might call things different, but you still have the situation that a contractual arrangement to which one party has not given its implicit or explicit consent differs in the details of execution and enforcement. For one thing, the license can't stipulate contractual penalties for non-conformance. http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf To begin with, the Panel has no doubt whatsoever that the general business conditions have been effectively incorporated into a possible contractual relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff pursuant to German Civil Code Section 305 Para. 2. into a possible: the court says that _if_ one stipulates a contractual relationship, _then_ the GPL spells the conditions. So the defendant can't claim _both_ having a contractual relationship _and_ the GPL _not_ being involved in this particular case. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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. http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor the right to copy, ... Germany might call things different, but you still have the situation that a contractual arrangement to which one party has not given its implicit or explicit consent differs in the details of execution and enforcement. For one thing, the license can't stipulate contractual penalties for non-conformance. http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20061123091221786 SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is well settled that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Get somebody to explain the difference of contractual penalties and nominal damages to you. The former can be an arbitrary amount agreed upon in advance by the contract parties. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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. http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor the right to copy, ... Germany might call things different, but you still have the situation that a contractual arrangement to which one party has not given its implicit or explicit consent differs in the details of execution and enforcement. For one thing, the license can't stipulate contractual penalties for non-conformance. http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20061123091221786 SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is well settled that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Get somebody to explain the difference of contractual penalties and nominal damages to you. Did you read the rest of my quote, silly dak? Sure. Nothing relevant as usual. The former can be an arbitrary amount agreed upon in advance by the contract parties. In absence of such stipulation in contract, a non-breaching party must simply establish the damages sustained. 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 _only_ sustained damages can actually be claimed. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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 _only_ sustained damages can actually be claimed. Uh silly dak. A copyright license IS A CONTRACT in U.S.A., Germany, and elsewhere except the GNU Republic in alternative universe. http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Transactions/TakingTheCase.pdf The GPL is not just a method for a licensor to give up rights that he could otherwise enforce in court; the GPL imposes obligations on the licensee as well, which the licensee must accept.27 _Which_ _the_ _licensee_ _must_ _accept_. Nobody forces him. It is likely that a court, It is likely in some arbitrary commentary is not the same as IS A. Really, you should stop quoting stuff that contradicts you. in the U.S. or abroad, would recognize the GPL as a contract. In fact, the GPL has been cited as a contract, and breach of the GPL as a contract was alleged, was alleged. Great. 28. See Countercl., at ¶¶ 110–118, Progressive Software Corp. v. MySQL AB, 195 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002); First Am. Compl. ¶ 50, MontaVista Software, Inc. v. Lineo, Inc., No. 2:02 CV-0309J (D. Utah filed July 23, 2002) (“The aforesaid individual or joint acts of Defendants constitute a breach of the GPL.”). Which is short for constitute a breach of the terms and conditions of the GPL. COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License) Sigh. Look and behold, we have here a _count_ of charges that is supposed to be exhaustive in case the court finds some of the charges don't apply for whatever reason. If a court is going to entertain the line of reasoning this looks like a contract, let's rule on that, you better want an argument in for that, just to make sure. You don't want to go to higher courts unnecessarily. But until such a reasoning appears in the _ruling_ but just in one of a count of charges, it has no legal precedence whatsoever. That this is COUNT VIII should tell you something about the priorities of this approach from the plaintiff. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
RJack u...@example.net writes: As a delusional GPL advocate you choose to deliberately ignore the plain consequences of U.S. Copyright law. delusional and deliberately are not quite compatible. The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301, it is unenforceable under contract law and is a misuse of copyright. Now _that_ is at its surface delusional, but likely a deliberate utterance of a mixture of nonsense, non-sequiturs and half-truths. The GPL is not preempted by any law, since a law can't preempt a permission. It _is_ unenforceable and states so itself: the licensee _retains_ the option to use it or ignore it, at will. However, _copyright_ is enforceable under _state_ law. If you want to make use of the GPL in order _not_ to be liable to state law for certain uses of the copyrighted material, you have to adhere to the conditions of the GPL. In that case, your compliance with the GPL's conditions will be held to pretty much the same standards as contract law, with some exceptions pertaining to the difference between licenses and contracts. All this discussion of the legal consequences of the GPL is delusional tilting 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
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
RJack u...@example.net writes: SCO lost its meaningless copyright suit with Novell yesterday. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100330152829622 Well, it was a slander of copyright suit. AFAICT, the jury decided that SCO did not get the copyrights in the first place, so that puts a rather heavy damper on the slander theory. I don't consider it likely they'll go for attempted slander instead, like everybody believed we had the copyrights, including Novell, and they are certainly as surprised as we are that they _did_ retain them, but you never know with them. However, what they still want to see the judge decide is whether they _should_ get the copyrights. From Groklaw: Update 5: And now we hear from SCO's attorney, Stuart Singer, that SCO will ask the judge to give them the copyrights, despite the jury's verdict: Obviously, we're disappointed in the jury's decision, said SCO trial lawyer Stuart H. Singer. We were confident in the case, but there's some important claims remaining to be decided by a judge. SCO will ask U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart to award the copyrights to SCO even if we didn't have them before, he said. It's a setback, but it's not over. They really are inventive about keeping the mill rolling and the money burning. And if they manage 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 really turn this into an art form. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 4/1/2010 11:55 AM, RJack wrote: Really... you're finally gettin' it Hyman! A proud anti-GPL crank perfunctorily and presciently predicts the GPL will be ruled unenforceable under U.S. law, after which, Red Hat and Novell collapse. Be sure to get back to me when that happens. Hm? The GPL is not enforceable. Recipient of GPLed software is free to make use of the GPL or not. When he does not like the default set of rights granted to him by copyright, he is free to make use of the GPL's permission 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 ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Samsung's answer to SFLC gang
RJack u...@example.net writes: Alexander Terekhov wrote: WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for the following relief: 1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by their Complaint; 2. That Defendant be dismissed from this action with prejudice; 3. For its costs of suit incurred herein; 4. For its attorney fees incurred herein; and 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b)(1), Defendant demands trial by jury on all issues so triable. It appears Captain Moglen didn't scare 'em out of the water after all. That's typically the job of the court in the first hearings. It's not a general pattern in GPL compliance cases that the defendants settle and come into compliance before 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
Re: [LOL] Hey Alan, Pee Jay's mind is going to explode soon
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 4/8/2010 12:01 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: due to her if it turns out Terekhov is behind attacks on the GPL paranoia. I know that creating single-spaced incomprehensible screeds is the hallmark of every good crank, and I know that properly formatting errors doesn't make them any less wrong, but really, if you're trying to make some point through your quotes, you should try to format your messages so that readers don't give up in incomprehension. I don't have the impression that comprehensibility 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
Re: [LOL] Hey Alan, Pee Jay's mind is going to explode soon
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/8/2010 12:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Uh idiot Hyman... For indentation, go to http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100403103524185#comments and search 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 ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LOL] Hey Alan, Pee Jay's mind is going to explode soon
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/8/2010 12:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Uh idiot Hyman... For indentation, go to http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100403103524185#comments and search 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. Said IDIOT dak who wrote in 2004: http://forum.golem.de/read.php?44,216061,page=1 Man kann niemanden wegen Verstoßes gegen die GPL verklagen, da die GPL kein Vertrag und kein Gesetz ist. UTTER IDIOT dak in 2010: http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor the right to copy, ... Germany might call things different ... And actually, Germany _does_ call things different. The original text is: Diese drei Softwareprogramme werden ausschließlich unter der GNU General Public License (GPL) lizensiert. Die GPL gestattet jedermann, der einen solchen Vertrag als Lizenznehmer schließen will, die Vervielfältigung, Verbreitung und Veränderung der Software, wenn die Weitergabe ebenfalls wieder unter den Bedingungen dieser Lizenz erfolgt, insbesondere auf die GPL hingewiesen, der Lizenztext der GPL beigefügt, der Quellcode zugänglich gemacht und auf einen Gewährleistungsausschluss hingewiesen wird. Translated properly: The GPL permits anyone who desires to enter into such a contract as a licensee, the reproduction [...] as long as the redistribution happens under the very same conditions of this license [...]. So the wording of the verdict makes clear that the GPL is the _permission_ to enter into a contractual relation, but not a contract in itself. Seems like the translation you cite does not fully reflect the original wording. When you have time for it, you may want to wipe the foam off your mouth. -- David Kastrup ___ 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
RJack u...@example.net writes: You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier of fact compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to identify with an *alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury members to compare? Uh, by comparing code passages, like one always does in a case like that? Unless the project restarted from scratch between versions, or was available under different licensing options (in which case claims of a differently licensed obtained copy might need to be examined), enough protectable material found in one version will reappear in the other version 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/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LOL] Hey Alan, Pee Jay's mind is going to explode soon
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Seriosly, as for Dan Wallace, I've told him I suggest you file a request for hearing en banc. If the price for doing it is a restraint, please let me know. He replied: This appellate level ruling completely peels The United States Department of Justice's Antitrust Division off Microsoft's back. Microsoft is is now FREE, FREE, FREE to leverage its' software patents against open source software. This ruling signed a death warrant for free software. So why 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
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/8/2010 6:44 PM, RJack wrote: You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier of fact compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to identify with an *alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury members to compare? Gathering such evidence will happen during discovery. Depositions will be taken in order to determine the provenance of the software being distributed by the defendants, plaintiffs will offer forensic evidence based on analysis of the distributed binaries, and then the plaintiffs will demonstrate that the software is being copied and distributed in violation of its license. The claim processing rules dictated by 17 USC sec. 411(a) require the specific work be identified through registration with the Copyright Office. And enough material from the specific work identified through registration can be found in the distributed software, even though it is a different version. So copyrightable material has been identified, and a license is needed for redistribution. Stop making up nonsense Hyman. I'll bet the farm that no significant discovery will *ever* occur. And every single defendant will for some entirely unrelated reason come into compliance without actually needing to do so, out of some whim that has nothing to do with the case. Your usual fairy tale when a GPL case succeeds. A defendant's F.R.C.P. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss will be granted and this charade of a lawsuit along with the GPL will end soon. The only hope for the SFLC is to somehow beg all the defendants for a stipulated voluntary dismissal. 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 some utterly unrelated und incomprehensible act, GPLed sources will be made available by defendants. Like it happened every time so far. -- David Kastrup ___ 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
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 2:29 PM, RJack wrote: The GPL is preempted under U.S. copyright law The GPL functions properly under US copyright law. The preemption of state laws equivalent to copyright is irrelevant to the GPL. as well as being unenforceable under the common law of contracts. The GPL is not enforceable because it is a voluntary license which need not be accepted. Ah... I believe that's known in the vernacular as Pee Jays therom. I'd rather call it clause 9 of the GPL. 9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies. You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-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 a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
