Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
On 4/7/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: And no costs against SFLC. Ha, ha. 04/06/2010 103 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiffs Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Andersen and Defendant Comtrend Corporation hereby stipulate to dismiss defendant Comtrend Corporation from this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and without costs to any party. Plaintiffs maintain this action against all other defendants. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/6/2010) (tro) (Entered: 04/07/2010) http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm The GPL source code contained in Comtrend product is available for free download in here. ... Another defendant who has chosen to properly comply with the GPL. Another victory for the SFLC. ___ 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 wrote: On 4/7/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: And no costs against SFLC. Ha, ha. 04/06/2010 103 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiffs Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Andersen and Defendant Comtrend Corporation hereby stipulate to dismiss defendant Comtrend Corporation from this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and without costs to any party. Plaintiffs maintain this action against all other defendants. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/6/2010) (tro) (Entered: 04/07/2010) http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm The GPL source code contained in Comtrend product is available for free download in here. ... Another defendant who has chosen to properly comply with the GPL. Another victory for the SFLC. There is, of course, no link anywhere to BusyBox, v.0.60.3. for which the plaintiffs Complaint claims infringement. We have a new game to replace the venerable Simon says game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_says Hyman says. Hyman says, We don't need to show no stinkin' link 'cause we just mooved the goalposts. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :} ___ 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 wrote: On 4/7/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: And no costs against SFLC. Ha, ha. 04/06/2010 103 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiffs Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Andersen and Defendant Comtrend Corporation hereby stipulate to dismiss defendant Comtrend Corporation from this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and without costs to any party. Plaintiffs maintain this action against all other defendants. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/6/2010) (tro) (Entered: 04/07/2010) http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm How did you come across that link, silly Hyman? Did you check the content of those tars? What exactly did you find in those tars and how did you check it regarding compliance to the GPL, you MORON Hyman? regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
On 4/7/2010 1:37 PM, RJack wrote: There is, of course, no link anywhere to BusyBox, v.0.60.3. for which the plaintiffs Complaint claims infringement. Interesting that your arguments have devolved into outright lying instead of merely being wrong. Pointless, too, since it is so easy to refute them by reading the complaint http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf. The only mention of a particular version of BusyBox is 31. Mr. Andersen is, and at all relevant times has been, a copyright owner under United States copyright law in the FOSS software program known as BusyBox. See, e.g., “BusyBox, v.0.60.3.”, Copyright Reg. No. TX0006869051 (10/2/2008). Plaintiff Software Freedom Conservancy is the corporate home for the BusyBox project and the designated copyright enforcement agent for Mr. Andersen with respect to BusyBox. The complaint does not allege that the defendants are distributing this particular version, and distributing any GPL-covered version of BusyBox is copyright infringement unless the sources are properly supplied as specified by the GPL. The defendants are required to supply the sources for the version they distribute. ___ 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
On 4/7/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm How did you come across that link? It's the I'm Feeling Lucky link in a Google search for comtrend gpl. Did you check the content of those tars? No. What exactly did you find in those tars and how did you check it regarding compliance to the GPL? I didn't look, and I have no particular interest in checking. I assume that the combination of the SFLC dropping Comtrend from the complaint and a Comtrend web page showing up with a link to GPL-ed sources means that the SFLC is satisfied with their compliance. ___ 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 wrote: On 4/7/2010 1:37 PM, RJack wrote: There is, of course, no link anywhere to BusyBox, v.0.60.3. for which the plaintiffs Complaint claims infringement. Interesting that your arguments have devolved into outright lying instead of merely being wrong. Pointless, too, since it is so easy to refute them by reading the complaint http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf. The only mention of a particular version of BusyBox is 31. Mr. Andersen is, and at all relevant times has been, a copyright owner under United States copyright law in the FOSS software program known as BusyBox. See, e.g., “BusyBox, v.0.60.3.”, Copyright Reg. No. TX0006869051 (10/2/2008). Plaintiff Software Freedom Conservancy is the corporate home for the BusyBox project and the designated copyright enforcement agent for Mr. Andersen with respect to BusyBox. ROFL. The complaint does not allege that the defendants are distributing this particular version ROFL. Hyman says. Hyman says, We don't need to show no stinkin' link 'cause we just mooved the goalposts. , and distributing any GPL-covered version of BusyBox is copyright infringement unless the sources are properly supplied as specified by the GPL. The defendants are required to supply the sources for the version they distribute Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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 wrote: On 4/7/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm How did you come across that link? It's the I'm Feeling Lucky link in a Google search for comtrend gpl. Did you check the content of those tars? No. What exactly did you find in those tars and how did you check it regarding compliance to the GPL? I didn't look, and I have no particular interest in checking. I assume that the combination of the SFLC dropping Comtrend from the complaint and a Comtrend web page showing up with a link to GPL-ed sources means that the SFLC is satisfied with their compliance. Ah. A-S-S-U-M-E makes an ASS out of U and ME. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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 wrote: On 4/7/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm How did you come across that link? It's the I'm Feeling Lucky link in a Google search for comtrend gpl. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] The only mention of a particular version of BusyBox is A copyright claim requires to identify PARTICULAR EXPRESSION, you retard. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
On 4/7/2010 2:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm Yes? The archive shows that a version of this page was present once in 2006 and throughout 2007, but not later. When present, it contained code for the CT-536+/CT-5621 product. The current web page contains source code for products CT-5621/CT-5621T, CT-5361/CT-5361T, NexusLink5631, and NexusLink5631E. The complaint mentions http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf Comtrend's CT-5621 and NexusLink 5631/5631E ADSL2+ bonded modems; So as usual, your posts are self-refuting. What appears to have happened is that Comtrend at some point stopped complying with the GPL out of laziness or inattention, the SFLC failed to gain their notice with attempts at communication, the lawsuit alerted Comtrend to the problem, they came back into compliance, and they were dropped from the suit. ___ 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
On 4/7/2010 2:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: A copyright claim requires to identify PARTICULAR EXPRESSION And once the defendants choose to point out that they are copying and distributing a different version, the BusyBox rights holders will simply register that version and go on with the suit. This may make the defendants not liable for statutory infringement, but they will still be enjoined from continuing to copy and distribute BusyBox. ___ 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 wrote: [...] they came back into compliance... Sez who? Stop being utter retard Hyman. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/7/2010 2:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: A copyright claim requires to identify PARTICULAR EXPRESSION And once the defendants choose to point out that they are copying and distributing a different version, the BusyBox rights holders will simply register that version and go on with the suit. This may make the defendants not liable for statutory infringement, but they will still be enjoined from continuing to copy and distribute BusyBox. Have another drink Hyman. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
On 4/7/2010 2:35 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: they came back into compliance... Sez who? It is the natural implication of Comtrend being dropped from the suit and their GPL source code web page (re)appearing. You may try to demonstrate otherwise if you choose, but it is usually the rights holders who decide if their rights are being violated, not cranks with axes to grind. ___ 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 wrote: On 4/7/2010 2:35 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: they came back into compliance... Sez who? It is the natural implication of Comtrend being dropped from the suit and their GPL source code Why don't you post here their GPL source code stupid Hyman? What their GPL source code are you talking about, idiot Hyman? regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
On 4/7/2010 3:07 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Why don't you post here their GPL source code stupid Hyman? What their GPL source code are you talking about, idiot Hyman? The archives downloadable from http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm. That web page says The GPL source code contained in Comtrend product is available for free download in here. and I have no reason to doubt it, since the SFLC has dropped Comtrend from its complaint. ___ 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 wrote: On 4/7/2010 2:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm Yes? The archive shows that a version of this page was present once in 2006 and throughout 2007, but not later. When present, it contained code for the CT-536+/CT-5621 product. The current web page contains source code for products CT-5621/CT-5621T, CT-5361/CT-5361T, NexusLink5631, and NexusLink5631E. The complaint mentions http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf Comtrend's CT-5621 and NexusLink 5631/5631E ADSL2+ bonded modems; So as usual, your posts are self-refuting. What appears to have happened is that Comtrend at some point stopped complying with the GPL out of laziness or inattention, the SFLC failed to gain their notice with attempts at communication, the lawsuit alerted Comtrend to the problem, they came back into compliance, and they were dropped from the suit. What appears to have happened is that the SFLC filed a mindless copyright infringement claim concerning “BusyBox, v.0.60.3.” that they can't possibly win so they are attempting to cut their losses as quickly as possible. Further prosecution of the suit would quickly run up substantial attorney fees assessed against the SFLC. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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 wrote: On 4/7/2010 2:35 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: they came back into compliance... Sez who? It is the natural implication of Comtrend being dropped from the suit and their GPL source code web page (re)appearing. You may try to demonstrate otherwise if you choose, but it is usually the rights holders who decide if their rights are being violated, not cranks with axes to grind. Wahh! Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
On 4/7/2010 4:30 PM, RJack wrote: What appears to have happened is that the SFLC filed a mindless copyright infringement claim concerning “BusyBox, v.0.60.3.” that they can't possibly win so they are attempting to cut their losses as quickly as possible. Further prosecution of the suit would quickly run up substantial attorney fees assessed against the SFLC. But the SFLC has already won, since Comtrend is now in compliance with the GPL. There are no losses to cut when you have not lost. ___ 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
On 4/7/2010 4:33 PM, RJack wrote: it'll help you get over your loss There is no loss. Rather, since Comtrend is now complying with the GPL, the SFLC has achieved its goal, and therefore has won. ___ 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 wrote: On 4/7/2010 4:33 PM, RJack wrote: it'll help you get over your loss There is no loss. Rather, since Comtrend is now complying with the GPL, the SFLC has achieved its goal, and therefore has won. Try something stronger Hyman -- maybe some Jack Daniels. Smooth sippin' for smooth mooovers. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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 pulled this Usenet boner: On 4/7/2010 4:30 PM, RJack wrote: What appears to have happened is that the SFLC filed a mindless copyright infringement claim concerning ?BusyBox, v.0.60.3.? that they can't possibly win so they are attempting to cut their losses as quickly as possible. Further prosecution of the suit would quickly run up substantial attorney fees assessed against the SFLC. But the SFLC has already won, since Comtrend is now in compliance with the GPL. There are no losses to cut when you have not lost. Odd. I started a download of the first link at http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm yesterday. Today, I remembered it, but couldn't find the file. Now none of the download links work. There is essentially nothing in this page: http://download.comtrend.com/ (I did not try to register.) -- I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach. Oh, tell me that I may sponge away the writing on this stone! -- Charles Dickens ___ 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
amicus_curious wrote: Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message news:e46vn.200849$dv7.17...@newsfe17.iad... On 4/7/2010 4:30 PM, RJack wrote: What appears to have happened is that the SFLC filed a mindless copyright infringement claim concerning BusyBox, v.0.60.3. that they can't possibly win so they are attempting to cut their losses as quickly as possible. Further prosecution of the suit would quickly run up substantial attorney fees assessed against the SFLC. But the SFLC has already won, since Comtrend is now in compliance with the GPL. There are no losses to cut when you have not lost. I was curious as to what was actually posted and I found, by following the link: Not Found The requested document was not found on this server. MORON Hyman But the SFLC has already won, because it is the natural implication of Comtrend being dropped from the suit. /MORON Hyman regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
On 4/8/2010 1:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: amicus_curious wrote: I was curious as to what was actually posted and I found, by following the link: Not Found The requested document was not found on this server. MORON Hyman But the SFLC has already won, because it is the natural implication of Comtrend being dropped from the suit. /MORON Hyman Sometimes a broken web link is just a broken web link. ___ 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 wrote: On 4/8/2010 1:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: amicus_curious wrote: I was curious as to what was actually posted and I found, by following the link: Not Found The requested document was not found on this server. MORON Hyman But the SFLC has already won, because it is the natural implication of Comtrend being dropped from the suit. /MORON Hyman Sometimes a broken web link is just a broken web link. STOP BEING UTTER IDIOT HYMAN! regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
On Apr 7, 1:13 pm, Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote: And no costs against SFLC. Ha, ha. 04/06/2010 103 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiffs Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Andersen and Defendant Comtrend Corporation hereby stipulate to dismiss defendant Comtrend Corporation from this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and without costs to any party. Plaintiffs maintain this action against all other defendants. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/6/2010) (tro) (Entered: 04/07/2010) http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-102.pdf regards, alexander. This doesn't mean they lost, in fact, it means they won. Keep in mind that although the lawsuit typically allows the plaintiff to sue for the entire maximum penalty related to copyright law violation, the SFLC is actually only requesting that the defendants comply with the original terms of the copyright license. Most of the time, when a lawsuit is filed, the lawyers find out what it would take to make it go away, and when they are told that all it will take is a link on a web page they already have, a 1 line change, and they will be in compliance, the CEO or other key decision maker is usually pretty willing to make it so. On the other hand, if a defendant's lawyers are telling that client that the copyright license may not be valid, or that there is some defense and that they shouldn't have to comply with the copyright until the Judge rules that the license itself is valid, this means more costs to both sides, and the stakes go up. Most of the time, the most ethical lawyers just tell the client to meet the license requirements and publish the link to the source. Remember, they ONLY have to publish the GNU source code, and any code compiled into the GPL source. If they use driver modules and standard modprobe tools, they probably don't have to publish any of their own code. If they call the Linux kernel by calling the glibc shared library, they won't have to publish their application code. In effect, they only have to publish the minimal code, and what they do have to publish wouldn't be sufficient to create a competitor device. On the flip side, several companies who HAVE published their source code have found that Linux and OSS developers are quite eager to take on the challenge of making a router do lots of very interesting things. For example, a WiFi or Router with a USB port can be programmed to support a USB hub, so that the router can also be the SAN storage controller for up to 6 hard drives. Netgear came up with a WiFi hub that had 4 ethernet ports and 2 USB ports. The Linux community published patches that let the device work with 2 hubs, giving it 8 drives pretty easily, and they provided a web driven iptables interface, making each ethernet port a separate sub-net. The internet interface was still a NAT, but the other ports could be set up for various levels of security. This is one of the reasons why IBM became a big fan of Open Source and Linux. They found out that when they contributed just a little, they got a huge return very quickly. As one IBM commercial put it we get back 4 times what we invest - within 6 months (IIRC - Memory is fuzzy here). Rex Ballard http://www.open4success.org ___ 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
Rex Ballard wrote: On Apr 7, 1:13 pm, Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote: And no costs against SFLC. Ha, ha. 04/06/2010 103 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiffs Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Andersen and Defendant Comtrend Corporation hereby stipulate to dismiss defendant Comtrend Corporation from this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and without costs to any party. Plaintiffs maintain this action against all other defendants. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/6/2010) (tro) (Entered: 04/07/2010) This doesn't mean they lost, in fact, it means they won. ROFL. That's exactly what Sadam Hussein claimed just moments before he was hanged. Keep spinnin' Rex -- crank up the rpm's! Why not put up or shut up? Post a verifiable settlement agreement or admit the SFLC cut and ran. Try a little honesty, it'll lighten your load Bunky. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
On 4/8/2010 3:18 PM, RJack wrote: Post a verifiable settlement agreement or admit the SFLC cut and ran. It is not necessary to post a verifiable settlement agreement and it is probably impossible to do so, since settlements are often kept private. It is only necessary to see that the SFLC demands compliance with the GPL, and that such compliance exists once the suit ends. That will be true of Comtrend once they get their broken links fixed, just as it has been true with every other defendant with whom the SFLC has settled. ___ 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 wrote: On 4/8/2010 3:18 PM, RJack wrote: Post a verifiable settlement agreement or admit the SFLC cut and ran. It is not necessary to post a verifiable settlement agreement and it is probably impossible to do so, since settlements are often kept private. It is only necessary to see that the SFLC demands compliance with the GPL, and that such compliance exists once the suit ends. That will be true of Comtrend once they get their broken links fixed, just as it has been true with every other defendant with whom the SFLC has settled. Odd. I tried the top one myself, yesterday, and it worked fine. Today, it's not. ___ 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
chrisv wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/8/2010 3:18 PM, RJack wrote: Post a verifiable settlement agreement or admit the SFLC cut and ran. It is not necessary to post a verifiable settlement agreement and it is probably impossible to do so, since settlements are often kept private. It is only necessary to see that the SFLC demands compliance with the GPL, and that such compliance exists once the suit ends. That will be true of Comtrend once they get their broken links fixed, just as it has been true with every other defendant with whom the SFLC has settled. Odd. I tried the top one myself, yesterday, and it worked fine. Today, it's not. That's life. Here today -- gone tomorrow. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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 wrote: On 4/8/2010 3:18 PM, RJack wrote: Post a verifiable settlement agreement or admit the SFLC cut and ran. It is not necessary to post a verifiable settlement agreement and it is probably impossible to do so, since settlements are often kept private. It is only necessary to see that the SFLC demands compliance with the GPL, and that such compliance exists once the suit ends. That will be true of Comtrend once they get their broken links fixed, just as it has been true with every other defendant with whom the SFLC has settled. Keep spinnin' Hyman -- just keep on spinnin' Bunky -- maybe somebody will eventually believe you. *When* they fix the broken link, will it point to the source code for BusyBox, v.0.60.3 as claimed in their frivolous lawsuit? ROFL Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
chrisv wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/8/2010 3:18 PM, RJack wrote: Post a verifiable settlement agreement or admit the SFLC cut and ran. It is not necessary to post a verifiable settlement agreement and it is probably impossible to do so, since settlements are often kept private. It is only necessary to see that the SFLC demands compliance with the GPL, and that such compliance exists once the suit ends. That will be true of Comtrend once they get their broken links fixed, just as it has been true with every other defendant with whom the SFLC has settled. Odd. I tried the top one myself, yesterday, and it worked fine. Today, it's not. I tried that link yesterday and it pointed to a tarball of a recent (2008 I think) version of BusyBox. That's why in my prior post I asked why the link didn't point to BusyBox, v.0.60.3 as claimed in their frivolous infringement lawsuit. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
On 4/8/2010 3:53 PM, RJack wrote: *When* they fix the broken link, will it point to the source code for BusyBox, v.0.60.3 as claimed in their frivolous lawsuit? Of course not, unless that is the version of the binary which the (former) defendants are distributing. You are also deliberately lying, since the lawsuit in fact does not claim infringement of this version in particular. ___ 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
On 4/8/2010 4:08 PM, RJack wrote: I tried that link yesterday and it pointed to a tarball of a recent (2008 I think) version of BusyBox. That's why in my prior post I asked why the link didn't point to BusyBox, v.0.60.3 as claimed in their frivolous infringement lawsuit. You are deliberately lying, since the lawsuit in fact does not claim infringement of this version in particular. ___ 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 wrote: On 4/8/2010 3:53 PM, RJack wrote: *When* they fix the broken link, will it point to the source code for BusyBox, v.0.60.3 as claimed in their frivolous lawsuit? Of course not, unless that is the version of the binary which the (former) defendants are distributing. You are also deliberately lying, since the lawsuit in fact does not claim infringement of this version in particular. BusyBox, v.0.60.3 is the version of BusyBox registered with the Copyright Office by the plaintiff and is the only copyrighted work claimed in the lawsuit. You may turn red in the face with eyes bulging and rhetorically claim that I'm lying but it won't get you anywhere. The claim-processing requirements of 17 USC sec 411 (no longer jurisdictional after Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, Case No. 08-103) require the alleged infringed work be registered with specificity. It is the job of the trier of fact to compare the *registered* work with the alleged infringing copy for substantial similarity. In the instant suit, no binary has been *registered* for comparison with the alleged infringing binary. I'll leave it to you to explain how a jury would compare a work that you *refuse* to identify with *specificity* with some *alleged* infringing work. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
RJack u...@example.net writes: You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier of fact compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to identify with an *alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury members to compare? Uh, by comparing code passages, like one always does in a case like that? Unless the project restarted from scratch between versions, or was available under different licensing options (in which case claims of a differently licensed obtained copy might need to be examined), enough protectable material found in one version will reappear in the other version under the same protection and licensing. Copyright protection does not go away by changing a few lines, regardless of _who_ changed the lines. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] It is the job of the trier of fact to compare the *registered* work with the alleged infringing copy for substantial similarity. In the instant suit, no binary has been *registered* for comparison with the alleged infringing binary. I'll leave it to you to explain how a jury would compare a work that you *refuse* to identify with *specificity* with some *alleged* infringing work. No, this is false. You really are ignorant in this subject. http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0300.asp Uh retard Hyman. 324 Deposit for registration: identifying material. Where a computer program is fixed or published only in the form of machine-readable copies, the deposit for registration purposes shall consist of one copy of identifying portions of the pro- gram, reproduced in a form visually perceptible without the aid of a machine or device, either on paper or in microform. For these purposes, identifying portions shall mean either the first and last 25 pages or equivalent units of the program if reproduced on paper, or at least the first and last 25 pages or equivalent units of the program if reproduced in microform, to- gether with the page or equivalent unit contain- ing the copyright notice, if any. See 37 C.F.R. 202.20(c)(2)(vii). If the computer pro- gram is less than 50 pages in length, the entire program should be deposited. For registration of a derivative computer program, identifying portions of the new material should be included in the deposit. NOTE: Works fixed or published in both machine-readable and visually-perceptible form are not considered machine-readable works for purposes of deposit for registration. The appropriate deposit requirements for the visually-perceptible form apply. See section 806.12 of Chapter 800: DEPOSIT FOR REGISTRA- TION. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
On 4/8/2010 6:44 PM, RJack wrote: You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier of fact compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to identify with an *alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury members to compare? Gathering such evidence will happen during discovery. Depositions will be taken in order to determine the provenance of the software being distributed by the defendants, plaintiffs will offer forensic evidence based on analysis of the distributed binaries, and then the plaintiffs will demonstrate that the software is being copied and distributed in violation of its license. ___ 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
Alan Mackenzie wrote: [... typical Rex Ballard's amusing baloney ...] Thanks for this contribution! Seconded. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] Depositions will be taken in order to determine the provenance of the software being distributed by the defendants, . . . What are you smoking Hyman? regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
On 4/9/2010 5:48 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: 324 Deposit for registration: identifying material. Yes, so? What does this have to do with registering source vs. binary? ___ 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 wrote: On 4/8/2010 5:57 PM, RJack wrote: BusyBox, v.0.60.3 is the version of BusyBox registered with the Copyright Office by the plaintiff According to the complaint http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf this is a version registered by the plaintiff. The complaint does not say that it is the only version so registered. and is the only copyrighted work claimed in the lawsuit. No, that is plainly false, easily seen to be so by reading the complaint. The copyrighted work which the plaintiffs claim is being infringed is BusyBox, not nay particular version of it. This is correct, since the plaintiffs hold copyright to all versions of BusyBox from the one in which they first made modifications. The claim-processing requirements of 17 USC sec 411 (no longer jurisdictional after Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, Case No. 08-103) require the alleged infringed work be registered with specificity. The plaintiffs can register any later version as becomes necessary and amend the complaint. The defendants might then not be liable for statutory infringement on that version, but could be enjoined from copying and distributing it further. It is the job of the trier of fact to compare the *registered* work with the alleged infringing copy for substantial similarity. In the instant suit, no binary has been *registered* for comparison with the alleged infringing binary. I'll leave it to you to explain how a jury would compare a work that you *refuse* to identify with *specificity* with some *alleged* infringing work. No, this is false. You really are ignorant in this subject. http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0300.asp 321.03 Relationship between source code and object code. The Copyright Office considers source code and object code as two representations of the same computer program. For registration purposes, the claim is in the computer program rather than in any particular representation of the program. Thus separate registrations are not appropriate for the source code and object code representations of the same computer program. However, where a work in source code is registered in unpublished form, and the published version of the same work is submitted for registration in object code form, registration will be made. You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier of fact compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to identify with an *alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury members to compare? Remember the Scheduling Order? --- Shira A. Scheindlin U.S.D.J. ... 2. A concise statement of the issues as they then appear; Pending results of Defendants' investigations, Defendants intend to show that the Plaintiff's have no damages, that the Defendants did nothing actionable under copyright law, that any alleged copying was not willful, that Plaintiffs are not the proper parties, that the copyright held by Mr. Andersen is not applicable, and that, since being put on notice of the purported requirements of the general public license, Defendants have endeavored to come into compliance with what can only be described as a 'moving target'. -- [w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'. [w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'. [w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'. [w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'. [w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'. ROFL ROFL ROFL Let the Plaintiffs continue to refuse to identify the *specific* work that was *allegedly* infringed and see where it gets you with the court. Stop the Bullshit Hyman. Let the truth shine through. BusyBox, v.0.60.3 is the version of BusyBox registered with the Copyright Office by the plaintiff and is the only copyrighted work claimed in the lawsuit. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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 wrote: On 4/9/2010 5:48 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: 324 Deposit for registration: identifying material. Yes, so? A copyright claim requires to identify PARTICULAR EXPRESSION, you retard. Why don't you post here their GPL source code, stupid Hyman? What their GPL source code are you talking about, idiot Hyman? regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
On 4/9/2010 11:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: A copyright claim requires to identify PARTICULAR EXPRESSION Yes, so? Why don't you post here their GPL source code? For what? What their GPL source code are you talking about? The source code of BusyBox. As usual, you are failing to communicate. BusyBox is a program in which the SFLC plaintiffs hold copyright. It is a work which is in constant modification, so there are many versions of it. Each modification is a derivative work of the version modified, and therefore any rights holder in a particular version is also a rights holder in all subsequent versions. The only permission to copy and distribute BusyBox comes via its license, the GPL. If defendants are copying and distributing any version of BusyBox without complying with the GPL, then they are infringing copyright. It may be that in some circuits, it is necessary that the rights holders have registered the specific version alleged to be infringed, in which case the plaintiffs can register that version and refile their claims, with the only effect being that they can not claim statutory damages for the infringement which occurred prior to the registration. ___ 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 wrote: [...] via its license, the GPL. If defendants are copying and distributing any version of BusyBox without complying with the GPL, then they are infringing copyright. Sez who? regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
On 4/9/2010 11:26 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] via its license, the GPL. If defendants are copying and distributing any version of BusyBox without complying with the GPL, then they are infringing copyright. Sez who? The Copyright Act, of course, in 17 USC 103: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/103.html The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 [17 USC 102] includes compilations and derivative works ___ 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 wrote: On 4/8/2010 6:44 PM, RJack wrote: You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier of fact compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to identify with an *alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury members to compare? Gathering such evidence will happen during discovery. Depositions will be taken in order to determine the provenance of the software being distributed by the defendants, plaintiffs will offer forensic evidence based on analysis of the distributed binaries, and then the plaintiffs will demonstrate that the software is being copied and distributed in violation of its license. The claim processing rules dictated by 17 USC sec. 411(a) require the specific work be identified through registration with the Copyright Office. Stop making up nonsense Hyman. I'll bet the farm that no significant discovery will *ever* occur. A defendant's F.R.C.P. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss will be granted and this charade of a lawsuit along with the GPL will end soon. The only hope for the SFLC is to somehow beg all the defendants for a stipulated voluntary dismissal. There is no way Best Buy Inc. will stipulate to dismiss without their counterclaim for a declaratory judgement being granted. The SFLC has finally had their bluff called by several defendants. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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 wrote: On 4/9/2010 11:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: A copyright claim requires to identify PARTICULAR EXPRESSION Yes, so? Why don't you post here their GPL source code? For what? What their GPL source code are you talking about? The source code of BusyBox. As usual, you are failing to communicate. BusyBox is a program in which the SFLC plaintiffs hold copyright. It is a work which is in constant modification, so there are many versions of it. Each modification is a derivative work of the version modified, and therefore any rights holder in a particular version is also a rights holder in all subsequent versions. You can only claim infringement for works that *you* own. Register *your* contribution and stop claiming rights to ownership of a derivative work as a whole. The only permission to copy and distribute BusyBox comes via its license, the GPL. If defendants are copying and distributing any version of BusyBox without complying with the GPL, then they are infringing copyright. It may be that in some circuits, it is necessary that the rights holders have registered the specific version alleged to be infringed, in which case the plaintiffs can register that version and refile their claims, with the only effect being that they can not claim statutory damages for the infringement which occurred prior to the registration. Stop making up stuff Hyman. You sound ridiculous. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
On 4/9/2010 11:37 AM, RJack wrote: The claim processing rules dictated by 17 USC sec. 411(a) require the specific work be identified through registration with the Copyright Office. Stop making up nonsense Hyman. Tell it to the court: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14760460/Simplexgrinnell-v-Integrated-040809 39. ... Provided that SimplexGrinnell register its copyrights, therefore, should ISPI engage in further infringement of versions not covered by this injunction, injunctive relief, and possible damages in significant amount, may follow. There is thus an adequate deterrent to future abuse by ISPI of copyrighted materials. ___ 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 wrote: [...] http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/103.html http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html See also [LOL] Hey Alan, Pee Jay's mind is going to explode soon thread here: 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. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
On 4/9/2010 11:51 AM, RJack wrote: You can only claim infringement for works that *you* own. Register *your* contribution and stop claiming rights to ownership of a derivative work as a whole. That's what registration of copyright means; it reflects the registrant's ownership of rights, but does not impugn the rights of any other holder. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered copyright on the issues and the books. But to suppose that by doing so he provided notice to Gaiman of his exclusive claim to the characters is again untenable. Authors don’t consult the records of the Copyright Office to see whether someone has asserted copyright in their works; and anyway McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s own contributions as compiler and illustrator, than the copyright notices did. The significance of registration is that it is a prerequisite to a suit to enforce a copyright. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/8/2010 6:44 PM, RJack wrote: You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier of fact compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to identify with an *alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury members to compare? Gathering such evidence will happen during discovery. Depositions will be taken in order to determine the provenance of the software being distributed by the defendants, plaintiffs will offer forensic evidence based on analysis of the distributed binaries, and then the plaintiffs will demonstrate that the software is being copied and distributed in violation of its license. The claim processing rules dictated by 17 USC sec. 411(a) require the specific work be identified through registration with the Copyright Office. And enough material from the specific work identified through registration can be found in the distributed software, even though it is a different version. So copyrightable material has been identified, and a license is needed for redistribution. Stop making up nonsense Hyman. I'll bet the farm that no significant discovery will *ever* occur. And every single defendant will for some entirely unrelated reason come into compliance without actually needing to do so, out of some whim that has nothing to do with the case. Your usual fairy tale when a GPL case succeeds. A defendant's F.R.C.P. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss will be granted and this charade of a lawsuit along with the GPL will end soon. The only hope for the SFLC is to somehow beg all the defendants for a stipulated voluntary dismissal. There is no way Best Buy Inc. will stipulate to dismiss without their counterclaim for a declaratory judgement being granted. The SFLC has finally had their bluff called by several defendants. Yes, the same fairy tale as before. They'll crawl back into their hole and by some utterly unrelated und incomprehensible act, GPLed sources will be made available by defendants. Like it happened every time so far. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 11:37 AM, RJack wrote: The claim processing rules dictated by 17 USC sec. 411(a) require the specific work be identified through registration with the Copyright Office. Stop making up nonsense Hyman. Tell it to the court: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14760460/Simplexgrinnell-v-Integrated-040809 39. ... Provided that SimplexGrinnell register its copyrights, therefore, should ISPI engage in further infringement of versions not covered by this injunction, injunctive relief, and possible damages in significant amount, may follow. There is thus an adequate deterrent to future abuse by ISPI of copyrighted materials. That's one of the slickest out of context edits I've seen for a while Hyman. Try: 39. That is not to say that SimplexGrinnell is entirely without remedy as to ISPI’s unauthorized use of other versions. Now that the meaning of the Bankruptcy Stipulation is authoritatively established, ISPI is on clear notice that it may not use SimplexGrinnell’s proprietary software beyond the limits set forth in this opinion. Provided that SimplexGrinnell register its copyrights, therefore, should ISPI engage in further infringement of versions not covered by this injunction, injunctive relief, and possible damages in significant amount, may follow. ROFL... Provided that SimplexGrinnell register its copyrights... possible damages in significant amount, may follow. ROFL... You're a great fan of provided that and may aren't you Hyman? Sincerely, Rjack ___ 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
David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/8/2010 6:44 PM, RJack wrote: You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier of fact compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to identify with an *alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury members to compare? Gathering such evidence will happen during discovery. Depositions will be taken in order to determine the provenance of the software being distributed by the defendants, plaintiffs will offer forensic evidence based on analysis of the distributed binaries, and then the plaintiffs will demonstrate that the software is being copied and distributed in violation of its license. The claim processing rules dictated by 17 USC sec. 411(a) require the specific work be identified through registration with the Copyright Office. And enough material from the specific work identified through registration can be found in the distributed software, even though it is a different version. So copyrightable material has been identified, and a license is needed for redistribution. Stop making up nonsense Hyman. I'll bet the farm that no significant discovery will *ever* occur. And every single defendant will for some entirely unrelated reason come into compliance without actually needing to do so, out of some whim that has nothing to do with the case. Your usual fairy tale when a GPL case succeeds. A defendant's F.R.C.P. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss will be granted and this charade of a lawsuit along with the GPL will end soon. The only hope for the SFLC is to somehow beg all the defendants for a stipulated voluntary dismissal. There is no way Best Buy Inc. will stipulate to dismiss without their counterclaim for a declaratory judgement being granted. The SFLC has finally had their bluff called by several defendants. Yes, the same fairy tale as before. They'll crawl back into their hole and by some utterly unrelated und incomprehensible act, GPLed sources will be made available by defendants. Like it happened every time so far. Good morning DAK. Have another drink of Moglen's patented joy juice. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Like it happened every time so far. Like http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz you moron dak. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
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 than a time-shifted recording made for personal use is such a copy. ___ 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
On 4/9/2010 12:44 PM, RJack wrote: That's one of the slickest out of context edits I've seen for a while What do you believe the full context communicates that the excerpt does not? You're a great fan of provided that and may aren't you Hyman? The court plainly states that the remedy for infringement on unregistered versions is to register them and then file further claims. That is what GPL plaintiffs will do should it prove necessary. ___ 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 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 than a time-shifted recording made for personal use is such a copy. Do you dream up this tripe without anyone's help? You're showing real originality in your imaginings. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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 wrote: On 4/9/2010 12:44 PM, RJack wrote: That's one of the slickest out of context edits I've seen for a while What do you believe the full context communicates that the excerpt does not? You're a great fan of provided that and may aren't you Hyman? The court plainly states that the remedy for infringement on unregistered versions is to register them and then file further claims. Yeah -- in a future action. So what? That is what GPL plaintiffs will do should it prove necessary. Frogs *should* grow wings so that they won't bump their asses. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ 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 wrote: On 4/9/2010 12:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Like http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link. Sometimes a claimed victory is just propaganda hype. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
On 4/9/2010 1:39 PM, RJack wrote: Yeah -- in a future action. So what? So if a court finds it cannot deal with a GPL copyright infringement claim because the particular infringed version isn't registered, the plaintiffs will register that version and bring the case again, just as the court suggested in the SimplexGrinnell case. ___ 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 wrote: On 4/9/2010 1:39 PM, RJack wrote: Yeah -- in a future action. So what? So if a court finds it cannot deal with a GPL copyright infringement claim because the particular infringed version isn't registered, the plaintiffs will register that version and bring the case again, just as the court suggested in the SimplexGrinnell case. No GPL license infringement suit would ever survive to the discovery stage so the point is moot. The GPL is preempted under U.S. copyright law as well as being unenforceable under the common law of contracts. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
On 4/9/2010 2:29 PM, RJack wrote: The GPL is preempted under U.S. copyright law The GPL functions properly under US copyright law. The preemption of state laws equivalent to copyright is irrelevant to the GPL. as well as being unenforceable under the common law of contracts. The GPL is not enforceable because it is a voluntary license which need not be accepted. However, absent its acceptance, there is no permission to copy and distribute covered works, and anyone who does so is infringing copyright. ___ 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 wrote: On 4/9/2010 2:29 PM, RJack wrote: The GPL is preempted under U.S. copyright law The GPL functions properly under US copyright law. The preemption of state laws equivalent to copyright is irrelevant to the GPL. as well as being unenforceable under the common law of contracts. The GPL is not enforceable because it is a voluntary license which need not be accepted. Ah... I believe that's known in the vernacular as Pee Jays therom. However, absent its acceptance, there is no permission to copy and distribute covered works, and anyone who does so is infringing copyright. You can't accept illegal terms... the law refuses to enforce them. Oh beautiful estoppel! Wondrous are your ways! You maketh my code public domain! Oh fair estoppel! Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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 wrote: On 4/9/2010 2:54 PM, RJack wrote: You can't accept illegal terms... the law refuses to enforce them. Fortunately the terms of the GPL are legal. Oh beautiful estoppel! Wondrous are your ways! You maketh my code public domain! Oh fair estoppel! There is no estoppel with respect to the GPL since the GPL clearly spells out the requirements for allowing covered code to be copied and distributed. That an anti-GPL crank believes the permissions of the GPL apply while the requirements do not simply confirms that person as a crank, but does not impact the GPL at all. Crank this Mr. Denier: To apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the proponent must demonstrate: (1) a clear and unambiguous promise; (2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; and (3) an injury sustained in reliance on the promise (see NGR, LLC v General Elec. Co., 24 AD3d 425 [2005]). Estoppel requires detriment to the party claiming to have been misled (see Nassau Trust Co., 56 NY2d at 184).; New York Supreme Court, Kings County Docket No. 2009-04019 Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
On 4/9/2010 3:46 PM, RJack wrote: Crank this Mr. Denier: To apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the proponent must demonstrate: (1) a clear and unambiguous promise; (2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; and (3) an injury sustained in reliance on the promise (see NGR, LLC v General Elec. Co., 24 AD3d 425 [2005]). Estoppel requires detriment to the party claiming to have been misled (see Nassau Trust Co., 56 NY2d at 184).; New York Supreme Court, Kings County Docket No. 2009-04019 There is no estoppel with respect to the GPL since the GPL clearly spells out the requirements for allowing covered code to be copied and distributed. That an anti-GPL crank believes the permissions of the GPL apply while the requirements do not simply confirms that person as a crank, but does not impact the GPL at all. ___ 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 wrote: On 4/9/2010 3:46 PM, RJack wrote: Crank this Mr. Denier: To apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the proponent must demonstrate: (1) a clear and unambiguous promise; (2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; and (3) an injury sustained in reliance on the promise (see NGR, LLC v General Elec. Co., 24 AD3d 425 [2005]). Estoppel requires detriment to the party claiming to have been misled (see Nassau Trust Co., 56 NY2d at 184).; New York Supreme Court, Kings County Docket No. 2009-04019 There is no estoppel with respect to the GPL since the GPL clearly spells out the requirements for allowing covered code to be copied and distributed. That an anti-GPL crank believes the permissions of the GPL apply while the requirements do not simply confirms that person as a crank, but does not impact the GPL at all. Don't go to a real court Hyman. You'll find the court won't indulge your denials anymore than the federal courts listened to the Birther's claims of non-citizenship for Obama. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
On 4/9/2010 4:32 PM, RJack wrote: Don't go to a real court Hyman. You'll find the court won't indulge your denials anymore than the federal courts listened to the Birther's claims of non-citizenship for Obama. ROFL. According to this paper, http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/Publications/IP/IP_bulletins/IP_Bulletin_Fall_2006.pdf estoppel claims could in fact apply to GPL cases, but in the opposite way than anti-GPL cranks hope. A distributor of code under the GPL who asserts patent rights to prevent an invention embodied in the code from being practiced could have estoppel claimed against him. According to this paper, http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf the GPL is not a contract. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 2:29 PM, RJack wrote: The GPL is preempted under U.S. copyright law The GPL functions properly under US copyright law. The preemption of state laws equivalent to copyright is irrelevant to the GPL. as well as being unenforceable under the common law of contracts. The GPL is not enforceable because it is a voluntary license which need not be accepted. Ah... I believe that's known in the vernacular as Pee Jays therom. I'd rather call it clause 9 of the GPL. 9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies. You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
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. The result is a belateral contract. However, implicit in a nonexclusive license is the promise not to sue for copyright infringement. See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673, 677 (9th Cir. 1996), citing De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, 242 (1927) (finding that a nonexclusive license is, in essence, a mere waiver of the right to sue the licensee for infringement); see also Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that the granting of a nonexclusive license may be oral or by conduct and a such a license creates a waiver of the right to sue in copyright, but not the right to sue for breach of contract). Jacobsen v. Katzer, No. 3:06-cv-01905, (N.D. Cal. 2007) regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
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. 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) regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/9/2010 4:32 PM, RJack wrote: Don't go to a real court Hyman. You'll find the court won't indulge your denials anymore than the federal courts listened to the Birther's claims of non-citizenship for Obama. ROFL. According to this paper, http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/Publications/IP/IP_bulletins/IP_Bulletin_Fall_2006.pdf estoppel claims could in fact apply to GPL cases, but in the opposite way than anti-GPL cranks hope. A distributor of code under the GPL who asserts patent rights to prevent an invention embodied in the code from being practiced could have estoppel claimed against him. According to this paper, http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf the GPL is not a contract. The GPL might also prevent unwanted pregnancies in China as well as cure breast cancer worldwide. I wonder what the odds are. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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 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. 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. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: 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
David Kastrup wrote: 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. Uh moron dak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_under_American_law Consideration is the central concept in the common law of contracts and is required, in most cases, for a contract to be enforceable. Consideration is the price one pays for another's promise. It can take a number of forms: money, property, a promise, the doing of an act, or even refraining from doing an act. In broad terms, if one agrees to do something he was not otherwise legally obligated to do, it may be said that he has given consideration. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
David Kastrup wrote: 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 Go to doctor idiot dak. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Like it happened every time so far. Like http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz you moron dak. Actually it's there somewhere... It's just that it's a *moving target* now: -- Shira A. Scheindlin U.S.D.J. ... 2. A concise statement of the issues as they then appear; Pending results of Defendants' investigations, Defendants intend to show that the Plaintiff's have no damages, that the Defendants did nothing actionable under copyright law, that any alleged copying was not willful, that Plaintiffs are not the proper parties, that the copyright held by Mr. Andersen is not applicable, and that, since being put on notice of the purported requirements of the general public license, Defendants have endeavored to come into compliance with what can only be described as a 'moving target'. -- ROFL Hey Hyman! Where's the BusyBox, v.0.60.3 link as claimed in their frivolous infringement lawsuit? Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
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 you moron dak. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Alexander Terekhov wrote: 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. Be careful here Alexander. Hyman has Pee Jay and Eben Moglen on his side. That pair of legal experts are renowned scholars who meticulously cite and interpret federal court decisions concerning U.S. copyright law. After carefully evaluating case decisions spanning the past eighty three years, Eben and Pee Jay have concluded that licenses are not contracts. Hyman is going to publish the Table of Cases Index amassed by Eben and Pee Jay along with all the settlement agreements signed by the SFLC in GPL cases. What'll we do then? I suppose we'll just have to wait until Hyman releases his documentation to decide. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
David Kastrup wrote: 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: Yeah... Implicit in that permission was a promise not to sue for copyright infringement--a promise that at least one court has found to be the essence of a nonexclusive license. See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673, 677 (9th Cir.1996) ([A] nonexclusive patent license is, in essence, 'a mere waiver of the right to sue' the licensee for infringement.) (quoting De Forest Radio Telephone Telegraph Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, 242, 47 S.Ct. 366, 368, 71 L.Ed. 625 (1927)). http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/110/110.F3d.749.96-2636.html 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. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
David Kastrup wrote: 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. The GPL license to many is like the written word of God. You should accept it on faith alone. You vile Heretic. 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: Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
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. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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: [...] 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 you moron dak. regards, alexander. 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. ___ 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 wrote: 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 Wow! That link is powerful evidence confirming for the effectiveness of the GPL. Wow! Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
David Kastrup wrote: 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? Uh. Huh? http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz Out of court settlements are private. But the results speak for themselves. Yeah... For instance see: http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
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. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: 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
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. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. ___ 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 wrote: [...] Hyman has Pee Jay and Eben Moglen on his side. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/FLOSS_Weekly_13:_Eben_Moglen_on_GPL_3.0 [Leo Laporte:] So, are you, youre an attorney, Eben? [Eben Moglen:] Yes, thats correct, I went to law school and got a history Ph.D. after a career as a computer programming language designer. [...] I went to become a law professor at Columbia, and then I was hired as, and academically was carried on the books as, a legal historian, I taught old law from medieval English law through my own specialty which was the law of the American colonies and the early national United States. So I worked at that, I wrote legal history for several years full time. But I was interested in freedom and technology . . . LMAO! regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
David Kastrup wrote: [...] URL:http://www.comtrend.com/na/privacy.htm says LOL. Firmware/Software License Agreement In accordance with the terms accompanying the file (or the license authorization which was supplied with the original product) one copy of the firmware/software may be downloaded. However, the modification, exchange for money, or distribution of any firmware/software is strictly forbidden. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
David Kastrup wrote: [...] 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. Yeah, like Not Found The requested document was not found on this server. Web Server at winwebhostingplesk.com http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
On 4/10/2010 7:33 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright infringement of GPL-covered works Samsung and several other defendants disagree with you The defendants, as is proper, throw up every possible legal defense against the claims of the plaintiff. They would be remiss not to do so. That does not mean that their claims are valid, and it will be up to the plaintiffs to show why they are not. It's odd the way you seem to believe that ordinary lawyering somehow proves that your false beliefs are true. ___ 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
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. ___ 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 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. 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? Maybe there's a diabolical conspiracy of GPL cranks stealing the links to the allegedly posted code. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ 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
