rjack wrote:
[...]
The S.F.L.C. lawyers are filing repetitive, frivolous, cookie-cutter
complaints
in the S.D.N.Y. where they would never meet the requirements for federal
jurisdiction. Subsequently they voluntarily dismiss the suits prior to the
court
ever reviewing the complaint.
thufir wrote:
The buyer is the guy who walks in off the street and purchases the router
(which run GPL'ed software)?
To my understanding, the buyer does have the right, under the GPL, to the
source. After, the GPL is targeted, you could say, at buyers to protect
copyright owners.
That
I can't follow all the mails on this list, but just to distill the
discussion down: Is someone on this list claiming after Company X sells a
source+binary copy of some GPL'd software to Buyer Y, that, in the USA,
Buyer Y can then pass on or resell the binary (without the source) without
being
Tim Smith wrote:
When I'm done watching, can I sell the recording?
The copy was lawfully made. I own the copy.
Seems like first sale says I can.
You won't be able to. The Supreme Court decision which
affirmed the legality of time-shifting refers to earlier
similar laws about audio
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
I can't follow all the mails on this list, but just to distill the
discussion down: Is someone on this list claiming after Company X sells a
source+binary copy of some GPL'd software to Buyer Y, that, in the USA,
Buyer Y can then pass on or resell the binary (without the
Hyman writes:
Authors can give up some exclusive rights.
Yes, copyright owners can give up some rights: the one in your example has
done so.
In the scenario I propose, the author has completely honored the GPL -
with every copy he sells, he includes the source, and has no further
obligation.
Ciaran writes:
I can't follow all the mails on this list, but just to distill the
discussion down: Is someone on this list claiming after Company X sells a
source+binary copy of some GPL'd software to Buyer Y, that, in the USA,
Buyer Y can then pass on or resell the binary (without the source)
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/01/section-411a-bites-plaintiff-twice.html
An opinion issued ... shows some courts may take
the requirement too seriously.
I think that awarding attorneys fees against plaintiff and forcing
John Hasler wrote:
Yes, copyright owners can give up some rights:
the one in your example has done so.
He has not.
He has also sold his right to distribute source
to the buyer of the copies.
He has not.
He no longer can distribute source: he sold that right.
He did not.
The person
John Hasler wrote:
Ciaran writes:
I can't follow all the mails on this list, but just to distill the
discussion down: Is someone on this list claiming after Company X sells a
source+binary copy of some GPL'd software to Buyer Y, that, in the USA,
Buyer Y can then pass on or resell the
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I think that awarding attorneys fees against plaintiff and forcing
plaintiff pay another case filing fee (IF and when plaintiff receives a
registration or a rejection thereof and decides to go to court once
again) is the right remedy.
Sounds good to me.
Attorney
thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] espoused:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:01:14 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
No. Whomever distributes the software is on the hook for providing the
source.
You can force people to walk the chain all the way back to the
manufacturer, but they are still ultimately on the hook
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A settlement is a private agreement between parties, and it can be as
formal or informal as they want. In any case, there is no reason that
the fine details need to be made public, and the general tendency of
lawyers is to keep things quiet, because what you
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Attorney sanctions for a non-pro litigants sounds quite reasonable to
me. Don't you agree, Hyman?
Only if they do it a bunch. Remember that Patry said
... it is quite common to permit plaintiffs to amend
their complaint after they have received a
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
There is no dispute that section 109 applies
to works in digital form.
The funny thing is that this report is actually arguing
*against* a first sale doctrine for digital objects, but
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Your essential argument is that although they are hiding the actual
settlement, they are not hiding anything within it.
No. They are hiding the exact monetary amounts involved,
for example, and there may be other things as well. We
know only what both sides have agreed
ROFL!
Yet another delay (07/16/2008 3 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge
Richard M. Berman from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 7/14/08) AND blog
announcement of yet another settlement.
(from PACER... final order is not yet available on PACER as of
07/24/2008 13:55:26 ET)
--
U.S. District Court
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
GPL. A court isn't going to let you make copies and use
first sale to sell them any more than it would let you
sell videotapes that you've recorded of over-the-air
broadcasts.
You confuse online distribution of unlimited number of copies (free
software available for
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Your essential argument is that although they are hiding the actual
settlement, they are not hiding anything within it.
No. They are hiding the exact monetary amounts involved,
for example, and there may be other things as well. We
know
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
1. Acquire a lawful copy of a GPL binary. Doesn't matter how--download
it from somewhere, compile it from source, whatever.
2. Make copies of the binary. GPL says this is OK.
3. Sell or give away those
Hyman writes:
The manufacturer sells copies of software to a reseller, in full
compliance with the GPL, shipping binaries and source. He has not sold
any rights. The reseller has not bought any rights.
You wrote that the manufacturer had been paid by the reseller for agreeing
not to make
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't follow all the mails on this list, but just to distill the
discussion down: Is someone on this list claiming after Company X sells a
source+binary copy of some GPL'd software to Buyer Y, that, in the USA,
Buyer Y
Tim Smith wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
1. Acquire a lawful copy of a GPL binary. Doesn't matter how--download
it from somewhere, compile it from source, whatever.
2. Make copies of the binary. GPL says this is OK.
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Your essential argument is that although they are hiding the actual
settlement, they are not hiding anything within it.
No. They are hiding the exact monetary amounts involved,
for example, and there may be
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html
You do not need to register to enforce your copyright.
For example, you don't need to have registered your copyright
before sending a cease-and-desist letter to a violator.
But I agree that you will need
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Yet another delay (07/16/2008 3 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge
Richard M. Berman from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 7/14/08) AND blog
announcement of yet another settlement.
Exactly as I said would happen. There's no need for scare quotes
around the word. The
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
You confuse...
...me.
In all that verbiage, I have no idea about what you
think you're arguing with me.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
So we agree...
I really have no idea what you're getting at. The SFLC
sues for GPL violations, they settle, the defendants
agree to comply with the GPL and try to make good their
previous violations, and some money changes hands.
Your interest in knowing every last detail
Tim Smith wrote:
If you are distributing your copies
What gave you the right to make copies?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
John Hasler wrote:
That is the sale of a right by the manufacturer to the reseller.
...
He owns part of the copyright (the right to distribute source).
I do not believe that either of these statements is correct.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
and apparently his comments were simply dismissed
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments system:
With respect to propagate, it is likely a tautology because of the
defintion of propagate covering only things that require permission
under applicable copyright law. But for
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
You seem to overlook the case of monetary amount
being negative to Busybox.
That could be true. Perhaps Busybox and the SFLC are
so eager to enforce GPL compliance that they don't
mind paying a little bit of money to help it along.
But I doubt it.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
(3) suit ends, (4) GPLed sources made available. That's what
I've just visited
http://www.supermicro.com/
and entered GPL in Home Contact Us Advanced Search field. Clicking
on Search button yielded
-
Supermicro Search Results
Home
Contact Us
Advanced Search
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Do you have a link, Hyman?
ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/GPL/
TFTP Listing of /GPL/ at ftp.supermicro.com
Parent Directory
Jul 08 2008 12:02 74165878 ipmi_ppc_opensrc.tgz
Jul 17 2008 11:1710212 lib_smc_usb_lcd_linux.tgz
Brand spanking new
thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:45:15 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't see why their participation is required, it's between the buyer
and the manufacturer.
No. The buyer has no rights derived from copyright law since he is not
the copyright owner.
The buyer
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But as usual, we have (1) GPL violation, (2) SFLC files suit,
(3) suit ends, (4) GPLed sources made available. That's what
GPL enforcement is all about.
The SFLC says it differently. Their GPL enforcement always seeks some
sort of penalty for the offender
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. The copyright owner has the right to demand that the buyer gets the
source. The buyer does not have this right.
If I pay at a merry-go-round for a ride of my child, the child does not
get the right to demand a ride. _I_ get the right to demand that
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Do you have a link, Hyman?
ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/GPL/
TFTP Listing of /GPL/ at ftp.supermicro.com
Parent Directory
Jul 08 2008 12:02 74165878 ipmi_ppc_opensrc.tgz
Jul 17 2008 11:1710212
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
How did you get that link, Hyman?
I wen to http://www.supermicro.com, used the menu
to click on Support/Downloads and noticed the link
Supermicro FTP Site under Additional Resources.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
How did you get that link, Hyman?
I wen to http://www.supermicro.com, used the menu
to click on Support/Downloads and noticed the link
Supermicro FTP Site under Additional Resources.
Now please go out of home and ask 100 guys on the street
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Alexander Terekhov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:38:38 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
How did you get that link, Hyman?
I wen to http://www.supermicro.com, used the menu
to click on Support/Downloads and
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Now please go out of home and ask 100 guys on the street what does FTP
Site (short of GPL) mean.
100 guys on the street, or a hundred guys on the street
who have an interest in the source code? Of the latter,
all of them know what an FTP site is.
In any case, I
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
The SFLC says it differently. Their GPL enforcement always seeks some
sort of penalty for the offender that goes far beyond simply making GPL
sources available. Otherwise future defendants would have no incentive
to not
43 matches
Mail list logo
