Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] According to this paper, http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf the GPL is not a contract. Part IV proposes that the GPL is a failed contract, which lacks only consideration. It advocates enforcing the license through state promissory estoppel law and the Copyright Act. LOL. I propose Sapna Kumar is just crazy. The GPL is full of consideration on both sides. Licensor's consideration is a promise not to sue for copyright infringment. Licensee's consideration is all the enforcable obligations imposed by the license. You are confusing consideration with contribution. Look up the consideration in a law dictionary, it is legalese. And there is no promise not to sue in the GPL. You can always sue, with different chances of winning depending on circumstances. The GPL spells out the circumstances quite clearly, so that there is not much of an ambiguity (which is the main reason most cases are settled without judicial ruling). But suing is always an option, and I consider it likely that a promise not to sue would be considered invalid by courts: the whole point of a contractual relation is putting something on a legal footing, and letting a court check whether the conditions for a promise not to sue are met would be paradoxical, and not being able to let it be checked would render the whole construct legally absurd. -- 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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [... Pee Jays therom ...] a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do What part of YOU INDICATE ACCEPTANCE don't you understand retard dak? ACCEPTANCE is a contract thing, idiot. Just because the GPL states something indicates acceptance does not make it so since the recipient of software may choose not even to read the license. Without an explicit signing, no contract is established. However, for the _sake_ of the redistributing party, acceptance is _assumed_, because otherwise we are talking not about a breach of conditions, but a criminal act: Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not an unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner. De Forest Radio Tel. Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, (1927) Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by ordinary principles of state contract law.' McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (Fed. Cir. 1995) With regard to most of the standards of compliance, but without the possibility to state contractual (rather than actual) penalties for non-compliance, and without single invalid clauses rendering the rest of the license invalid, even without inclusion of a salvatory clause. We've been through that more than once. -- 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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual sense. In particular, a copy of a GPL-covered work made for use does not become a copy which may be transferred under 17 USC 109 without the GPL being honored, any more Samsung and several other defendants disagree with you stupid Hyman. Defendants try making an exhaustive list of conceivable theories (even conflicting ones) for why a complaint should be held invalid. They need just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell us when they choose to comply after all (as they have consistently ended up with 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: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual sense. In particular, a copy of a GPL-covered work made for use does not become a copy which may be transferred under 17 USC 109 without the GPL being honored, any more Samsung and several other defendants disagree with you stupid Hyman. Defendants try making an exhaustive list of conceivable theories (even conflicting ones) for why a complaint should be held invalid. They need just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell us when they choose to comply after all (as they have consistently ended up with so far)? Just show us the settlement agreements DAK. Just the agreements please. Why would they make the source code available without necessity? Out of court settlements are private. But the results speak for themselves. -- 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
Hadronhadronqu...@gmail.com writes: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell us when they choose to comply after all (as they have consistently ended up with so far)? Like http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz Isn't making Hymen and co look silly a bit like slapping a wheelchair bound ginger stepson? It seems just so easy. What continually amazes me though is a certain claim about how so easy the GPL is to understand . This in the face of this and similar threads and a pile of tangled legal activity. Why should the GPL be hard to understand just because our local cranks claim befuddlement about just how hard or legally problematic it should be to breach its conditions with hopefully no consequences? If your aim is keeping the GPL conditions, that is straightforward to do. If your aim is breaching them, you are in rough waters. Waters that the legal departments of humongous companies don't care to be in, pitted against single developers or small charities. Comply with a small number of clearly spelled out conditions, and you are fine, breach, and you are in trouble. It's not a particularly hard concept unless you are a troll. -- 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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Why would they make the source code available without necessity? Out of court settlements are private. But the results speak for themselves. Like http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz you moron dak. URL:http://www.comtrend.com/na/privacy.htm says • Free software As you may know from our product manual or any other information about our products, some of our programs were amended from free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ Note: Certain products/services on this site are not available at present in your home country. Please check with Comtrend's representative or your local reseller/distributor for details. It would appear that they are still figuring out their way to comply with the settlement, likely prioritized by country of distribution. I'd estimate the timeline for completing settlement procedures of that kind to be somewhere between 3-8 weeks. Of course, once they do, you'll just stop talking about it. -- 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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Comply with a small number of clearly spelled out conditions, and you are fine, breach, and you are in trouble. It's not a particularly hard concept unless you are a troll. Samsung (several other 'humongous' defendants aside for a moment): Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claim for copyright infringement is barred under at least the provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), as Defendant was licensed and any copies alleged to be infringing were, therefore, lawfully made. Let's see the judge take them up on this and other allegations. I rather expect them to come into compliance and drop out of the suit via that way rather than a ruling. -- 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 4/10/2010 9:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Not Found The requested document was not found on this server. It is also the case that http://www.comtrend.com/na/contact.htm says Comtrend Corporation North America provides downloads by request only. so it may be that in order to get the GPL-compliant sources you must register and ask for it. So it may be that you're just moving the goalposts again. The goalpost has always been that people getting binaries derived from GPL-licensed sources are provided with access to the _corresponding_ source code, licensed under the GPL at no additional charge, and are given notice about the licensing. What imaginary goalposts you fancy moving around in that confused brain of yours is not relevant. It's put up or shut up time Hyman. So where's the link to BusyBox v. 0.60.3 which the SFLC claims causes the infringement problems? The SFLC claimed nothing of that sort. The infringement problem is caused by significant amounts of code registered with the copyright office via BusyBox version 0.60.3. But that does not mean that the infringing version itself is identical to 0.60.3, or actually to any unmodified and/or released BusyBox version. The licensing conditions call for making the source code corresponding to the delivered binary version available, not anything else. That's been the state of affairs from the start. That you keep getting confused in different manners does not move the goalposts. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: There is nothing to get. If the court finds that it cannot act because defendants have infringed upon a non-registered version, the plaintiffs can simply register that version and refile the claim. We know this from the SimplexGrinnell court decision. I should think that it is sufficient if enough protected material from the registered version can be found in the distribution, whether or not there is an exact version match. Otherwise one could simply modify a few lines, and lo-and-behold, the resulting version is no longer registered. That's silly. Determining the exact original version (rather than sufficient amounts of protected material) would only be interesting if different versions have been licensed under different conditions and/or to different people. For example, if I licensed version 1.8 to somebody and find that he is distributing code derived from an older version 1.6 containing portions of code that has since then be removed (for whatever reason). In such cases, determining the exact version makes a difference. But in the case where registered and contentious version have been made available to the same people under the same conditions, exact version matching appears pointless. Sufficient amounts of matching code should do the trick. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/10/2010 9:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Yeah, like Not Found The requested document was not found on this server. The links are working once more. So... I'll ask the question once more. Where is the link to BusyBox 0.60.3 which was registered and claimed in the SFLC lawsuit as the infringed work? That's not interesting since the GPL does not demand putting up any old source, but the source code corresponding to the distributed binaries. You can't come into compliance by putting up some arbitrary source. Even if it happens that this arbitrary source is the one for which the copyright has been registered. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] You can't come into compliance by putting up some arbitrary source. A source to what exactly do you want, idiot dak. Since I have not acquired any binaries, there is nothing for me to want. And that the defendants have to make the _corresponding_ source code to the distributed binaries available to the recipients of the binaries, I already wrote in the posting you replied to. Did your attention span fail again? -- 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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] You can't come into compliance by putting up some arbitrary source. A source to what exactly do you want, idiot dak. Since I have not acquired any binaries, there is nothing for me to want. I thought so, retarded dak. Then why did you write the above nonsense? I never claimed anything different. Did your attention span fail you again? -- 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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/12/2010 4:01 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: blowing hot air People who copy and distribute GPL-covered works must Sez who? The courts. They don't get the _final_ say on that very often, as the defendants prefer to come into compliance before that, but they obviously have a bit of a say unofficially before that, or we'd see fewer cases getting started. I say that people who copy and distribute GPL-covered works must not Nobody listens to the ravings of lunatics with an agenda, unless they are talking politics. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: That is the point of view of anti-GPL cranks, but no court has yet found this to be so. And it is copyright law which is enforceable. Copyright law prohibits GPL-covered code from being copied and distributed without complying with the conditions of the GPL. No U.S. court has ever found the GPL to be enforceable. No surprise here, it says so itself. If you don't heed its conditions, however, you can't claim its permissions. You've got it Hyman! It is quite true that copyright law is enforceable: Yup. That's what makes the GPL relevant if you want to copy or distribute when you have no other permission from the rights holder. So... I'll ask the question once more. Where is the link to BusyBox 0.60.3 which was registered and claimed in the SFLC lawsuit as the infringed work? Time to put up or shut up. No mooving the goalposts allowed. How about moving the goalpost in your head from that lie? The GPL does not demand access to the source code of registered versions. It demands access to versions _corresponding_ to the binaries. The registration shows material for which infringement is claimed. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC is SOL
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:rs3c97-ep1@news.eternal-september.org... Answer : yes they are. And no amount of whining and freetardery will change that. Things are not that simple, else, why have lawyers? If you, say, take a photograph of the Toledo skyline at nightfall and publish the image, you own the copyright to that image and no one can use it without your permission. If you do that with the Paris skyline, however, you'll get sued by the people having registered copyright for the light arrangement of the Eiffel tower. I am not joking. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Yup. That's what makes the GPL relevant if you want to copy or distribute when you have no other permission from the rights holder. As a separate and distinct Twelfth Affirmative Defense and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claim for copyright infringement is barred under at least the provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), as Defendant was licensed and any copies alleged to be infringing were, therefore, lawfully made. Nice try, but let's the court rule that this twelfth defense (quite late in the stack) is not utter nonsense before getting all excited. Of course, once a ruling is in (if defendents don't fold prior to that and get into compliance) you'll start your the judges must have been drunk bluster that does not stop when a higher court rules the same. -- 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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/12/2010 4:39 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: the claim is of copyright/tort, not license/contract. The claim is for copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is a tort you idiot. Note that SFLC's claim of copyright infringement is baseless and frivolous: Defendant denies that Mr. Anderson is the author or developer of the BusyBox computer program, and the owner of the copyright in that computer program. Well, if things are clear like that, we'll have the case thrown out of court without defendants getting into compliance, in no time at all. Really, you _have_ to stop confusing either party's claims with the verdict. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: RJack wrote: [...] Bye bye General Public License! Only a complete fucking moron would claim to have written a General Public scope license that controls copyrights outside of contractual privity. ROFL. http://www.fsf.org/news/gpl3.html The GPL is the Constitution ... http://www.osadl.org/Single-View.111+M58868c20507.0.html GNU GPL Version 3: The Law Making Process http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast-media/fontana-oscon-2009-slides.pdf FOSS as an independent legal system The GPL legally establishes a heterogenuos pool of software. To do this, it uses the framework of copyright law. While it can't change copyright law, its inventive use of it factually establishes a software ecosystem governed by different rules than that of software licensed as isolated pieces. Defeating gravity by stacking bricks would be a similar title. Only an utter moron would consider a title like that as a proposal for antigravity devices. Yes, appears like a bunch of complete fucking morons suffering from delusions of grandeur. Good thing you are not a bunch. -- 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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] The GPL legally establishes a heterogenuos pool of software. Hey dak, how come that the FSF claimed in court that the GPL is NOT A POOLING LICENSE (and is merely a vertical agreement between the licensee and the licensor of the underlying software instead)? Because that's the legally active part of the license. That it has social consequences as well is not legally relevant. That's actually why the FSF has to get copyright assignments for strategically important software: they can't just reimport GPLed software (like parts of XEmacs) without weakening their legal position, because if it turns out that they integrated (GPLed) components copyrighted by the very party they are suing against, the cases get precarious enough not to fit their rather small legal resources. If the GPL were a pooling license in a proper legal sense, the copyright assignments would not be necessary. -- 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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] That's actually why the FSF has to get copyright assignments for strategically important software: they can't just reimport GPLed According to the FSF itself, the FSF uses copyright assignments to avoid joint ownership issues stupid dak. Doesn't it bother you that you keep calling people stupid and moron that say nothing different from what you keep blasting your fanfares about? It does not make you look particularly clever, and you don't even realize how stupid you act. A pooling license in the legal sense would create one legal ownership (whether by a single entity or as explicit joint ownership to the whole product). The GPL does not do that. It creates sort of a social equivalent to it, but authors retain individual copyright to individual portions unless assigning them. -- 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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Correct statement is The GPL *ILLEGALLY* purports to establishes a pool of software because the GPL purports to control the licensee's copyrights with respect to all third parties (i.e. the world) No, you are confused again. The GPL gives you permission to pass copies and modifications to third parties of _your_ choice, _if_ you make the source code available to _those_ third parties of your choice. Nobody else is involved here. _One_ way to make the source code available to those third parties of _your_ choice, is to put it on a publicly accessible server and tell those parties where to fetch it. There is no obligation to license source code or make it available _except_ to those parties who _you_ choose to sublicense material to. in violation of copyright law (preemption clause) and public policy (misuse, antitrust, and all that). That sort of handwaving waffle got Wallace thrown out of court for failure to state a claim. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Correct statement is The GPL *ILLEGALLY* purports to establishes a pool of software because the GPL purports to control the licensee's copyrights with respect to all third parties (i.e. the world) No, you are confused again. The GPL gives you permission to pass copies Read 17 USC 109, idiot. Western Digital: Plaintiffs claims are barred by the first sale doctrine. Westinghouse: Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are barred by the First Sale doctrine. Samsung: As a separate and distinct Twelfth Affirmative Defense and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claim for copyright infringement is barred under at least the provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), as Defendant was licensed and any copies alleged to be infringing were, therefore, lawfully made. You really have to beat your habit of quoting attempted defenses as if they were of any legal importance. It makes you look stupid. -- 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: David Kastrup wrote: How about moving the goalpost in your head from that lie? The GPL does not demand access to the source code of registered versions. It demands access to versions _corresponding_ to the binaries. The registration shows material for which infringement is claimed. Every thing is clear now. 1) The registration shows material for which infringement is claimed. 2) Versions _corresponding_ to the binaries are not the same as the registered version. Not necessarily, or otherwise one could not file infringement cases for modified versions. 3) You can file a lawsuit and claim infringement of source code that is the same except that it is different even if you haven't personally written it. No, you can claim only infringement for portions for which you can have shown to be copyright owner. To simplify life for the courts, you have to register copyright before making a claim. As long as copyrightable material from the registered claim can be shown to be in the infringing version without a defense indicating that the defendant _had_ a legal license to this material from a _different_ version, there is no point for a defendant to claim non-infringement. Registration is not changing the legal situation, it is merely a procedure you have to heed in order to let the court work more efficiently. This is called infringing a moving target and is a new copyright infringement principle. Whatever. -- 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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] That sort of handwaving waffle got Wallace thrown out of court for failure to state a claim. Wallace's case was dismissed because Chief Judge Eaterbrook is of opinion that *** FOSS is junk *** People willingly pay for quality software even when they can get free (but imperfect) substitutes. Open Office is a free, open-source suite of word processor, spreadsheet and presentation software, but the proprietary Microsoft Office has many more users. Gimp is a free, open-source image editor, but the proprietary Adobe Photoshop enjoys the lion's share of the market. With that kind of argument, water is junk because people willingly pay for wine. and *** FOSS is doomed *** The number of proprietary operating systems is growing, not shrinking, so competition in this market continues quite apart from the fact that the GPL ensures the future availability of Linux and other Unix offshoots. Actually, the number of free operating systems is _exploding_. Which some people try to take as a sign that *** FOSS is doomed *** as well. The truth is that the number of any kind of system is growing because we have a growing market. But of course, our cute little troll Terekhov tries to figure out some consolation prize from a verdict which he, at the same time, decries as having to be the result of drunkenness. -- 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: David Kastrup wrote: The GPL legally establishes a heterogenuos pool of software. The GPL legally establishes a heterogeneous pool of whacked out, delusional nut-jobs. You are not that heterogeneous. -- David Kastrup ___ 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 4/13/2010 9:34 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: It's easy to read the first-sale doctrine, but fortunately it does not apply to the copying and distribution carried out by the defendants in this case. Sez who? The GPL, of course, which does not allow copying and distribution of covered works without compliance. The GPL allows copying and distribution through promissory estoppel. It would be quite hard to figure out a deceptively suggested promise that a defendant could claim to have relied on. The GPL is very clear in its conditions, permissions and implications. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 7:34 AM, RJack wrote: So... I'll just ask the question once again. Where is the link to BusyBox 0.60.3 which was registered and then claimed as the infringed work in the SFLC's Comtrend Corp. lawsuit? The SFLC lawsuit does not claim that BusyBox 0.60.3 is the infringed work, as can easily be seen by reading the complaint, http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf. The infringed work is BusyBox. Yup. And because you say it is, Because the complained says it is. black is white and up is down. (In the land of GNU) It is not clear what kind of land you need in order to stop imagining moving goal posts. -- David Kastrup ___ 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: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 9:20 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936 dteme...@nvalaw.com is a real attorney spending a great deal of time on software related IP licensing and litigation matters. Well, _you_ are spending a great deal of time on that, too, and look what kind of nonsense we get out of that. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 4/13/2010 10:43 AM, RJack wrote: Yes, this is true. The GPL clearly spells out illegal requirements for permission to copy and distribute, and therefore there is promissory estoppel available. The requirements of the GPL are perfectly legal and appropriate. Only an anti-GPL crank would believe that he could consider a straightforward license obligation to be illegal and therefore disregard it. I don't think he believes the drivel he is spouting. He just enjoys annoying people, possibly by confusing others. It does not seem like he has anything left to do for which people would remember him favorably. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 11:30 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: And the contract laws (not the copyright act) provide remedies for breach of established (enforcable/valid) rules you idiot. Copyright is its own law, and specifies the nature of infringement and penalties for it, including for injunctions to prevent further infringement. Aside from statutory and actual damages, copyright infringers are not permitted to continue infringing. Implicit in a nonexclusive copyright license is the promise not to sue for copyright infringement. A promise to licensees availing themselves of the license. Without any attempt to honor the license conditions, it's for the court to determine whether to consider the defendant as an unrelated party. -- 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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 12:02 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Implicit in a nonexclusive copyright license is the promise not to sue for copyright infringement. But it is only an anti-GPL crank who would believe that he could accept the permissions of a license but not its obligations. The contract laws recognize a concept called efficient breach which *encourages* breach of (enforcable) obligations if it's economically efficient to do so. Compliance with license/contract obligations is almost always voluntary -- if you choose not to comply, then you don't have to. You merely have to compensate the non-breaching party for his expectancy interest. Hint: damages. That's the case with a contract. But if you choose not to comply with licensing conditions, the license just does not apply. -- 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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] A promise to licensees availing themselves of the license. Without any Uh retard dak. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html by [blah-blah], you indicate your acceptance of this License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance#Communication_of_acceptance It may be implied from the construction of the contract that the offeror has dispensed with the requirement of communication of acceptance ... acceptance may be inferred from conduct Yeah, you got it. If the conduct does not show an attempt to honor any of the licensing conditions, non-acceptance has to be assumed. If, in contrast, we have an incomplete attempt of compliance (often characterizable as dragging their feet), we are talking about non-compliance instead. Which of the two is in question might just be resolved in discovery. In the common case of a settlement and coming into compliance and absent of additional interests/penalties, the resolution may never be done. In a typical case, both complaint and defense will list arguments for both of these possibilities. -- 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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] if you choose not to comply with licensing conditions, the license just does not apply. I'm just curious, what automatically terminate does http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf then talking about, in your view, oh paragon of GNUtardiness dak? Narrows down the number of silly excuses one has to deal with in court. Also gives some punch to deal with feet-draggers who come into compliance once in court, but before settlement. Without such a clause, they would have little incentive to settle and pay the court costs of the plaintiff. I consider this clause somewhat problematic, since one can't terminate a license before it has been established. If a defendant wants to claim copyright violation (for example, because the distributed code was put there by an unauthorized party), he might end up facing punishment for infringement (possibly stopping redistribution as one remedy) without paying the plaintiffs legal expenses. However, without such a clause, chances for monetary retrieval of such costs appear even worse. It's not a perfect shot, but probably better than none at all. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 2:46 PM, RJack wrote: contract obligations that are to be performed after partial performance by the other party are not treated as conditions The obligation by the licensor is not to sue for infringement. The performance by the licensee is to copy and distribute in compliance with the GPL. There is no partial performance. Ah! I know what! Let's just deny everything and mooove the goalposts! But that's what you do all the time, anyway. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 5:45 PM, RJack wrote: The GPL license *willfully* misleads people. Anti-GPL cranks claim to be misled by the GPL, because they want to steal the work of other people without compensating those people in the way they have chosen. See http://www.terekhov.de/Samsung-Answer.pdf for TWENTY (20) reasons why it is perfectly fine to 'steal' GPL'd work. Let the judge agree on any of those reasons, and then come back here. Or let Samsung drop out of the case without causing the GPLed sources to be available to the respective customers in a reasonable time frame. If neither of those two events happen (and in no court case so far anything like that happened, so that should give a good clue about how probable they are), your perfectly fine thesis seems quite shaky. So far you are batting zero in that respect, for all the years of your trumpeting around here. That's not all that close to perfect unless you are living in a fantasy world. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] you are living in a fantasy world. *You* are living in a fantasy world (where copyright licenses are not contracts and etc. GNU moronity), silly dak. Since you are the one batting zero in the real world, I am not all too worried with this discrepancy between our assessments. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 4/15/2010 3:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Click on http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz That link is currently broken, presumably because it has not yet been updated to point to a newer version of the source. It has to be pointed out that the owners of old routers have the right to the _corresponding_ source to _their_ routers as well. No idea about the distribution structure of Verizon/Actiontec. Could be that they are having compliance problems again right now. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: Now for my prediction for the resolution of Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et. al. I predict that Judge Scheindlin will grant a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1). She will dismiss the lawsuit because the plaintiffs lack Article III standing. And when your prediction does not come true, like always, what will you then do? Just silently go away? Bluster about how wrong the court must be and/or how wrong the defendants to come into compliance and not revert to a higher court? Whatever RJack will do if judge Scheindlin will not grant a motion to dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1) aside for a moment, please answer the following simple question, dak. How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak? I should think a lot more comfortably than you make friends. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/19/2010 5:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: Just curious, in what sense is it instructive? One might otherwise believe that the anti-GPL crank position is simply a different interpretation of law and circumstance in an agree to disagree sort of way. Only silly freetards would tolerate utter nonsense such as Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the scope of the license and are governed by copyright law. That would make the defendants of this case silly freetards since they heeded the verdict. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 4/20/2010 10:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: And how many court decisions have supported the crank point of view while addressing open licenses? The district court in that same case Which was overruled. Let's be fair. An overruled court decision (even if it does not change the consequences, namely the necessity to comply) is better than nothing. The usual crank theories here are so wacky that no court would dare sanctify them even once in an angle irrelevant to the outcome of the case. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 4/20/2010 10:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: And how many court decisions have supported the crank point of view while addressing open licenses? The district court in that same case Which was overruled. Let's be fair. You should simply stop being utter morons. Rest assured that nobody is taking your place here. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 4/20/2010 3:27 PM, RJack wrote: Open your eyes. Your dream is over. When a court tells me so, then I'll worry. When a crank does, not so much. So far, courts seem to like open licenses just fine. It is not a matter of liking them or not liking them. They deal with them, generally in the manner that the creator of the license would have thought. At least for licenses with significant adoption rates. There may be a lot of one-shot open licenses by individuals where the legal consequences are not quite as the creator would have wished. Probably fewer than proprietary licenses of that kind, though. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 4/21/2010 9:28 AM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Where do you see any distribution to all third parties? You are just amazingly confused. 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... If your reading comprehension is that limited, I'm afraid I can't help you Hyman. Again, where do you see that any distribution to all third parties is required? When you distribute your work under the GPL, you grant a license to all third parties under the terms of the GPL. No, you have to _cause_ the work to be licensed under the GPL. That means that if you give it to others to redistribute, you have to hold them responsible for redistributing licensed under the GPL, regardless to who they distribute. This is a GPLv2 clause. GPLv3 does not use similar wording. For whatever it is worth. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: Well since the unlicensed use conflicts with the exclusive rights to copy and modification without a license, there we are. You can deem terms in a license whatever you want -- the pen is in your hand. You can call a contractual covenant a condition until you turn blue in the face but it won't magically make it a condition or scope of use restriction. Its not a scope of use restriction because the scope of use is not restricted but extended. The conditions for the extension are spelled out. If you don't meet them, you are back to the normal usage rights under copyright law. An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155.; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Copying and modification without license conflicts with the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. The only two legal mechanisms in a copyright license that can cause a use to conflict with an exclusive right are a scope of use restriction or an unsatisfied condition precedent. The GPL and related free software licenses don't introduce any conflicts with exclusive rights. They _lift_ some usage constraints that would, without a license, constitute a conflict with exclusive rights. There are conditions under which these additional permissions otherwise prohibited by the exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute are given. All your silly word games don't change that. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] Sorry, but according to CAFC, that's exactly what happens: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and distribute are granted Aprovided that@ the conditions are met. Under California contract law, provided that typically denotes a condition. “Under California contract law, “provided that” typically denotes a condition. See, e.g., Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911)” The CAFC further ruled: “The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes...” How on earth can “disclosure and explanation of changes” come before (be a condition precedent) to the license grant? Causality does not necessarily imply temporal order in the legal world, because the legal _meaning_ of an act might sometimes be established only at a later point of time. 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. Passing a cash register, however, is not what the law considers a crime. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: 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. http://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/forum_topic.asp?topic_id=37040 We have other actions establishing the intent of the persons here. But anyway, you'll notice that only the Anwalt talks about complete theft, while the only relevant opinion is that of the court, and the court does not talk about theft in its description of the complaint, but the taking of a non-own moveable object from somebody else with the intent of making it his own against the law. And the Anwalt is not exactly acting without self-interest, as he writes: Ich stehe Ihrem Sohn natürlich jederzeit für seine Verteidigung zur Verfügung., offering to defend the purportive thief for a fee. So he has an interest in making the incident appear worse than it is. So you manage, again, to dig up a quote that does not actually help your argument. I have actually once had an attempt of an interview by a detective that had imagined me to have pocketed a can of nuts (I had taken a look at its prize tag, decided that it was overprized and put it back). The detective waited until after I had passed the cash register. Not his lucky day I guess because me blowing my top was likely not all too well for keeping a low profile. 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 detective obviously knew that. And the court on that page you cite obviously knew it as well which is why he does not talk about theft but something quite more iffish. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of Uh retard dak. Ah, your standard way of saying that you have run out of arguments again. http://lawww.de/Library/242/loesung.html Answers without questions? Are you trying to beat your own track record of posting irrelevant links? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of Uh retard dak. Ah, your standard way of saying that you have run out of arguments again. http://lawww.de/Library/242/loesung.html Answers without questions? Go to doctor dak. http://www.ladendiebstahl.de/Strafgesetz.htm Sobald ein Täter eine Ware in seine Kleidung oder in eine mitgeführte Tasche gesteckt hat, ist sein Gewahrsam begründet und damit der Diebstahl vollendet. 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. You are again citing a comment rather than the law. 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. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 2/27/2010 10:53 AM, John Hasler wrote: innocent infringement Innocent infringement occurs when you have reason to believe that a work you are copying is not under copyright. Or reason to believe you are in compliance with licensing conditions (like when licensing conditions are ambiguous). Having a copyright notice attached to the work defeats such a claim. No, that has nothing to do with it. _Any_ copyrightable material _is_ copyrighted by default according to the Berne condition. Copyright notices are not necessary. You need something substantial to be able to assume not under copyright. In fact, in a just-decided case http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/maverick_harper_100225FifthCirDecis.pdf the Fifth Circuit decided that the mere fact that songs were available on CDs which carried copyright notices was sufficient to defeat such a defense, whether or not the defendant ever actually saw them. Because copyright is the default even in absence of copyright notices. If copyright notices are merely absent, that does not make for an assumption of must be public domain. There has been some deadline in the 70s or so when things were the other way round, so if you get hold of material definitely published before that time by an _authorized_ publisher and without copyright notices, you might be successful with that defense. Other than that: slim chance. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/1/2010 2:16 PM, RJack wrote: The only use involved here is copying and distribution, which are among the enumerated exclusive rights of the statute. You are finally seeing the light Hyman! Copying and distribution are *expressly* permitted by the Artistic license with neither scope of use restriction nor condition precedent to limit the licensed rights -- the only contractual covenants such as promises to attribute and licensing. Preamble This license establishes the terms under which a given free software Package may be copied, modified, distributed, and/or redistributed. The ^^^ intent is that the Copyright Holder maintains some artistic control over the development of that Package while still keeping the Package available as open source and free software. Permissions for Redistribution of the Standard Version (2) You may Distribute verbatim copies of the Source form of the Standard Version of this Package in any medium without restriction, either gratis or for a Distributor Fee, provided that you duplicate ^^^ all of the original copyright notices and associated disclaimers. At ^ your discretion, such verbatim copies may or may not include a Compiled form of the Package. And so forth and so on. Your with neither scope of use restriction nor condition precedent can't be called much more than a desperate lie. I knew you'd get it sooner or later! When did you finally realize that simply using a phrase like provided that cannot magically turn a contractual covenant into a scope of use restriction or condition precedent? There is no contract to which two parties agreed (where is the signature? Where an act of contract forming?), so we can't claim a contractual covenant. The Supreme Court stated that fact with crystal clarity: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155.; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Well since the unlicensed use conflicts with the exclusive rights to copy and modification without a license, there we are. You can't _both_ claim that the license permits copying and modification while at the same time claiming that the conditions for which it does so are not conditions. Supreme Court vs. moron. Court wins. You bet it does. And the moron does not even understand the words the court uses. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 2/26/2010 10:56 AM, RJack wrote: Alexander and I have gone to great lengths to explain to you the difference between a condition precedent and a scope of use condition. The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work. One of the alternatives available to obtain permission is to make source available upon request. If someone copies and distributes a covered work using this provision but does not intend to honor such requests, he is infringing the copyright of the rights holders. Actually I disagree here: if he does so using this provision, he is violating not copyright, but his obligations to the copyright holder he subjected himself to voluntarily by using this provision. Copyright is what gives the copyright holder the power to insist on the recipients' compliance, but once the recipient states to make use of the license, we are talking of breach of license terms rather than breach of copyright, even though copyright enables the copyright holder to insist. GPLv2 more or less combined the two by automatically terminating the license upon non-compliance. But I don't think that this clause was ever actively pursued in court. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above. Crank vs. court. Court wins. Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? Judge HOCHBERG: Of course five. Abraham Lincoln: No, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg! She's got the job, not you. And what _you_ have been calling this poor dog... -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] make source available upon request. If someone copies and distributes a covered work using this provision but does not intend to honor such requests, he is infringing the copyright Think of someone simply changing his mind later or just losing all the sources for some reason you retard. Hyman: Hello distributor, I've got your offer, give me the sources. Distributor: Sources? Fuck, where is the sources?! Shit, my wife shredded all that stuff!!! Hyman: You fucking copyright infringer! I'm calling SFLC!!! In this case you'll have little problem getting a court order that orders distribution of binaries to stop. Depending on the case, penalties are easy enough to come by. My wife shredded all that stuff is not seen as a valid defense in other business matters, so this would be no difference. Due diligence can be expected of business people. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 12:05 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work. Back to denial already Hyman? Please identify the section of 17 USC 106 where causing someone to license a work conflicts with a specific exclusive right of an owner of copyrights. The GPL requires that as a condition to copy and distribute a covered work, you must license the whole work at no charge to all others. I have no idea what your question above even means; the English seems not quite right. It seems that everyone in the World except a few GNUtians understand that licensing (the act of contract formation) doesn't require the copying and distribution of source code. Contract formation requires the consent of two parties. Most software licensing schemes require an explicit act of the licensee to yield rights that copyright laws would grant him as the purchaser of the media. There is some debate about what forms of shrinkwrap licenses (by breaking this seal you agree to be bound to the following terms, return the media if you don't want to) or click-thru licenses (Click `I agree' to the following obnoxious license terms or return the software for a refund) are actually legally binding, but the whole point is that there is an attempt to have the licensee express explicit agreement to yield rights he otherwise would be granted. The GPL does not attempt to restrict your rights under copyright law. There is no act of contract formation. Making use of the GPL is a voluntary act and decision of the licensee, he can use the software for the normal purpose granted by copyright laws without heeding the GPL at all. But there is nothing other than the GPL that grants you a priori (i.e., without negotiation a different deal with the copyright holder) permission to copy and distribute source or binaries beyond what is allowed to you under copyright laws' definition of fair use. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [... There is no act of contract formation ...] Uh crackpot dak. In den Gesetzen zum Schutz des Geistigen Eigentums lassen sich insgesamt drei verschiedene Moeglichkeiten feststellen, wie eine Lizenz begruendet werden kann: erstens kraft staatlichen Hoheitsakts, zweitens kraft Gesetzes und drittens durch Vertrag. You are citing a private opinion again, not law. And actually, if you take a look at what the author writes later, you find that he does change this statement: http://books.google.de/books?id=q2lkquXoZwEC (Lizenz und Lizenzvertrag im Recht des Geistigen Eigentums By Louis Pahlow) Allgemein versteht man unter Lizenz die Befugnis, das Immaterialgut eines anderen zu benutzen. Als Immaterialgueter kommen insbesondere Marken, Urheberrecht oder Patente Dritter in Betracht. Nachdem es nur sehr wenige gesetzliche Regelungen gibt, werden Lizenzen ueblicherweise in individuellen Vertraegen, den Lizenzvertraegen, geregelt. See? He now reduces this to üblicherweise, commonly. And then talks about the consequences _if_ the license is given in the course of contract formation: Auf Lizenzvertraege findet zunaechst wie auf alle Vertraege das allgemeine Vertragsrecht Anwendung. Daneben werden verschiedene Vorschriften des BGB analog angewandt. Insbesondere die Bereiche der Rechtspacht, des Mietrechts, des Kaufrechts und des Dienstvertragsrechts finden Anwendung. Soweit Lizenzen (wie haeufig) in Formularvertraegen geregelt werden, finden auch die Regelungen ber die Allgemeinen Geschaeftsbedingungen der 305 ff BGB Anwendung. Again, he says: In case that (as often) a license is concocted as a form contract, the rules about AGB are applicable. The GPL is not a form contract since the recipient does not need to agree to it in the course of acquiring a software medium and using it in the normal manner permissable by copyright. That sale may very well be governed by the AGB of the vendor. The GPL concerns additional permissions that the recipient is free to execute _if_ he meets the conditions. http://www.boehmanwaltskanzlei.de/mehr-/vertragsrecht/details/lizenzvertragsrecht/355-der-lizenzvertrag.html Hth, silly dak. Does this Kanzlei know what personal interpretations of yourself you associate them with? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
RJack u...@example.net writes: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/25/2010 3:07 PM, RJack wrote: Troll vs. Hyman's fertile imagination. Troll wins another one. ROFL. No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court. Moving targets once again, silly Hyman? Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed initial conference and motions. But in the current case defendants seem to be willing to call the SFLC's bluff in court. Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and run once again. The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge. It's not likely that it will get it unless a defendant claims compliance as a defense. If he doesn't, there is no reason for a judge to review the GPL as it can't be relevant without the defendant agreeing to rely on its permissions. If he doesn't, it is a piece of paper irrelevant to the parties' relations and the case. It's obvious the defendants aren't the slightest bit intimidated by the SFLC clowns. Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath of the settlements? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and run once again. The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge. [...] We can be open to opinions concerning interpretations of facts and law but at some point, continuing your denials on incontrovertible, authoritative rulings simply merits that you be ignored in the future. At some point of time you have to make up your mind whether or not there has been an authoritive ruling with regard to the GPL or not. Vehemently claiming both at once looks a bit silly. Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath of the settlements? There are no settlements and you can't produce a copy of one. You can only claim imaginary settlements which, of course, no one believes in. Why else would the defendants bother to make the GPLed source available in the aftermath of the settlements? -- 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 settled
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com writes: RJack writes: Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding. If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court precedents why has it not been appealed thereto? This likely should be considered addressed comprehensively with the scared them out of the water. LOL LOL LOL babble. The appeal to CAFC was an interlocutory appeal (no final judgement) from an order regarding PI. For the purposes of granting or not granting PI, the CAFC error regarding confusion of conditions precedent v. scope restrictions v. covenants was made moot by later Winter v. NRDC decision of SCOTUS. Did you notice that judge White refused to grant the PI on remand as well? Correcting an utterly obvious error by a district judge from New Jersey sitting by designation on CAFC panel in a moot PI case would be quite a waste of SCOTUS time, don't you think so silly dak? Not interested in trying to figure out what you believe you are on this time. After a few dozen of rotten fish from the same barrel, there's not much incentive in dissecting another one. -- 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 settled
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote: On 2/22/2010 1:42 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: What matters is that the terms and conditions in the GPL are legally valid, and have now been tested in an appeals court in the United States of America. That was the Artistic License, not the GPL, but good enough. Ah, thanks! I thought there was something a little wrong. Still, if the artistic license holds up, the GPL'll be a doddle. I don't see how that follows. They are licenses with a somewhat similar basic legal mechanism (based on copyright, granting additional permissions), but the actual license is quite different. So I see no base for the AFPL holds - GPL doddle claim. I see no qualitative difference discussed that would support such a gradation. -- 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 settled
RJack u...@example.net writes: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Sorry, Rjack, by definition the opinion of that appeals court is the valid one. Sorry Alan, some of you foreigners are utterly ignorant of that fact that under U.S. law no appeals court can overrule the Supreme Court of the United States: So the appeals court did not overrule the Supreme Court. And nobody except you claimed that it did, while at the same not being able to do so. It did overrule a lower court. The lower court not being the Supreme Court. Perhaps you need to think about it a bit more. -- 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 settled
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in the absence of any license agreement at all. Providing or not providing attribution is not copying you moron, it's providing or not providing attribution. Take your meds, Hyman. In this case, permission to copy was given depending on proper attribution. Proper attribution was not made, so no permission to copy was available. -- 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 settled
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] In this case, permission to copy was given depending on proper attribution. Proper attribution was not made, so no permission to copy was available. If you rent me an apartment depending on proper monthly payment, my failure to pay doesn't automatically nullify the permission to occupy your apartment and somehow making me liable for http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausfriedensbruch etc. See the light now, silly dak? You are confusing a _contract_ with a _license_. In the case of the appartment, both parties stipulate their willingness to fulfill the contractual relationship they have agreed on. The contract is first established, later breached. If the landlord can establish that the tenant never intended to fulfill his contractual duties, he might be able to get the contract annulled, in which case continued residence might indeed become a case of Hausfriedensbruch. Similarly, if he gets the contract terminated and an eviction order given, the tenant will have to pay the rent up to the time of termination, and may be liable to the equivalent to Hausfriedensbruch eventually if he does not obey the eviction order. Anyway, the important point is that we are talking about a contract signed by two parties, not a unilateral license grant under conditions. If we have no stipulation of willingness of the licensee to accept the license terms, the license may as well be non-existent with regard to the relationship of the parties. -- 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 settled
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] You are confusing a _contract_ with a _license_. You're really a crackpot, dak. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizenz Im Privatrecht regeln Kaufverträge, Leihverträge und spezielle Lizenzverträge die Rechte des Erwerbers und seine Pflichten gegenüber dem Lizenzgeber. Since you can't argue my detailed point, you try reverting to context free word games? Anyway, wrong terminology. License in German would be something like Genehmigung or Berechtigung. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: http://www.boehmanwaltskanzlei.de/mehr-/vertragsrecht/details/lizenzvertragsrecht/355-der-lizenzvertrag.html Allgemein versteht man unter Lizenz die Befugnis, das Immaterialgut eines anderen zu benutzen. Als Immaterialgüter kommen insbesondere Marken, Urheberrecht oder Patente Dritter in Betracht. Nachdem es nur sehr wenige gesetzliche Regelungen gibt, werden Lizenzen üblicherweise in individuellen Verträgen, den Lizenzverträgen, geregelt. üblicherweise means usually. The GPL is not üblich, and is not handled in individuellen Verträgen but rather as a unilateral offer to all parties willing to stay with the licensing terms. Auf Lizenzverträge findet zunächst wie auf alle Verträge das allgemeine Vertragsrecht Anwendung. Auf Lizenzverträge. With the GPL, no Vertrag is involved in the licensing, since there is no explicit or implicit agreement between two parties. You really have a hard time understanding basic concepts and language... -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Mackenzie, please help comrade dak grok the following as well
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenkungsvertrag Die Schenkung ist ein zweiseitiges Rechtsgeschäft (ein Vertrag), aber nur einseitig verpflichtend, weil nur der Schenker leisten muss. The GPL is not a Schenkung since there is no transfer of ownership. It is actually not true that it is nur einseitig verpflichtend since ownership implies duties. For example, if I make a Schenkungsvertrag over a bunch of toxic waste cans on public ground, it becomes the new owner's responsibility to move them away safely. If I make a Schenkungsvertrag over a horse, it becomes the new owner's responsibility to provide basic care and feeding or face animal protection laws. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: http://www.boehmanwaltskanzlei.de/mehr-/vertragsrecht/details/lizenzvertragsrecht/355-der-lizenzvertrag.html Allgemein versteht man unter Lizenz die Befugnis, das Immaterialgut eines anderen zu benutzen. Als Immaterialgüter kommen insbesondere Marken, Urheberrecht oder Patente Dritter in Betracht. Nachdem es nur sehr wenige gesetzliche Regelungen gibt, werden Lizenzen üblicherweise in individuellen Verträgen, den Lizenzverträgen, geregelt. üblicherweise means usually. The GPL is not üblich, and is not handled in individuellen Verträgen but rather as a unilateral offer to The GPL is an AGB (standard aka boilerplate) form contract you retard. Nonsense, since there is no implicit contract (like with sales typically done over the counter) and no exchange of consideration. Talk about retard. Soweit Lizenzen (wie häufig) in Formularverträgen geregelt werden, The GPL is not a Formularvertrag since it is not a Vertrag at all: agreement is _not_ implied for normal use under copyright. It is optional, and the GPL spells this out. finden auch die Regelungen über die Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen der §§ 305 ff BGB Anwendung. Here's a judgment from a German court stating that obvious fact: http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf I'd say that this side sentence of the reasoning is not completely correct. The court states: Die Lizenzbedingungen des GPL sind als allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen anzusehen, die einer Prüfung nach §§506ff BGB unterfallen. However, §305(1) states Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen sind alle für eine Vielzahl von Verträgen vorformulierten Vertragsbedingungen, die eine Vertragspartei (Verwender) der anderen Vertragspartei bei Abschluss eines Vertrags stellt. But there is no Vertrag involved with licensing under the GPL. Now it turns out that even when pretending the GPL _were_ an AGB (which has implications on the forms and contents it may assume), this court considered the GPL valid. I don't agree with its arguments here, as it states Da die Lizenzbedingungen des GPL ohne weiteres im Internet abrufbar sind, bestehen keine Bedenken, daß diese in das Vertragsverhältnis zwischen den Urhebern und der Beklagten einbezogen wurden.. That is plainly ridiculous. The Internet is a vast space. The presence of the GPL somewhere on the Internet certainly can't make it an implied precondition to any purported contract. If the outcome of the case had positively depended in this particular part of the court's reasoning, I would have guessed that the defendant would have had good chances at appeal. But throwing out the whole AGB part does not help the defendant one bit, so there was likely nothing to be gained by contesting this part of the reasoning. Uh crackpot dak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allgemeine_Gesch%C3%A4ftsbedingungen Hth, silly. Looks like you have run out of arguments again. Nothing left but irrelevant links and insults. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Mackenzie, please help comrade dak grok the following as well
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] It is actually not true that it is nur einseitig verpflichtend since It's einseitig verpflichtend as in http://dejure.org/gesetze/BGB/518.html and http://vwi.andre-grahl.de/Recht/pdf/03_Script.pdf Pflichtenbegründende Rechtsgeschäfte (Verpflichtungsgeschäfte) - es werden einseitige oder mehrseitige Pflichtenverhältnisse begründet einseitig: Schenkung, Leihe, Erlass zweiseitig: Kaufvertrag, Dienstvertrag, Werkvertrag mehrseitig: Gesellschaftervertrag you crackpot dak. A Schenkung is einseitig verpflichtend between the parties of the Schenkungsvertrag, however, as a consequence of the transfer of ownership, the Verpflichtungen connected with ownership will be established for the new owner. For this reason among others, you can't do a Schenkungsvertrag without the consent of the receiving party. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] But throwing out the whole AGB part does not help the defendant one bit, so there was likely nothing to be gained by contesting this part of the reasoning. Das Gericht hat rechtsfehlerhafter Weise die Prüfung eines Verstoßes von Art.81 EGV u. §1 GWB unterlassen. Das Urteil ist diesbezüglich *offensichtlich* falsch, denn einerseits wird die GPL als AGB bezeichnet, andererseits aber wie ein Individualrechtsgeschäft (read: Individualvertrag) behandelt, um den §139 BGB anwenden zu können. So geht es nicht! diesbezüglich means in this respect. I am not disagreeing with this part of the comment for which you give no source. But going to appeal in order to get the right verdict for all the right reasons instead of the same right verdict for some wrong reasons as well is likely of little interest to the defendant. An upright defending lawyer would probably tell his client we could likely contest this part successfully, but it would not change the outcome. -- 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 settled
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 2/23/2010 4:50 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: If you rent me an apartment depending on proper monthly payment, my failure to pay doesn't automatically nullify the permission to occupy your apartment and somehow making me liable for http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausfriedensbruch etc. That is because there are special laws that pertain to apartment rentals and evictions, not because of any general principle. Actually, it is because we have a contract signed by two parties rather than a conditional license which one party can choose to make use of or not at its will. -- 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 settled
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com writes: RJack writes: Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding. If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court precedents why has it not been appealed thereto? This likely should be considered addressed comprehensively with the scared them out of the water. LOL LOL LOL babble. Why it is apparently this simple to scare sharks is another question. -- 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 settled
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: The comedy continues to unroll. Uh retarded crackpot free softies. LOL! URL:http://www.pvponline.com/2008/06/30/interlude-the-adventures-of-lolbat/ -- 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 settled
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] cranks who want to convince people that violation of a license does not constitute copyright infringement. The only person I Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as violation of a renting license constitutes a trespass, you retard Hyman. If there is a toll box for access, and you choose to climb in through the backyard instead... It depends on whether you want to claim that you wanted to pay (and it did not register or whatever) or that you did not even think about trying. -- 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 settled
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Well, if the GPLed source is made available in the aftermath, it stands How do you know that, silly dak? Because the version numbers on the links match, right you retard? I answered that already. There is nothing to be gained by fraudulently claiming to provide the correct source when this isn't the case: willful fraud is punished harder than accidental(?) non-adherence to license terms. If somebody needs the source for some purpose, he'll notice when it doesn't work, and it is unlikely that a court would find that funny. And if nobody needs the source, providing it can't do the business any harm. So there just is no point to fraud. Now while you delight in fantasizing about people just pretending to heed the GPL, that certainly is your prerequisite, but it certainly does not make you look smarter or saner than what you choose to call people. -- 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 settled
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [... willful fraud ... ] You're really a crackpot, dak. And you've run out of arguments again. Really, it is a good thing nobody is paying you for the sad spectacle you make of yourself. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] The version numbers on the source and binary links match. LOL!!! But what makes you think that it is a complete corresponding source code under the GNU GPL, silly Hyman? If the sources did not build or work, the first user trying to do something with them would notice. If they build and work, there is little point to make them build and work from different sources, maintaining two trees with different functionality. Calling something intentionally different a corresponding source without it being so in order to fulfill licensing conditions would be active fraud, not just negligence. So you are claiming that Actiontec likely does parallel development of equivalent functionality for the sole purpose of being able to be liable for fraud. And you call others silly... -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Richard Tobin wrote: In article 4b7d8706.c45ed...@web.de, Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote: Hyman, you're really crank. What language is this? I mean that Hyman is really a crackpot. It's really a good thing nobody is paying you for the sad spectacle you make of yourself. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] It's really a good thing nobody is paying you for the sad spectacle you make of yourself. Says GNUtian clown http://www.tug.org/interviews/kastrup.html dak. LMAO! [Y]ou often have people with a bad judgment concerning business requirements and project management and time planning and customer interaction. For proprietary software, this is less of a problem: if you are the only supplier for a marketable product, poor market interaction does not kill your business prospects. ROFL!!! You don't get it when you are batting zero, do you? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] LMAO! Uh retard Hyman. Hyman? Your attention span really is at zero right now. Have you been drinking again? Not yet. Do you seriously dispute that you both are crackpots? If we were, we would still be different. And one paragraph earlier you still remembered who you were trying to sneer at. You really should quit. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] It's really a good thing nobody is paying you for the sad spectacle you make of yourself. Says GNUtian clown http://www.tug.org/interviews/kastrup.html dak. LMAO! [Y]ou often have people with a bad judgment concerning business requirements and project management and time planning and customer interaction. For proprietary software, this is less of a problem: if you are the only supplier for a marketable product, poor market interaction does not kill your business prospects. ROFL!!! You don't get it when you are batting zero, do you? I went to Bochum for a doctorate, but it remains pending completion. You went to Bochum for a doctorate in what? Is it still pending completion dak? ROFL!!! It is really a good thing nobody is paying you for the sad spectacle you make of yourself. -- 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 settled
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/19/2010 3:26 PM, RJack wrote: For one wrongly decided non-precedential case: Court vs. crank again. How many times have you been told that unverifiable settlement agreements are imaginary? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_%28litigation%29 The settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements of the parties, and is often put in force by an order of the court after a joint stipulation by the parties. In other situations (as where the claims have been satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of money) the plaintiff and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has been dismissed Sorry Hyman. Unverifiable settlement agreements are illusory. Claim all the unverifiable agreements you wish Hyman. Well, if the GPLed source is made available in the aftermath, it stands to reason that it would have been part of the settlement. Why go to the trouble otherwise? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 2/18/2010 12:46 PM, RJack wrote: They're *your* unverified claims. Neither myself nor, I doubt, anyone else is going to foolishly carry *your* burden and produce *your* facts for you. Your facts require the belief that after settling the lawsuits, the defendants set up the ability for customers to obtain GPLed sources, but then provide sources that do not match the binaries being distributed. (For it is incontrovertible that those GPL download sites exist.) That beggars belief. The sequence you postulate is simply an unverified string of events. Only anti-GPL cranks find this to be true. Let's not forget that the Cisco(?) case was mainly about Cisco dragging its feet with regard to compliance, namely _not_ timely making available the _corresponding_ sources to new versions. So it would appear that verifying the matching version is easy enough for legal purposes. Also, providing non-matching sources intentionally in order to _feign_ license compliance is fraud, which is a criminal offense. While our local cranks have no qualms assuming that companies will happily commit fraud just to let our court jesters here hop in glee, that is hardly to be expected in reality. After all, the main point of the GPLed sources is to let people inclined to do so make their local changes. If that renders the router unfunctional even without the local changes, that would be rather obvious. If it _does_ not render the router unfunctional, where is the point in providing different functional sources? Sure, it is work to diligently verify actual compliance, but there is nothing to be gained by the company providing different sources. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] to do so make their local changes. If that renders the router Go try making local changes regarding http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp and report your results back here, silly dak. It won't happen, I know, you silly dak. I have not bought (and consequently licensed) anything from Verizon or Actiontec. So of course nothing like this will happen by me. And similarly, nothing proving the contrary will happen by you. So applying your kind of logic, you are as silly as I am. Personally, I should consider you much sillier, exactly because of the kind of logic you employ. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: [... excuse ...] Stop making claims that you can't support with evidence, silly Hyman. How about doing that yourself? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: [... excuse ...] Stop making claims that you can't support with evidence, silly Hyman. How about doing that yourself? What evidence do you want from me stupid dak? That http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp is not backed by the complete corresponding source code under the GNU GPL you silly? You got the links already. Do you want me to prove that black is not white as well you retard? Your rants are obviously not helping either your case, your reputation, or your mood. Why bother? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 2/16/2010 4:09 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman: Uh your honor, I received permission from some unknown authors to create this derivative work. It's a new work known under copyright law as a derivative of a 'compilation of derivative works by unknown authors'. The work is licensed. There is no reason to disbelieve the license, when it is a well-known license used for a great deal of software. Licenses are not a matter of belief. License are a matter of commerce. You get software from somewhere _under_ a certain license. You don't find software somewhere fallen off a truck, look inside, find a file named COPYING and assume that the whole software must be licensed under GPL. To you. The software could be some non-released software that the author decided against releasing after all (or already), even though he already put licensing files and headers into it. That does not make the software free for the taking if you manage to hack into his computer. Or got the software from somebody who did. Or even if it _was_ distributed properly and you have access to the computer of the person who acquired it, you don't have the liberty to just make your own copy without permission from the person in legal possession of the copy. There are software users who pay quite a bit for GPLed software because it is not easy to come by (for example, if it still needs to be written). Those users are then free to give you a licensed copy. But you are not free to take it from them without asking. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 6:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: One *SINGLE* (consisting of a separate unique whole) project is not a joint work although it produces a (single) (combined) larger program??? Correct. A joint work is created only when all of its Why didn't Erik Andersen fork the busybox to create his own non-joint version of busybox? How would you know the difference? He did not have to negotiate permission with previous authors for continuing to maintain it. With free software, there is no way to know which is the fork, and which the mainline. If you take a look at gcc history, you'll find that the egcs fork became the main line eventually. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 2/11/2010 3:21 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Yeah, yeah, and airplanes can't fly at all because the GPL doesn't say that airplanes can fly. Whenever you post a content-free response, a fairy gets its wings. We got too many winged beasts circling the horses here in summer already. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
RJack u...@example.net writes: SFLC voluntary dismissals should be coming soon in Best Buy et. al. case. Once the defendants have agreed to come into compliance and pay the incurred costs, that's the usual course. Do you have any information pertaining to that? The SFLC cannot risk a judge actually interpreting the GPL license. It is quite unlikely that a judge will have to take a look at the GPL unless the defendant states that he has accepted it. But with such a statement, compliance and settlement is the sanest course to cut further legal costs. And without such a statement, there is no point for a judge to look at the GPL. The court would read the covenants in the GPL contract which Eben Moglen claims are conditions and quickly file the license in the court's little round filing bin -- if he didn't die laughing first. Sure, if the conditions are not met (and no attempt to do so is claimed by the defendant), the license does not apply and can be filed in the bin: the resulting plain case of copyright violation without a license is no longer about the GPL. Another frivolous lawsuit to which the SFLC can spin: A world in which a lawsuit for copying without license is frivolous would certainly be to the liking of the FSF. But it's not ours. Sincerely, Hardly. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: RJack u...@example.net wrote in message news:oosdnvn5rvxl2ojwnz2dnuvz_odi4...@giganews.com... Another frivolous lawsuit to which the SFLC can spin: One can only wonder how many of these things are necessary for the FSF and SFLC and Moglen (which seem to be MOL synonymous terms). I don't think anyone is intimidated or even slightly fooled by the practice. Well, since the GPLed source has been made available in each single case, it would appear that these things are effective. As long as they keep batting 1.0, there would appear little enough reason to stop. It obviously helps with customers getting GPLed source. At the same time the FSF et al parades around suggesting that they are there to save us all from unscrupulous companies that create some desirable product By hijacking the work of others without heeding their licensing conditions. and then want us to pay them to be able to use it. They can ask for payment in arbitrary amounts. That's not an issue for the FSF. But if they sell the stuff, they need to do it _properly_, including the GPLed sources. If they don't want to do that, they can very well develop their own software instead of misusing that of others for unlicensed purposes. Depending on your view of the whole thing, they are either being clowns or are a serious cancer in the industry. I think they are just clowns desperate for recognition in some vanity fair sort of way. The defendants recognize them, the courts recognize them. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
Rex Ballard rex.ball...@gmail.com writes: On Feb 12, 7:13 am, RJack u...@example.net wrote: SFLC voluntary dismissals should be coming soon in Best Buy et. al. case. The SFLC cannot risk a judge actually interpreting the GPL license. The court would read the covenants in the GPL contract which Eben Moglen claims are conditions and quickly file the license in the court's little round filing bin -- if he didn't die laughing first. The GPL license is just another copyright license. just another is somewhat misleading in that most copyright licenses for software nowadays purport to be contracts of one kind or another rather than mere licenses: shrinkwrap or clickthrough. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote: 2) A Gentlemen's Agreement: Assessing the GNU General Public License and its Adaptation to Linux. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, Vol. 6, p. 213, 2007. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID987294_code410303.pdf?abstractid=951842mirid=1 Existing case law surrounding shrinkwrap and browsewrap licenses that use a notice-plus-conduct model suggests that courts would find that the GPL creates an enforceable contract, if a party challenged this point directly. That's simply nonsensical since the GPL is not on software wrappings and not clickthrough and not notice-plus-conduct. It would appear that the author of the paper is not familiar with the usual distribution forms. There is no by opening this package you signify your acceptance or by clicking this button you signify your acceptance or similar. ... However, as long as the requirement of the GPL is clear to both licensor and licensee before contract formation, then the notice-plus-conduct model contemplated by the GPL operates successfully despite the lack of formal notice in practice. Courts will likely hold Linux developers to the same standard as parties who receive printed forms and choose not to read them. ... Regardless of the interpretation of the GPL as a license or as a contract, the text of the GPL helps to determine its enforceability. In a way. The text of the GPL states that it is your own choice whether you accept it or not. So the determination is no. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ in which (1) the Software Freedom Conservancy is utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known as busybox at http://busybox.net/. Under your legal theories, Apple could not sue for violation of MacOSX licenses unless Berkeley university joins their lawsuit. But it's certainly not the first time that the reality in the courts does not match your wet dreams. You'll be sulking over drunken judges and whatever else soon again, no doubt. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Take your meds, Hyman. How would that help your running out of arguments? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: So for any component with copyrighted parts from other parties (like BSD), Apple could not sue for breach of copyright without having the other parties joining the suit? Reality check... Apple's COMPILATION WORK is NOT A JOINT WORK you retard. Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple. How did the copyright of BSD come to cease on the portions that Apple changed? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 10:08 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ in which (1) the Software Freedom Conservancy is utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known as busybox at http://busybox.net/. The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it has filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the GPL. No defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals before What's automatic and involuntary about dismissals that are filed after settling? any judge could ever read their frivolous Complaints. Why why would a plaintiff answer a Complaint that has been dismissed? Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available in the course of a settlement? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple. How did the copyright of BSD come to cease on the portions that Apple changed? BSD copyright didn't come to cease (it's too early for expiration and I'm unaware of any abandonment/dedications to the public domain of the BSD'd works) on the BSD'd portions that Apple changed unless Apple's changes resulted in a complete removal of BSD'd protected expression. Ah, so that means that according to your legal theories, we have a joint copyright situation for those portions, and anybody can take any parts of Apple's changes and use them without worry, since Apple could only possibly sue if it managed to get Berkeley interested to sue together with them, and Berkeley's choice of license made perfectly clear that Berkeley is not interested much in suing. Do you really not understand why your theories about the GPL case are so absurd and don't stand up to real world cases? At this point, why don't you just piss off and call http://www.justlanded.com/english/Germany/Germany-Guide/Health/Emergencies you retard dak? It's funny how every time you are shown to be wrong, you holler for doctors, medications, and retards. Not to mention drunk judges. Such a transparent maneuver, and what a pathetic excuse for a smoke screen. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available There's no reason to do it -- to wit: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp That's a link to a firmware upgrade. This firmware update is applicable to both Actiontec and Verizon branded FiOS Routers. As I hear, those routers come with a manual detailing where to get the source to the firmware. The links have been pointed out to you as well. To Hyman: take your meds first! Oh you are running out of arguments again? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it has filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the GPL. No defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals before What's automatic and involuntary about dismissals that are filed after settling? any judge could ever read their frivolous Complaints. Why why would a plaintiff answer a Complaint that has been dismissed? Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available in the course of a settlement? If the full force and credibility of your arguments turn on others hurried typographical errors, you've got even bigger problems than I first imagined. Retreat to that tactic implies an utterly desperate lack of serious intellect. Well, appears like you have answered hurriedly again, since my reply had nothing whatsoever to do with typographical errors. Maybe you'll appear like less of an idiot if you actually read what you are responding to. What that does imply for the imaginary problems you fancy me having will likely remain your secret. And what this kind of evasive tactics and nonsensical accusations imply for you in the category utterly desperate lack of serious intellect is pretty easy for everyone to see. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/7/2010 7:19 AM, RJack wrote: If authorizing is reserved as exclusive for the author of a work how does a non-owner do any authorizing? Because the original author has authorized him to do so. Sorry Hyman, only the U.S. Congress has the power to write the copyright laws and authorizing others to authorize simply doesn't appear in 17 USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of copyrights. You mean, the author does not have the right to let a publisher create copies authorized for reading? Or that authorization to read is so utterly different from authorization to copy that the latter can't be delegated to a different party? Only in your Marxist land of GNU are copyright laws written that way. Authorization for legal acts is not particular to copyright law. Your socialist interpretation of copyright law Yaddy, yadda, yadda. Don't you have better things to do with your time than to spout ridiculous nonsense? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/8/2010 11:28 AM, RJack wrote: On 2/8/2010 10:55 AM, RJack wrote: authorizing others to authorize simply doesn't appear in 17 USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of copyrights. An author licenses a publisher and its agents to copy and distribute his work. The means by which this is accomplished is covered under the legal concept of agency. But the legal concept of agency does not appear in 17 USC 106 either. Neither does it explicitly mention the concept of contracts but all copyright licenses are contracts. Nonsense. The GPL is not a contract since the recipient of software is not required to sign, accept, or even take notice of it. If he wants to make use of this license, adherence to its conditions is held to the same standards as with contracts. But he is under no obligation to make use of the license. He can chuck it in the bin and perfectly legally act like he never saw it. You can't do that with a contract. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
