Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
On 12/18/2009 4:37 PM, RJack wrote: Uh... I predicted the suit will never reach a federal judge's eyes. A voluntary dismissal before the SFLC can possibly be sanctioned is my prediction. Of course. And just like with Verizon, magical copies of GPLed sources will start sprouting on the websites of the sued companies. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 12/18/2009 4:37 PM, RJack wrote: Uh... I predicted the suit will never reach a federal judge's eyes. A voluntary dismissal before the SFLC can possibly be sanctioned is my prediction. Of course. And just like with Verizon, magical copies of GPLed sources will start sprouting on the websites of the sued companies. Yes! Sprouting on websites fertilized with the bullshit of Free Softies like Hyman and Alan. Sincerely, Rjack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Pee Jay trumpeted, the Software Freedom Law Center has since gone to court successfully regarding the GPL multiple times. This, despite Eben Moglen's SFLC voluntarily dismissing the seven suits before a federal judge could ever read a single word of any complaint. You've been told already ad nauseam that this voluntary dismissal is a codeword for settled, with the defendants having come into compliance. Your continual insinuation that the SFLC simply lost these cases is what you would refer to as lying. Now that the internet is buzzing with the fraudulent copyright claims of Erik Andersen, where pray tell, is Pee Jay's analysis of the situation? Who's stealing the code now, Pee Jay? The complaint you refer to elsewhere states that Erik Andersen is _a_ copyright holder, not _the_ copyright holder. BLUFF and FRAUD. Pee Jay, that's what the GPL is all about. BLUFF and FRAUD. Funny thing, though, when alleged violations of the GPL do reach the courtroom, the GPL is upheld. You can rest assured that the fourteen defendants' legal departments in the SFLC's current fraudulent action will want to depose Mr. Andersen concerning his copyright ownership of BusyBox v. 0.60.3. Let the games begin. I suggest you email all these lawyers to point out the fraud you allege. The SFLC, frivolously and with the intent to harass and intimidate the defendants, There's nothing frivolous about defending the GPL, since it lies at the heart of how most free software is produced. Sincerely, Rjack -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] The complaint you refer to elsewhere states that Erik Andersen is _a_ copyright holder, not _the_ copyright holder. The copyright registration names only Erik as author and claimant, not Erik et al or some such. Moglen himself wrote that http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors. In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration... So stop spouting bullshit, silly Alan. See Adding Mutiple Authors and Adding Mutiple Claimants. http://www.copyright.gov/eco/eco-tutorial.pdf and also http://openjurist.org/147/f3d/195 Thomson's request for a declaratory judgment establishing her co-authorship under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., requires us to interpret and apply the copyright ownership provisions of the Act. The Copyright Act defines a joint work as a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole. 17 U.S.C. § 101 (1994). The touchstone of the statutory definition is the intention at the time the writing is done that the parts be absorbed or combined into an integrated unit. H.R.Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong. 120, 121 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. Admin. News 5659, 5735. Joint authorship entitles the co-authors to equal undivided interests in the whole work--in other words, each joint author has the right to use or to license the work as he or she wishes, subject only to the obligation to account to the other joint owner for any profits that are made. See 17 U.S.C. § 201(a); Childress, 945 F.2d at 508; Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 846 F.2d 1485, 1498 (D.C.Cir.1988) (Joint authors co-owning copyright in a work are deemed to be tenants in common, with each having an independent right to use or license the copyright, subject only to a duty to account to the other co-owner for any profits earned thereby.), aff'd. without consideration on this point, 490 U.S. 730, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989). regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] The complaint you refer to elsewhere states that Erik Andersen is _a_ copyright holder, not _the_ copyright holder. The copyright registration names only Erik as author and claimant, not Erik et al or some such. Moglen himself wrote that http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors. In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration... I'm informed by no less an authority than Rjack himself that it is the person(s) registered as the copyright holder who has the right to sue, not the actual authors. The other authors presumably would have standing to challenge that copyright registration should they wish. It's difficult to see why they should, since Andersen, in shouldering the burden of the lagal action, is simply seeking to enforce the license busybox is released under, to which all the authors have assented. regards, alexander. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Alan Mackenzie wrote: I'm informed by no less an authority than Rjack himself that it is the person(s) registered as the copyright holder who has the right to sue, not the actual authors. Where the fuck did you read such nonsense Alan? The other authors presumably would have standing to challenge that copyright registration should they wish. The defendants have standing to challenge that copyright registration. It's difficult to see why they should, since Andersen, in shouldering the burden of the lagal action, is simply seeking to enforce the license busybox is released under, to which all the authors have assented. Alan, perhaps you could speak to Alexander in German for additional help in understanding what the word exclusive in: § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:... Until Free Softies come to understand what Congress meant by the term exclusive rights, they are destined to continue to wander in the desert. I know you socialists find the concept of exclusive rights anathema but that's the way it is. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: I'm informed by no less an authority than Rjack himself that it is the person(s) registered as the copyright holder who has the right to sue, not the actual authors. Where the fuck did you read such nonsense Alan? Here on this mailing list in your articles. I think you have written often enough that before a USA copyright holder can enforce his copyright, he needs to have registered it. The other side of that coin is that it is the registered copyright holder who can sue. The other authors presumably would have standing to challenge that copyright registration should they wish. The defendants have standing to challenge that copyright registration. Wierd. Why do they have this standing? It would appear to be none of their business precisely who is registered as the copyright owner. It's difficult to see why they should, since Andersen, in shouldering the burden of the legal action, is simply seeking to enforce the license busybox is released under, to which all the authors have assented. So, tell me please Rj, under USA law is it the registered copyright holder or the authors of a work who have standing to sue in a copyright dispute? My understanding of your posts is that it is the registered copyright holder. Would you please clarify. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] The defendants have standing to challenge that copyright registration. Wierd. Why do they have this standing? It would appear to be none of their business precisely who is registered as the copyright owner. Uh silly Alan... http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/intellectual-property-copyright/125937-1.html Fraud on the Copyright Office can invalidate a copyright registration. As you may recall, copyright registration is not a prerequisite to ownership of a copyright; copyright springs into existence automatically when a work of authorship is fixed in a tangible medium. But copyright registration is required to bring an infringement suit, and fraud on the Copyright Office will defeat registration and thus destroy the jurisdictional basis for a copyright infringement case. Fraud requires a specific intent to deceive or cheat, but that can be shown by circumstantial evidence. So, fraud on the Copyright Office generally arises in the context of a mistake in a copyright registration that the defendant, the accused infringer, will try to argue was deliberate. If the defendant can show that the mistake was deliberate and material, and therefore fraud on the Copyright Office, then the defendant may succeed in getting an infringement suit thrown out of court. (The copyright owner may be able to re-register and re-file the suit, but may lose the right to statutory damages and an award of attorneys' fees that early registration provides.) The Ninth Circuit has said that inadvertent mistakes in a copyright registration do not invalidate the registration and thus do not bar infringement actions, unless the alleged infringer has relied to its detriment on the mistake, or the claimant intended to defraud the Copyright Office by making the misstatement. So an innocent mistake will not invalidate the copyright registration. It is better to avoid an argument about whether a mistake is innocent or fraudulent, however. This is one good reason to be careful when preparing your application for copyright registration. The forms are simple and the instructions are generally clear. But sometimes the issues can be tricky. In particular, be careful if the work is based upon a preexisting work, or if it has been prepared by an independent contractor. If you have any questions, it may be worth your time and money to have an attorney assist you in preparing your copyright registration forms. Bob Godhey is a partner in the Honolulu law firm of Jackson Godbey Griffiths. A graduate of the Harvard Law School, he has degrees in electrical engineering and math. He welcomes comments at www.LawHI.com. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: I'm informed by no less an authority than Rjack himself that it is the person(s) registered as the copyright holder who has the right to sue, not the actual authors. Where the fuck did you read such nonsense Alan? Here on this mailing list in your articles. I think you have written often enough that before a USA copyright holder can enforce his copyright, he needs to have registered it. So where'd the ... not the actual authors come from Alan? The other side of that coin is that it is the registered copyright holder who can sue. The other authors presumably would have standing to challenge that copyright registration should they wish. The defendants have standing to challenge that copyright registration. Wierd. Why do they have this standing? It would appear to be none of their business precisely who is registered as the copyright owner. Uhhh... do you mean if I sued you for copyright infringement you wouldn't be curious about the work I claim that you copied? Hmmm... It's difficult to see why they should, since Andersen, in shouldering the burden of the legal action, is simply seeking to enforce the license busybox is released under, to which all the authors have assented. So, tell me please Rj, under USA law is it the registered copyright holder or the authors of a work who have standing to sue in a copyright dispute? My understanding of your posts is that it is the registered copyright holder. Would you please clarify. The copyright registration must be filed in the name of the *owner* of the copyrighted work. See: 17 USC § 408. Copyright registration in general (a) Registration Permissive. — At any time during the subsistence of the first term of copyright in any published or unpublished work in which the copyright was secured before January 1, 1978, and during the subsistence of any copyright secured on or after that date, the owner of copyright or of any exclusive right in the work may obtain registration of the copyright claim by delivering to the Copyright Office the deposit specified by this section, together with the application and fee specified by sections 409 and 708. Such registration is not a condition of copyright protection. An *original author* may transfer ownership of the copyrights to his work to a new owner but the original author remains the author of record. See: 17 USC § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general. (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:... 17 USC § 101 A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment, mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license. The GPL is, of course, a nonexclusive license. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
RJack u...@example.net writes: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: I'm informed by no less an authority than Rjack himself that it is the person(s) registered as the copyright holder who has the right to sue, not the actual authors. Where the fuck did you read such nonsense Alan? Here on this mailing list in your articles. I think you have written often enough that before a USA copyright holder can enforce his copyright, he needs to have registered it. So where'd the ... not the actual authors come from Alan? The other side of that coin is that it is the registered copyright holder who can sue. The other authors presumably would have standing to challenge that copyright registration should they wish. The defendants have standing to challenge that copyright registration. Wierd. Why do they have this standing? It would appear to be none of their business precisely who is registered as the copyright owner. Uhhh... do you mean if I sued you for copyright infringement you wouldn't be curious about the work I claim that you copied? Hmmm... It's difficult to see why they should, since Andersen, in shouldering the burden of the legal action, is simply seeking to enforce the license busybox is released under, to which all the authors have assented. So, tell me please Rj, under USA law is it the registered copyright holder or the authors of a work who have standing to sue in a copyright dispute? My understanding of your posts is that it is the registered copyright holder. Would you please clarify. The copyright registration must be filed in the name of the *owner* of the copyrighted work. See: 17 USC § 408. Copyright registration in general (a) Registration Permissive. — At any time during the subsistence of the first term of copyright in any published or unpublished work in which the copyright was secured before January 1, 1978, and during the subsistence of any copyright secured on or after that date, the owner of copyright or of any exclusive right in the work may obtain registration of the copyright claim by delivering to the Copyright Office the deposit specified by this section, together with the application and fee specified by sections 409 and 708. Such registration is not a condition of copyright protection. An *original author* may transfer ownership of the copyrights to his work to a new owner but the original author remains the author of record. See: 17 USC § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general. (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:... 17 USC § 101 A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment, mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license. The GPL is, of course, a nonexclusive license. Sincerely, RJack Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand? It seems that with every post he contradicts himself. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Alan Mackenzie wrote: I suggest you email all these lawyers to point out the fraud you allege. I am quite busy with grandkids this week but I an aware of other's efforts to do that very thing wrt the legal departments of the fourteen corporate defendants. I suspect Erik Andersen has stepped on his weenie this time. All charades have to end eventually. It's tough to have your bluff called. Paying fourteen legal firms attorney fees because of a fraudulent copyright claim could be very expensive. See: 17 USC § 505. Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote: Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand? Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which is hard. The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means of violating it. And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it. I find it amazing that you keep insisting it is so easy and yet we see you embroiled in nitpicking over meaning time and time again. You're either very thick skinned or in denial. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote: Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand? Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which is hard. The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means of violating it. The examples I have seen from them here, however, again boil down to their problems with understanding copyright, not the GPL. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Hadron wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote: Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand? Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which is hard. The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means of violating it. And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it. I find it amazing that you keep insisting it is so easy and yet we see you embroiled in nitpicking over meaning time and time again. You're either very thick skinned or in denial. Note that even Pee Jay has admitted that a lot of people don't understand the GPL, including some lawyers http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 chuckles regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Hadron wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote: Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand? Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which is hard. The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means of violating it. And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it. I find it amazing that you keep insisting it is so easy and yet we see you embroiled in nitpicking over meaning time and time again. You're either very thick skinned or in denial. Nitpicking are the cretins like Rjack or Alex T They are either too thick to understand simple concepts, or they don't want to understand to keep on trolling The GPL *is* simple to understand. That *you* are unable to is not surprising. You would not understand the simplest of things -- A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.-- William James ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hadron wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote: Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand? Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which is hard. The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means of violating it. And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it. I find it amazing that you keep insisting it is so easy and yet we see you embroiled in nitpicking over meaning time and time again. You're either very thick skinned or in denial. Note that even Pee Jay has admitted that a lot of people don't understand the GPL, including some lawyers http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 chuckles It's abundantly clear there is an issue. How anyone can deny it is quite beyond me. It's like the COLA disease of thinking there is no issue with UI consistency on the Linux desktop where every study and sane thinker shows there is. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Peter Köhlmann peter-koehlm...@t-online.de writes: Hadron wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote: Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand? Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which is hard. The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means of violating it. And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it. I find it amazing that you keep insisting it is so easy and yet we see you embroiled in nitpicking over meaning time and time again. You're either very thick skinned or in denial. Nitpicking are the cretins like Rjack or Alex T They are either too thick to understand simple concepts, or they don't want to understand to keep on trolling The GPL *is* simple to understand. That *you* are unable to is not surprising. You would not understand the simplest of things Says the closed source windows programmer who insists its ok to dereference a null pointer in C. You have zero credibility. Go away. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Hadron quacked: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means of violating it. And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it. Stop lying, true Linux advocate Hadron Quark. I find it amazing that I find it amazing that you don't get your ass kicked on a daily basis, asshole. you keep insisting it is so easy and yet we see you embroiled in nitpicking over meaning time and time again. You're either very thick skinned or in denial. Because stupid trolls keep repeating the same nonsense, and he's slapping them down. You, Hadron, being a stupid troll yourself, should know all about that... -- choice : for the brain dead. - True Linux advocate Hadron Quark ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Hadron wrote: Peter Köhlmann peter-koehlm...@t-online.de writes: Hadron wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote: Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand? Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which is hard. The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means of violating it. And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it. I find it amazing that you keep insisting it is so easy and yet we see you embroiled in nitpicking over meaning time and time again. You're either very thick skinned or in denial. Nitpicking are the cretins like Rjack or Alex T They are either too thick to understand simple concepts, or they don't want to understand to keep on trolling The GPL *is* simple to understand. That *you* are unable to is not surprising. You would not understand the simplest of things Says the closed source windows programmer Strange that I have only programmed for linux for the last weeks, though I have done less than one hour on windows programs the last 6 weeks. To find and elimate a bug Apart from that: It is perfectly OK for a linux advocate to program for other environments, too. YOu are just insanely jealous that you are unable to even *use* linux, much less program for it who insists its ok to dereference a null pointer in C. You might provide a Msg-ID for the it is OK part you keep claiming You have zero credibility. Go away. Even *if* that were true, it would still be a lot more than you will ever have, true linux advocate, kernel hacker, emacs user, swapfile expert, X specialist, CUPS guru, USB-disk server admin, defragger professional, newsreader magician, hardware maven, time coordinator, email sage, tripwire wizard, Pulseaudio rockstar, XORG sorcerer, filesystem pro and OSS culling committee chairman Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian O'Leary, aka Steve Townsend, aka Ubuntu King -- Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. -- Henry Spencer ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
On 2009-12-18, Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote: Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand? Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which is hard. The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means of violating it. And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it. I Nope. Only a few self-centered trouble makers choose to make anything complicated out of it. Typically, these people have a toddler's view of property rights. find it amazing that you keep insisting it is so easy and yet we see you embroiled in nitpicking over meaning time and time again. You're either very thick skinned or in denial. -- The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals ||| for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs / | \ the social value of copyright to begin with. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
On 2009-12-18, Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote: Hadron wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote: Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand? Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which is hard. The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means of violating it. And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it. I find it amazing that you keep insisting it is so easy and yet we see you embroiled in nitpicking over meaning time and time again. You're either very thick skinned or in denial. Note that even Pee Jay has admitted that a lot of people don't understand the GPL, including some lawyers http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 So? Some lawyers aren't terribly good at contract law in general despite this is one of those things they even cover in law school. [deletia] -- The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals ||| for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs / | \ the social value of copyright to begin with. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
JEDIDIAH wrote: Hadron snotted: (snip lies) You have zero credibility. Go away. LOL A charge of zero credibility, from the totally anti-FOSS, bald-faced liar Hadron Quack. Bad rhetoric isn't a sufficient argument. Hadron got to make a jackass of himself in several groups, today! -- 'What amazes me is the zealots continually harp on about the number of apps. The fact that more than half are incomplete, forgotten, buggy and plain rubbish doesn't seem to matter.' - True Linux advocate Hadron Quark ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: I suggest you email all these lawyers to point out the fraud you allege. I am quite busy with grandkids this week but I an aware of other's efforts to do that very thing wrt the legal departments of the fourteen corporate defendants. Hope you have a good week with the little terrors. I suspect Erik Andersen has stepped on his weenie this time. All charades have to end eventually. It's tough to have your bluff called. Paying fourteen legal firms attorney fees because of a fraudulent copyright claim could be very expensive. We shall see, in the fullness of time. However, it's not a fraudulent claim. It would appear that busybox's copyright has been violated, and Erik Andersen is a copyright holder. If a case is dismissed on a technicality, that isn't fraud. However, if your view of the case were accurate, the SFLC wouldn't have Started it in the first place. I suspect the usual thing will happen, there will be a settlement with each defendent involving it coming into compliance with the GPL, appointing a compliance officer, and paying an unspecified sum in damages. Further speculation seems pointless. Sincerely, RJack -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
On 2009-12-18, Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Köhlmann peter-koehlm...@t-online.de writes: Hadron wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes: In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote: Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand? Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which is hard. The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means of violating it. And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it. I find it amazing that you keep insisting it is so easy and yet we see you embroiled in nitpicking over meaning time and time again. You're either very thick skinned or in denial. Nitpicking are the cretins like Rjack or Alex T They are either too thick to understand simple concepts, or they don't want to understand to keep on trolling The GPL *is* simple to understand. That *you* are unable to is not surprising. You would not understand the simplest of things Says the closed source windows programmer who insists its ok to dereference a null pointer in C. You have zero credibility. Go away. Bad rhetoric isn't a sufficient argument. -- The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals ||| for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs / | \ the social value of copyright to begin with. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: I suggest you email all these lawyers to point out the fraud you allege. I am quite busy with grandkids this week but I an aware of other's efforts to do that very thing wrt the legal departments of the fourteen corporate defendants. Hope you have a good week with the little terrors. I suspect Erik Andersen has stepped on his weenie this time. All charades have to end eventually. It's tough to have your bluff called. Paying fourteen legal firms attorney fees because of a fraudulent copyright claim could be very expensive. We shall see, in the fullness of time. However, it's not a fraudulent claim. It would appear that busybox's copyright has been violated, and Erik Andersen is a copyright holder. Huh Huh??? It would appear that busybox's copyright has been violated Pray tell Alan, who is this mysterious copyright owner named busybox? If a case is dismissed on a technicality, that isn't fraud. Nice try Alan. The technicality to which you speak is the United States Copyright Act, Title 17 USC. This is the same tactic taken by your anarchist mentors like RMS and Eben Moglen -- if it doesn't fit your philosophy then it's just a legal technicality. However, if your view of the case were accurate, the SFLC wouldn't have Started it in the first place. Do you mean to say that an SFLC lawsuit is infallible? * ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING *** The SFLC filed a whole series of federal lawsuits without any legal standing to do so. When they realized they had no standing, a fraudulent copyright registration was filed with the Copyright Office to remedy their obvious ignorance of copyright practice in the Second Federal Circuit. The SFLC will NEVER let one of their frivolous suits proceed to trial. It's all SFLC bullshit propaganda. 'Nuff said. I suspect the usual thing will happen, there will be a settlement with each defendent involving it coming into compliance with the GPL, appointing a compliance officer, and paying an unspecified sum in damages. Further speculation seems pointless. Ye Gads, Alan! Thank you, thank you. Admitting that what you are claiming is SPECULATION is a first step towards atonement and spiritual enlightenment!!!. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: We shall see, in the fullness of time. However, it's not a fraudulent claim. It would appear that busybox's copyright has been violated, and Erik Andersen is a copyright holder. Huh If a case is dismissed on a technicality, that isn't fraud. Nice try Alan. The technicality to which you speak is the United States Copyright Act, Title 17 USC. This is the same tactic taken by your anarchist mentors like RMS and Eben Moglen -- if it doesn't fit your philosophy then it's just a legal technicality. Look, let's just wait and see, OK? You don't know the full particulars of this case any more than I do. And you reckon your understanding of USA copyright law exceeds Eben Moglen's, do you? If so, on what basis? Further speculation seems pointless. Ye Gads, Alan! Thank you, thank you. Admitting that what you are claiming is SPECULATION is a first step towards atonement and spiritual enlightenment!!!. I reckon you're doing the speculating. You're also very unsure of yourself, otherwise you wouldn't be making such a song and dance about it. I've said what my prediction is. You've said what yours is, namely Erik Andersen and the SFLC will get blown out of court due to a fraudulent claim and find themselves having to pay the bills of 14 companies' lawyers. edicti We shall see. Uh... I predicted the suit will never reach a federal judge's eyes. A voluntary dismissal before the SFLC can possibly be sanctioned is my prediction. Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
