Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/25/2010 3:07 PM, RJack wrote:
Troll vs. Hyman's fertile imagination. Troll wins another one. ROFL.
No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court.
Moving targets once again, silly Hyman?
Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed initial conference and
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/25/2010 3:07 PM, RJack wrote:
Troll vs. Hyman's fertile imagination. Troll wins another one.
ROFL.
No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court.
Moving targets once again, silly Hyman?
Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/25/2010 3:07 PM, RJack wrote:
Troll vs. Hyman's fertile imagination. Troll wins another one.
ROFL.
No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court.
Moving targets once again, silly Hyman?
Yes in
On 2/26/2010 4:12 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court.
Moving targets once again, silly Hyman?
No. You are trying to make something out of the lawyers in the
Perfect 10 case having advised the court of the settlement.
On 2/26/2010 6:47 AM, RJack wrote:
Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and run
once again.
In each of the cases that the SFLC filed, the defendants came into
compliance with the GPL once the cases ended. While anti-GPL cranks
might like to characterize this as cutting
On 2/26/2010 8:05 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
RJacku...@example.net writes:
It's obvious the defendants aren't the slightest bit intimidated by
the SFLC clowns.
Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath of
the settlements?
He means the new defendants. Remember, to
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and
run once again. The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge.
It's not likely that it will get it unless a defendant claims
compliance as a defense. If he doesn't, there
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and
run once again. The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge.
[...]
We can be open to opinions concerning interpretations of facts and law
On 2/26/2010 9:32 AM, RJack wrote:
As we said in Bourne, when the contested issue is the scope of a
license, rather than the existence of one, the copyright owner bears the
burden of proving that the defendant's copying was unauthorized under
the license and the license need not be pleaded as an
On 2/26/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a
(confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a
court order?
What for?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/26/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a
(confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a
court order?
What for?
This is done so that the court which was initially assigned the case may
On 2/26/2010 10:29 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/26/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a
(confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a
court order?
What for?
This is done so that the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/26/2010 10:29 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/26/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a
(confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a
court order?
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
told the judge that they had settled. If they had settled a
little earlier, the plaintiffs would have just filed the
settlement and that would be that.
When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a
(confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
The unlicensed use was the copying and distribution of the work,
as granted exclusively to the rights holder by 17 USC 106.
Yeah, and failure to provide source code (e.g. NOT acting upon a source
code offer) a year later after copying and distribution of the work is
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/26/2010 10:35 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Yeah, and failure to provide source code (e.g. NOT acting upon a source
code offer) a year later after copying and distribution of the work is
still copying and distribution of the work right silly Hyman?
No, it is
On 2/26/2010 10:42 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Copy and distribute the work already happened ONE YEAR BEFORE FAILURE
Permission to copy and distribute is granted on condition
of honoring the GPL. Copying and distribution without
honoring the provisions of the GPL infringes the copyright
of
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/26/2010 9:32 AM, RJack wrote:
As we said in Bourne, when the contested issue is the scope of a
license, rather than the existence of one, the copyright owner
bears the burden of proving that the defendant's copying was
unauthorized under the license and the license
On 2/26/2010 10:56 AM, RJack wrote:
Alexander and I have gone to great lengths to explain to you the
difference between a condition precedent and a scope of use
condition.
The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition
of granting permission to copy and distribute a covered
Stop confusing conditions v. scope limitations v. covenants, silly
Hyman.
There is a reason why these concepts are different.
Bluntly calling license's obligations and limitations conditions
doesn't change anything (except making things worse for the
licensor/drafter).
regards,
alexander.
On 2/26/2010 12:08 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Stop confusing conditions v. scope limitations v. covenants, silly
Hyman. There is a reason why these concepts are different.
Bluntly calling license's obligations and limitations conditions
doesn't change anything (except making things worse for
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/26/2010 10:56 AM, RJack wrote:
Alexander and I have gone to great lengths to explain to you the
difference between a condition precedent and a scope of use
condition.
The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of
granting permission to copy and
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
make source available upon request. If someone copies and
distributes a covered work using this provision but does not
intend to honor such requests, he is infringing the copyright
Think of someone simply changing his mind later or just losing all the
sources for some
On 2/26/2010 11:49 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Think of someone simply changing his mind later or just losing all the
sources for some reason
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/77imono.phtml
You.. can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You can be a
millionaire.. and never pay
On 2/26/2010 12:05 PM, RJack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of
granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work.
Back to denial already Hyman?
Please identify the section of 17 USC 106 where causing someone to
license a work
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/26/2010 12:08 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Stop confusing conditions v. scope limitations v. covenants, silly
Hyman. There is a reason why these concepts are different.
Bluntly calling license's obligations and limitations conditions
doesn't change anything
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/26/2010 12:08 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Stop confusing conditions v. scope limitations v. covenants, silly
Hyman. There is a reason why these concepts are different.
Bluntly calling license's obligations and limitations
On 2/26/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above.
Crank vs. court. Court wins.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/26/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above.
Crank vs. court. Court wins.
Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a
On 2/26/2010 12:54 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=661
She can spot a player a mile away and takes
appropriate action in the name of justice.
One can only hope that you have an opportunity to
appear before her!
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/26/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney
above.
Crank vs. court. Court wins.
[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/26/2010 12:54 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=661
She can spot a player a mile away and takes appropriate action in the
name of justice.
One can only hope that you have an opportunity to appear before her!
One can only hope
On 2/26/2010 3:55 PM, RJack wrote:
An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
copyright statute.
The unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution,
exactly as specified in 17 USC 106. The
On 2/26/2010 3:58 PM, RJack wrote:
One can only hope that she has an opportunity to appear before the
United States Supreme Court!
Judges don't appear before the Supreme Court in the U.S.
An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/26/2010 12:05 PM, RJack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of
granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work.
Back to denial already Hyman? Please identify the section of 17 USC
106 where causing
On 2/26/2010 4:28 PM, RJack wrote:
It seems that everyone in the World except a few GNUtians understand
that licensing (the act of contract formation) doesn't require the
copying and distribution of source code.
Everyone understands that granting a license doesn't
require anything except
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/26/2010 4:28 PM, RJack wrote:
It seems that everyone in the World except a few GNUtians
understand that licensing (the act of contract formation) doesn't
require the copying and distribution of source code.
Everyone understands that granting a license doesn't require
37 matches
Mail list logo
