Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 5:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: actiontec.com is NOT verizon.net "Rjack" wrote: Agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a contractual or quasi-contractual tripartite, or non-contractual set of relationships when an agent is authorized to act on be

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > All the plaintiffs need to show is that Andersen holds > copyright in a part of BusyBox, and that the defendants > are copying and distributing it without permission. http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/02/08/copyrights-and-wrongs/ Larry Rosen correctly noted:

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/10/2010 5:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > actiontec.com is NOT verizon.net > > "Rjack" wrote: RJack didn't wrote that actiontec.com is verizon.net, YOU MORON HYMAN. regards, alexander. P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises u

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 5:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Heck, are you seriously suggesting that the GPL doesn't intend to "protect" user's rights indended to be equal to the developers rights and that co-author's developer rights under the GPL are not equal rights to the other co-au

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/10/2010 5:48 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > LMAO! Don't you think that the GPL is not the state and as such it just > > can't grant any copyright irrespective of jointness under 17 USC 101 > > In the case of a GPLed work . . . One *SINGLE* (consisting of a separat

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

On 2/10/2010 5:48 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: LMAO! Don't you think that the GPL is not the state and as such it just can't grant any copyright irrespective of jointness under 17 USC 101 Joint authorship exists only when all authors intend that it should.

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

chrisv http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/2007/09/chrisv-liar.html wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > >On 2/10/2010 3:50 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > >> The idea is that by doing a few modifying and copyrightable changes into > >> a "single program" in response to the GPL offer one becomes a

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > law alone would permit, and since the GPL does not grant > such other authors joint copyright, they do not have it. LMAO! Don't you think that the GPL is not the state and as such it just can't grant any copyright irrespective of jointness under 17 USC 101, YOU MORON HY

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

On 2/10/2010 5:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: actiontec.com is NOT verizon.net "Rjack" wrote: Agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a contractual or quasi-contractual tripartite, or non-contractual set of relationships when an agent is authorized to act on behalf of

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

On 2/10/2010 5:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Heck, are you seriously suggesting that the GPL doesn't intend to "protect" user's rights indended to be equal to the developers rights and that co-author's developer rights under the GPL are not equal rights to the other co-author(s) People who r

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp > > Where is the complete corresponding source code regarding the complete > > binary code above? > > > > Please share with us the location of the complete corresponding source > > code (re: complete binary code at > >

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

Hyman Rosen wrote: >On 2/10/2010 3:50 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >> The idea is that by doing a few modifying and copyrightable changes into >> a "single program" in response to the GPL offer one becomes a joint >> copyright owner of the entire work "as a whole" and can rightfully >> license

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

Take your meds, Hyman. Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Precisely. In order for a many-authored GPLed work to be a joint work, > you would need to demonstrate that each author has so intended, and has > intended to give all the co-authors equal rights to the work. Heck, are you seriously suggesting th

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp Where is the complete corresponding source code regarding the complete binary code above? Please share with us the location of the complete corresponding source code (re: complete binary code at http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actionte

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > As evidence that Verizon does know about the GPL, see >

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

On 2/10/2010 4:39 PM, RJack wrote: "17 USC Sec. 101 -- A “joint work” is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." Precisely. In order for a many-authored GPLed work to be a joint wo

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

Alexander Terekhov wrote: You don't understand, Hyman. The idea is that by doing a few modifying and copyrightable changes into a "single program" in response to the GPL offer one becomes a joint copyright owner of the entire work "as a whole" and can rightfully license that entire work (with 'a

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

On 2/10/2010 4:08 PM, RJack wrote: WTF does that have to do with the Supreme Court and NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. TASINI. TASANI didn't address blanket injunctions concerning copyright registration in derivative works. You would have to ask the author of the citation. It sounds to me that she believ

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

On 2/10/2010 3:57 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html As evidence that Verizon does know about the GPL, see

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

On 2/10/2010 3:53 PM, RJack wrote: "37 CFR § 202.3 Registration of copyright. (3) For the purposes of this section, a copyright claimant is either: (i) The author of a work; (ii) A person or organization that has obtained ownership of all rights under the copyright initially belonging to the auth

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

On 2/10/2010 3:50 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: You don't understand, Hyman. No, you don't understand. The idea is that by doing a few modifying and copyrightable changes into a "single program" in response to the GPL offer one becomes a joint copyright owner of the entire work "as a whole" a

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 3:29 PM, RJack wrote: 1) The link: isn't my link But they are discussing the same case. 2)

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > settlement is reached, so that the defendants can be > confident that the plaintiffs will not attempt to > re-litigate the issue. http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html "LAS VEGAS -- I just got out of a Q&A session with Verizon

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 10:39 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of ownership In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered copyright on the issues and th

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

You don't understand, Hyman. The idea is that by doing a few modifying and copyrightable changes into a "single program" in response to the GPL offer one becomes a joint copyright owner of the entire work "as a whole" and can rightfully license that entire work (with 'as a whole' as 'defined' and

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

On 2/10/2010 3:29 PM, RJack wrote: 1) The link: isn't my link But they are discussing the same case. 2) Did you notice the future t

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 2:09 PM, RJack wrote: "Posted On: September 7, 2009 by David Johnson Good Copyright Registration "Hygiene" Necessary to Obtain Copyright Protection over Revised Versions of Software" http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/good_copyright_registration_hy_1.h

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

On 2/10/2010 3:19 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The SFLC has sued Verizon True. > (the case was then quickly dismissed with prejudice against plaintiffs The case was quickly dismissed by the plaintiffs, not against the plaintiffs, because the sides settled. It is common to dismiss a case with

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/10/2010 2:24 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > "GPL Code Requests > > 4250 Buckingham Drive Suite #400 > > Colorado Springs, Co 80907 " > > > > Right? > > > > Now, > > > > http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_6f3dp > > > > "Actiontec Electronics, Inc (Actiontec) > > 4

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

Khlmann Peter http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/2007/09/peter-khlmann-liar.html wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > > > Peter Köhlmann wrote: > > [...] > >> > That "where to get" is NOT Verizon's location and has nothing to do > >> > with Verison's location above, silly dak. > >> > > >> >

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

On 2/10/2010 2:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] Notice here that he says "a copyright owner" not "the copyright owner". http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf "20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

On 2/10/2010 2:24 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "GPL Code Requests 4250 Buckingham Drive Suite #400 Colorado Springs, Co 80907 " Right? Now, http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_6f3dp "Actiontec Electronics, Inc (Actiontec) 4250 Buckingham Dr # 400 Colorado Springs, CO 80907 . . . Phone: (7

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

On 2/10/2010 2:09 PM, RJack wrote: "Posted On: September 7, 2009 by David Johnson Good Copyright Registration "Hygiene" Necessary to Obtain Copyright Protection over Revised Versions of Software" http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/good_copyright_registration_hy_1.html

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Notice here that he says "a copyright owner" not "the copyright > owner". http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf "20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Peter Köhlmann wrote: > [...] >> > That "where to get" is NOT Verizon's location and has nothing to do >> > with Verison's location above, silly dak. >> > >> >> Oh, and you twit can certainly point to the exact place in the GPL >> where > > http://linuxidiots.blogs

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

On 2/10/2010 1:19 PM, RJack wrote: 1) The Best Buys et.al. suit filed by the SFLC is in the Second > Circuit not the Seventh Circuit of the Gaiman_v._McFarlane suit. Does that mean you believe the judge was wrong in McFarlane v. Gaiman? Is it crank vs. court again? 2) The Gaiman_v._McFarlane

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > . > Verizon also makes source available through the offer of > a physical copy for no more than distribution costs ($10) > listed on the same page. Uh MORON Hyman:

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

On 2/10/2010 1:15 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: That "where to get" is NOT Verizon's location and has nothing to do with Verison's location above, silly dak. The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is accompanied by source found at

Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

"Posted On: September 7, 2009 by David Johnson Good Copyright Registration "Hygiene" Necessary to Obtain Copyright Protection over Revised Versions of Software" http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/good_copyright_registration_hy_1.html The case was SimplexGrinnell LP v. Integrated System

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

On 2/10/2010 12:47 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available There's no reason to do it -- to wit: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is accompanied by

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

Peter Köhlmann wrote: [...] > > That "where to get" is NOT Verizon's location and has nothing to do with > > Verison's location above, silly dak. > > > > Oh, and you twit can certainly point to the exact place in the GPL where http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/2007/09/peter-khlmann-liar.html "The

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

RJack writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> RJack writes: >> >>> Hyman Rosen wrote: The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it has filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the GPL. No defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs. >>> The plain

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

David Kastrup wrote: RJack writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 10:08 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> > [...] >> >> Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available >> > >> > There's no reason to do it -- to wit: >> > >> > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.a

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 10:39 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of ownership In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered copyright on the issues and the books. ... McF

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available > > > > There's no reason to do it -- to wit: > > > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp > > That's a link to a firmware upgra

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > > BSD "copyright" didn't "come to cease" (it's too early for expiration > > and I'm unaware of any abandonment/dedications to the public domain of > > the BSD'd works) on the BSD'd portions that Apple changed unless > > Apple's changes resulted in a complete removal of

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available > > There's no reason to do it -- to wit: > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp That's a link to a firmware upgrade. "This firmware update is applicable to bot

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available There's no reason to do it -- to wit: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp To Hyman: take your meds first! regards, alexander. P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, whic

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> > Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation >> > work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple. >> >> How did the copyright of BSD come to cease on the portions that Apple >> changed? > > BSD "copyright" didn'

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > > Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation > > work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple. > > How did the copyright of BSD come to cease on the portions that Apple > changed? BSD "copyright" didn't "come to cease" (it's too early for ex

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/10/2010 11:57 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > And there is absolutely no chance at all that RJack simply mistyped it > > either inintentionally or with intent to show what a sucker you are with > > your "difficulties with the English" reply? > > Actually, I thought

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

RJack writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 2/10/2010 10:08 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >>> At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar >>> the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from >>> SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as >>> http

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> So for any component with copyrighted parts from other parties (like >> BSD), Apple could not sue for breach of copyright without having the >> other parties joining the suit? >> >> Reality check... > > Apple's COMPILATION WORK is NOT A JO

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

On 2/10/2010 11:57 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: And there is absolutely no chance at all that RJack simply mistyped it either inintentionally or with intent to show what a sucker you are with your "difficulties with the English" reply? Actually, I thought that it was written by you - I didn't

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/10/2010 11:30 AM, RJack wrote: > > The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals > > The words "chose" and "involuntary" don't go together. > You appear to have ongoing difficulties with the English And there is absolutely no chance at all that RJack

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

On 2/10/2010 11:30 AM, RJack wrote: The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals The words "chose" and "involuntary" don't go together. You appear to have ongoing difficulties with the English language, which perhaps explains some of your difficulty understanding the GPL and th

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > Take your meds, Hyman. > > How would that help your running out of arguments? Hyman just can't grok it. Or rather he is simply acting as an utter moron just for fun, I think. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane "That wo

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 10:08 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> > A compilation work which you call 'MacOSX' is a collective work (see > >> > 17 USC 101 for both 'compilation' and 'collective work') of Apple and > >> > only Apple, silly. > >> > >> Without any compo

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

Alexander Terekhov writes: > Take your meds, Hyman. How would that help your running out of arguments? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> > A compilation work which you call 'MacOSX' is a collective work (see >> > 17 USC 101 for both 'compilation' and 'collective work') of Apple and >> > only Apple, silly. >> >> Without any components with copyright by other parties? > >

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

Take your meds, Hyman. Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/10/2010 11:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > ownership of > > "computer source code" (aka a "computer program" work under 17 USC 101) > > has nothing to do with ownership "as compiler" as in 17 USC 101 > > 'compilation'. Nor has it anything t

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > > A compilation work which you call 'MacOSX' is a collective work (see > > 17 USC 101 for both 'compilation' and 'collective work') of Apple and > > only Apple, silly. > > Without any components with copyright by other parties? The copyright on components (distinct f

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

Hyman Rosen writes: > On 2/10/2010 10:39 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of ownership > > > In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered > copyright on the issues and

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

On 2/10/2010 11:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: ownership of "computer source code" (aka a "computer program" work under 17 USC 101) has nothing to do with ownership "as compiler" as in 17 USC 101 'compilation'. Nor has it anything to do with ownership of separate and independant works such "Pi

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov writes: >> >> > At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the >> > entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC >> > for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as >>

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/10/2010 10:39 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of ownership > > > In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered > copyright on the issues

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

On 2/10/2010 10:39 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of ownership In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered copyright on the issues and the books. ... McFarlane’s

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

Take your meds, Hyman. Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/10/2010 10:08 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the > > entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for > > consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the > > entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC > > for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

On 2/10/2010 10:08 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gp

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

Alexander Terekhov writes: > At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the > entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC > for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ > i

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

Spamowitz Roy http://boycott-boycottnovell.com/index.php/the-news/88-roy-schestowitz-demands-expansion-of-qgodwins-lawq wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Copyrights and wrongs > > http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/02/08/copyrights-and-wrongs/ > > See com

Re: SFLC in frivolous mode again

Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > (Update) > > RJack wrote: > > > > After having read this newsgroup and learning that you must register > > your BusyBox copyrights prior to filing suit for infringement, the SFLC > > has filed a new lawsuit with fourteen defendants this time. > > Seven defendants a

Re: An Open Letter of Thanks to Alexander Terekhov

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > You are more like working on poo. You've been TROLLED stupid dak! Ha ha. :-) regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said

Re: An Open Letter of Thanks to Alexander Terekhov

RJack wrote: > > Nick Daly wrote: > > Dear Alexander, > > > > I just wanted to compose a little note thanking you for your recent > > work. You've clarified a few licensing questions that I've had by > > getting me thinking and providing the best-ever examples of the most > > important details.

Re: An Open Letter of Thanks to Alexander Terekhov

RJack writes: > Nick Daly wrote: >> Dear Alexander, >> >> I just wanted to compose a little note thanking you for your recent >> work. You've clarified a few licensing questions that I've had by >> getting me thinking and providing the best-ever examples of the most >> important details. In r