Hyman Rosen wrote:
It doesn't matter how much you hate and disagree with this decision.
In the battle of crank vs. court, court always wins.
It doesn't matter how much you hate and disagree with the Supreme Court
the Supreme Court always wins.
In the battle of Supreme Court vs. moron,
David Kastrup wrote:
Causality does not necessarily imply temporal order in the legal
world, because the legal _meaning_ of an act might sometimes be
established only at a later point of time.
Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft.
The relevant activity of the
blockquote
what=official NYC*BUG announcement
edits=
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:33:54 -0500
To: annou...@lists.nycbug.org
From: NYC*BUG Announcements annou...@lists.nycbug.org
Subject: [announce] NYC*BUG Wednesday March 3rd
Reply-To: annou...@lists.nycbug.org
March 03, 2010, Wednesday
blockquote
what=official Computers and Society announcement
master-of-ceremonies=Evan Korth
guests=Kembrew McLeod,
Steve Steinski Stein
more=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kembrew_McLeod
[page was last modified on 9 December 2009 at 02:59]
For stupid dak, in English now.
Here's a typical shoplifting statute.
http://law.justia.com/missouri/codes/t36/537125.html
(§ 537.125. Shoplifting--detention of suspect by merchant--liability
presumption.)
537.125. 1. As used in this section:
(1) Mercantile establishment means any
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
For stupid dak, in English now.
Here's a typical shoplifting statute.
As usual, nothing relevant here. You do remember that we were talking
about the legal _meaning_ of an act being established after the fact,
because you can't determine the
Uh retard dak. You wrote:
But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of
knowing whether I had merely been employing my pocket because I was
running out of space in my hands or because I intended to steal
something.
That's not an evidence to rebutt presumption of intent to
Best Buy squad arrived.
03/03/2010 56 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David Leichtman on behalf of Best
Buy Co., Inc. (Leichtman, David) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
03/03/2010 57 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Hillel Ira Parness on behalf of
Best Buy Co., Inc. (Parness, Hillel) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
03/03/2010 58
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Uh retard dak. You wrote:
But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of
knowing whether I had merely been employing my pocket because I was
running out of space in my hands or because I intended to steal
something.
That's
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Whatever. When quoting isolated sentences, you better pick those with
grammar reflecting what you consider their meaning.
LOL. Dak are you really sure that your German is more correct than the
German of http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de?
Go to doctor, silly dak.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Whatever. When quoting isolated sentences, you better pick those with
grammar reflecting what you consider their meaning.
LOL. Dak are you really sure that your German is more correct than the
German of
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
particular sentence, _and_ your attribution to the BGH as source is
accurate (for which I don't see any evidence but consider possible),
BGH Beschluss vom 06.10.1961 (2 StR 289/61)
NJW 1961, 2266; BGHSt 16, 271
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
particular sentence, _and_ your attribution to the BGH as source is
accurate (for which I don't see any evidence but consider possible),
BGH Beschluss vom 06.10.1961 (2 StR 289/61)
NJW 1961, 2266; BGHSt 16, 271
Dak, the ruling I cited is part of
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsexamen for prosecutors and counsels
(both may become judges).
Go to doctor, silly dak.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system
so that I can do the builds.
Hyman Rosen
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Best Buy squad arrived.
03/03/2010 56 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David Leichtman on behalf of Best
Buy Co., Inc. (Leichtman, David) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
03/03/2010 57 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Hillel Ira Parness on behalf of
Best Buy Co., Inc. (Parness, Hillel)
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Dak, the ruling I cited is part of
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsexamen for prosecutors and counsels
(both may become judges).
Good thing they won't become Grammarians.
--
David Kastrup
___
blockquote
what=official Lisp NYC announcement
more=http://lispnyc.org;
edits=
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:24:12 -0500
From: heow li...@alphageeksinc.com
To: LISP NYC l...@lispnyc.org
Subject: [Lisp] Lisp Meeting, March 9th at PGs
Join us Tuesday, March 9th from 7:00 to 9:00 at PG's.
Judge Shira Scheindlin defies her own order.
01/07/2010 19 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME OF DEFENDANT GCI
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT, GCI Technologies
Corporation answer due 3/8/2010. No further extensions for this, or any
defendant in this action, will be
The SFLC has finally bought itself a shit-load of trouble. Five of
fourteen defendants' ANSWERS TO COMPLAINT are up on the SDNY PACER site.
Excerpt from the Best Buy answer:
. . .
FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
9. Best Buy restates and realleges each of the
RJack u...@example.net writes:
The SFLC has finally bought itself a shit-load of trouble.
Because defendents write up a defense? That's not really that
remarkable.
13. Best Buy requests a jury trial on all issues triable of right by a
jury.
Juries don't interpret the law but decide on
Best Buy Co., Inc. (Best Buy), erroneously sued in place of Best Buy
Stores, L.P. and BestBuy.Com, LLC, answers Software Freedom Conservancy,
Inc. and Erik Andersens (Plaintiffs) Original Complaint (Complaint)
as follows:
[... snip answer ...]
COUNTERCLAIMS
Defendant/Counterclaimant Best
1. The complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
2. The GNU General Public License, Version 2, as alleged by Plaintiffs,
is not enforceable.
3. On information and belief, plaintiffs are not proper parties.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set
the alleged license at issue in this case and/or certain provisions
contained therein are illegal, unconscionable and barred by public
policy as well as by
statutory and case law.
Exactly.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(INDISPENSABLE PARTIES)
On information and belief, Defendant alleges that
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
the alleged license at issue in this case and/or certain provisions
contained therein are illegal, unconscionable and barred by public
policy as well as by statutory and case law.
They'll have a fun time
a) proving that statement
b) telling the
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(JOINT OWNERSHIP)
On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are
barred because other third parties jointly created the alleged copyright
at issue and those third parties are joint copyright owners of the
alleged copyright at issue in this
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(JOINT OWNERSHIP)
On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are
barred because other third parties jointly created the alleged copyright
at issue and those third parties are joint copyright
RJack wrote:
The SFLC has finally bought itself a shit-load of trouble. Five of
fourteen defendants' ANSWERS TO COMPLAINT are up on the SDNY PACER site.
It's actually more than five in the meantime:
03/08/2010 62 ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by
Westinghouse Digital
David Kastrup pulled this Usenet boner:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Have you ever timed these rjack/terekhov irruptions to determine
if they coincide with any natural cycles?
--
I'll burn my books.
-- Christopher Marlowe
Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought because their actions
constitute a misuse of the copyright.
Plaintiffs claims are barred or limited because this action was
brought in bad faith and with an improper purpose to burden, harass and
oppress Defendant.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. I'm
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
the alleged license at issue in this case and/or certain
provisions contained therein are illegal, unconscionable and barred
by public policy as well as by statutory and case law.
They'll have a fun time
a) proving that
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (JOINT OWNERSHIP)
On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims
are barred because other third parties jointly created the alleged
copyright at issue and those third parties are joint copyright owners
of the alleged
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
David Kastrup pulled this Usenet boner:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Have you ever timed these rjack/terekhov irruptions to determine if
they coincide with any natural cycles?
Actually, there are certain natural cycles of moaning and grunting that
RJack wrote:
[...]
b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies.
That's Versa's tenth defense.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(ESTOPPEL)
On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are
barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
I also like
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
RJack wrote:
[...]
b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies.
That's Versa's tenth defense.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(ESTOPPEL)
On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are
barred
David Kastrup wrote:
We'll see how much of the defendants beliefs survives in court.
You betch'a. No more voluntary dismissals. That's all that real folks
have ever asked for -- a court ruling concerning the GPL on the merits.
So, hopefully, we'll really see.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
RJack wrote:
[...]
b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies.
That's Versa's tenth defense.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(ESTOPPEL)
On information and belief, Defendant alleges
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
We'll see how much of the defendants beliefs survives in court.
You betch'a. No more voluntary dismissals. That's all that real folks
have ever asked for -- a court ruling concerning the GPL on the merits.
You won't see that this time
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
RJack wrote: [...]
b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory
estoppel applies.
That's Versa's tenth defense.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote: [...]
This means that the SFLC cannot file a vouluntary dismissal
without the permission of Best Buy Inc.
There is no such thing as filing an unvoluntary dismissal.
Uh retard dak.
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
This means that the SFLC cannot file a vouluntary dismissal without
the permission of Best Buy Inc.
There is no such thing as filing an unvoluntary dismissal.
Uh retard dak.
RJack u...@example.net writes:
If you are so smart at interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, why are you so dumb at grasping doctrines like preemption
and promissory estoppel?
They don't apply where there is no preemption and no promissory
estoppel.
Could it be that you actually
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’
claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
Yeah, that one is hilarious as well. Dear court, how could we
assume that we had
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
If you are so smart at interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, why are you so dumb at grasping doctrines like
preemption and promissory estoppel?
They don't apply where there is no preemption and no promissory
estoppel.
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’
claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
Yeah, that one is hilarious as well. Dear court, how could we
On 3/9/2010 7:09 AM, RJack wrote:
a) The court will immediately find the GPL unenforceable because of the
preemption doctrine established by 17 USC sec. 301(a).
Preemption has nothing to do with the GPL, since this is
a case of normal copyright infringement brought under the
federal copyright
On 3/9/2010 7:17 AM, RJack wrote:
Actually BusyBox is a thousand headed Hydra of derivative work - joint
work compilations. After ten thousand patches BusyBox is a huge kettle
of spaghetti code with fifty authors that is so entangled that even
Humpty Dumpty's maintainers can never untangle it
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow some
proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a real operating
system. Microsoft hates the thought that folks will understand the GPL
is unenforceable. That's the reason
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 7:09 AM, RJack wrote:
a) The court will immediately find the GPL unenforceable because of
the preemption doctrine established by 17 USC sec. 301(a).
Preemption has nothing to do with the GPL, since this is a case of
normal copyright infringement brought under
On 3/9/2010 7:28 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Oh poor SFLC...
You appear to have very strange beliefs about the legal
system. Aside from your general misunderstanding of
copyright law, you seem to believe that answers and
counterclaims have some magical power merely by being
stated. Proper
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 7:17 AM, RJack wrote:
Actually BusyBox is a thousand headed Hydra of derivative work -
joint work compilations. After ten thousand patches BusyBox is a
huge kettle of spaghetti code with fifty authors that is so
entangled that even Humpty Dumpty's maintainers can
On 3/9/2010 8:35 AM, RJack wrote:
If you are so smart at interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, why are you so dumb at grasping doctrines like preemption
and promissory estoppel?
Neither of those applies to the GPL. Preemption is irrelevant
because GPL claims are filed with respect
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote in message
news:4b9625a2.f8e31...@web.de...
RJack wrote:
The SFLC has finally bought itself a shit-load of trouble. Five of
fourteen defendants' ANSWERS TO COMPLAINT are up on the SDNY PACER site.
It's actually more than five in the meantime:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow some
proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a real
operating system. Microsoft hates the thought that folks will
understand the GPL is
On 3/9/2010 8:45 AM, RJack wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have
the right to control the modification and distribution of
copyrighted material. As the Second Circuit explained
On 3/9/2010 9:11 AM, RJack wrote:
Uhhh. What's abnormal copyright infringement?
When there are other defenses possible under federal law,
such as fair use or time shifting or reverse engineering.
Normal copyright infringement is simply unauthorized
copying and distribution with nothing else
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 9:11 AM, RJack wrote:
Uhhh. What's abnormal copyright infringement?
When there are other defenses possible under federal law,
such as fair use or time shifting or reverse engineering.
Normal copyright infringement is simply unauthorized
copying and
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Any merits of the case aside, it would seem to me that Moglen, et al
has bitten off a rather large chaw.
Fortunately, it is not the job of the court to put any merits of the
case aside.
--
David Kastrup
___
On 3/9/2010 9:40 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five?
When a court does the calling, yes.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow some
proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a real
operating system. Microsoft hates the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 8:45 AM, RJack wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright holders
who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the
modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As the Second
Circuit
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow
some proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a
real operating system.
On 3/9/2010 10:00 AM, RJack wrote:
The case is filed in the Second Circuit.
The CAFC has no precedental value anywhere in the
federal system.
The reasoning will apply universally, since it is correct.
At the end of the day, 'statutory damages should bear
some relation to actual damages
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 8:45 AM, RJack wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
You've already lost.
You might as well cite to the law of Zimbabwe Hymen. The case is filed
in the Second Circuit. The CAFC
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 8:45 AM, RJack wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
You've already lost.
You might as well cite to the law of Zimbabwe Hymen. The case is
filed in the Second
On 3/9/2010 10:16 AM, RJack wrote:
Since the defendants aren't infringing under Second Circuit
precedental law there will be no damages at all.
The defendants are infringing by copying and distributing
copyrighted computer programs without permission.
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
RJack wrote: [...]
b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory
estoppel applies.
That's Versa's tenth defense.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (ESTOPPEL)
On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point? You
are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually have to
make sense. What's your rhetorical focus?
Quite simply, that it is the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 10:16 AM, RJack wrote:
Since the defendants aren't infringing under Second Circuit
precedental law there will be no damages at all.
The defendants are infringing by copying and distributing copyrighted
computer programs without permission.
Dream on silly boy.
David Kastrup wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point?
You are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually
have to make sense. What's your rhetorical focus?
Quite
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point?
You are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually
have to make sense. What's
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
We are not talking about the age of the BSD license(s), but the time
when a complete BSD type operating system became available freely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7tvI6JCXD0
Hth, silly dak.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a
In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for
the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it.
Well, that's half of the story. Linux has been written to support a
Here is a story from Colorado:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/22745694/detail.html
A person who borrowed a DVD from a public library and never
returned it was arrested on a theft warrant which had been
issued by the city. There was obviously no theft when the
DVD was first borrowed, so we
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Well there's little prospect of that experiment taking place,
thankfully.
The GPL is gasping for breath Alan. It'll soon be DEAD. Get over it
Alan. Copyleft style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law. You
may, perhaps, continue to extol the virtues of the GPL under
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Here is a story from Colorado:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/22745694/detail.html
A person who borrowed a DVD from a public library and never returned
it was arrested on a theft warrant which had been issued by the city.
There was obviously no theft when the DVD was
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for
the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it.
Well, that's half of the story. Linux
On 3/9/2010 11:48 AM, RJack wrote:
Copyleft style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law.
No, that's not correct. A court has enforced an open license:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have
the right to control
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Well there's little prospect of that experiment taking place,
thankfully.
The GPL is gasping for breath Alan. It'll soon be DEAD. Get over it
Alan. Copyleft style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law.
Quite right, since they are no
On 3/9/2010 11:50 AM, RJack wrote:
... but that's not relevant. Neither is your analogy.
You're wrong about that (naturally). The original conversation was
On 3/2/2010 10:43 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 11:48 AM, RJack wrote:
Copyleft style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law.
No, that's not correct. A court has enforced an open license:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright holders
who engage in open source licensing have the
On 3/9/2010 12:14 PM, RJack wrote:
The federal courts of the United States ignore CAFC
authority in areas outside their unique patent appeals areas.
Since the CAFC reasoned out the case correctly, we can
expect that other courts will do the same.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 11:50 AM, RJack wrote:
... but that's not relevant. Neither is your analogy.
You're wrong about that (naturally). The original conversation was
On 3/2/2010 10:43 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
Taking something in a supermarket
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 11:50 AM, RJack wrote:
... but that's not relevant. Neither is your analogy.
You're wrong about that (naturally). The original conversation was On
3/2/2010 10:43 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
Taking something in a supermarket without
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 11:50 AM, RJack wrote:
... but that's not relevant. Neither is your analogy.
You're wrong about that (naturally). The original conversation was
On 3/2/2010 10:43 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
David Kastrup
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 12:14 PM, RJack wrote:
The federal courts of the United States ignore CAFC authority in
areas outside their unique patent appeals areas.
Since the CAFC reasoned out the case correctly, we can expect that
other courts will do the same.
Ratchet up your hopes
On 3/9/2010 12:20 PM, RJack wrote:
Sadly Hyman, you demonstrate your inability to understand the difference
between a violation of a criminal statute and a civil breach of contract.
Copying GPL-covered works without honoring the conditions
of the GPL is copyright infringement, not a civil
On 3/9/2010 12:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO)
I'm insufficiently motivated to learn German just to
pick apart your undoubtedly incorrect arguments in
that language.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 3/9/2010 12:20 PM, RJack wrote:
Sadly Hyman, you demonstrate your inability to understand the difference
between a violation of a criminal statute and a civil breach of contract.
Copying GPL-covered works without honoring the conditions
of the GPL is
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 3/9/2010 12:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO)
I'm insufficiently motivated to learn German just to
pick apart your undoubtedly incorrect arguments in
that language.
No argument there, just a verbatim quote from a
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Uh moron Hyman. Let comrade dak translate the following for you:
Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO)
No need to bother. It is utterly irrelevant to anything discussed so
far. Not that this should surprise anybody...
Uh moron dak.
Ordnungshaft, da
David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 3/9/2010 12:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO)
I'm insufficiently motivated to learn German just to
pick apart your undoubtedly incorrect arguments in
that language.
No argument
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 12:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO)
I'm insufficiently motivated to learn German just to
pick apart your undoubtedly incorrect arguments in
that language.
Under the German civil law, a civil claim may be enforced
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 12:20 PM, RJack wrote:
Sadly Hyman, you demonstrate your inability to understand the
difference between a violation of a criminal statute and a civil
breach of contract.
Copying GPL-covered works without honoring the conditions of the GPL
is copyright
On 3/9/2010 3:43 PM, RJack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Copying GPL-covered works without honoring the conditions of the GPL
is copyright infringement, not a civil breach of contract.
Only in your imagination
No, as articulated by the court for the Artistic License:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
If you are so smart at interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, why are you so dumb at grasping doctrines like preemption
and promissory estoppel?
Could it be that you actually know the GPL is preempted and thus GPL
code is
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 3:43 PM, RJack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Copying GPL-covered works without honoring the conditions of the GPL
is copyright infringement, not a civil breach of contract.
Only in your imagination
No, as articulated by the court for the Artistic
On 3/9/2010 4:31 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The Supreme Court of California. 159 Cal. 716, 115 P. 743 (1911). The
term 'provided' may or may not indicate a condition . . . it is often a
nice question to determine whether it is a condition or a covenant and
courts always construe similar
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
If you are so smart at interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, why are you so dumb at grasping doctrines like
preemption and promissory estoppel?
Could it be that you actually know the GPL is preempted and
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 4:31 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The Supreme Court of California. 159 Cal. 716, 115 P. 743 (1911). The
term 'provided' may or may not indicate a condition . . . it is often a
nice question to determine whether it is a condition or a covenant and
courts
On 3/9/2010 4:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Abraham Lincoln
When CAFC is reversed by a higher court, be sure
to let me know. Until then, we have no Lincoln,
just an internet crank.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
1 - 100 of 966 matches
Mail list logo
