Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/14/2010 3:16 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
17 USC 109
The files distributed by the defendants are not first-sale
copies, so 17 USC 109 is irrelevant.
Sez who?
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
On 4/14/2010 3:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The files distributed by the defendants are not first-sale
copies, so 17 USC 109 is irrelevant.
Sez who?
The defendants offer files for download from their websites.
Their web servers create fresh copies with each download,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/14/2010 2:46 PM, RJack wrote:
contract obligations that are to be performed after partial
performance by the other party are not treated as conditions
The obligation by the licensor is not to sue for infringement. The
performance by the licensee is to copy and
On 4/14/2010 3:51 PM, RJack wrote:
Ah! I know what! Let's just deny everything and mooove
the goalposts!
The GPL is a perfectly straightforward copyright license,
trivially easy to comply with. It is only the people who
want to avoid the obligations of the GPL while still
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/14/2010 2:46 PM, RJack wrote:
contract obligations that are to be performed after partial
performance by the other party are not treated as conditions
The obligation by the licensor is not to sue for infringement. The
performance by
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/14/2010 3:51 PM, RJack wrote:
Ah! I know what! Let's just deny everything and
mooove the goalposts!
The GPL is a perfectly straightforward copyright license, trivially
easy to comply with. It is only the people who want to avoid the
obligations of the
On 4/14/2010 5:30 PM, RJack wrote:
Sounds like a Marxist dream-come-true to me.
1) Dangle promises of copyright permissions.
2) Steal the rights of those who accept the offer.
The GPL explicitly and in great detail spells out the
obligations which must be assumed for being permitted
to copy
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/14/2010 5:30 PM, RJack wrote:
Sounds like a Marxist dream-come-true to me. 1) Dangle promises of
copyright permissions. 2) Steal the rights of those who accept the
offer.
The GPL explicitly and in great detail spells out the obligations
which must be assumed for
On 4/14/2010 5:45 PM, RJack wrote:
The GPL license *willfully* misleads people.
Anti-GPL cranks claim to be misled by the GPL,
because they want to steal the work of other
people without compensating those people in the
way they have chosen.
___
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/14/2010 5:45 PM, RJack wrote:
The GPL license *willfully* misleads people.
Anti-GPL cranks claim to be misled by the GPL, because they want to
steal the work of other people without compensating those people in
the way they have chosen.
Sorry Sweetheart. Sometimes
blockquote
what=unofficial notice sent out by Heow of Lisp NYC
speaker=Stuart Sierra of Project AltLaw
http://www.altlaw.org
has used Clojure since before Reddit heard of it.
info=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clojure
[page was last modified on 5 April 2010 at
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/14/2010 5:45 PM, RJack wrote:
The GPL license *willfully* misleads people.
Anti-GPL cranks claim to be misled by the GPL,
because they want to steal the work of other
people without compensating those people in the
way
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
you are living in a fantasy world.
*You* are living in a fantasy world (where copyright licenses are not
contracts and etc. GNU moronity), silly dak.
The main difference to the variants of communism typical Americans
associate with the devil, however, is that
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
you are living in a fantasy world.
*You* are living in a fantasy world (where copyright licenses are not
contracts and etc. GNU moronity), silly dak.
Since you are the one batting zero in the real world, I am not all too
Now for my prediction for the resolution of Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et. al.
I predict that Judge Scheindlin will grant a Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1). She will dismiss the lawsuit because
the plaintiffs lack Article III standing.
The
On 4/14/2010 7:55 PM, RJack wrote:
Sorry Sweetheart. Sometimes you just don't get to pick and choose like
you wish.
But fortunately, in the case of copyright 17 USC 106
guarantees that you do.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/14/2010 7:55 PM, RJack wrote:
Sorry Sweetheart. Sometimes you just don't get to pick and choose like
you wish.
But fortunately, in the case of copyright 17 USC 106
guarantees that you do.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 5:45 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
See http://www.terekhov.de/Samsung-Answer.pdf
for TWENTY (20) reasons why it is perfectly fine to 'steal' GPL'd work.
Several additional reasons to the ones listed by Samsung can be found
here:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Under California contract law...
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936
---
This is not legal advice...
As an attorney spending a great deal of time on software related IP
licensing and litigation
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote:
The statement . . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and
valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . .
. automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is
conjectural and hypothetical. The SFLC lawyers
On 4/15/2010 11:05 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1559052cid=31231918
Pursuing a case to conclusion takes time, effort, and money
regardless of the correctness of the claims in the case.
___
gnu-misc-discuss
On 4/15/2010 11:05 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 4/15/2010 10:14 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a
particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any
person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the
On 4/15/2010 11:06 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Under California contract law...
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936
http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf
The GPL is Not a Contract
On 4/15/2010 11:12 AM, me wrote:
Tell it to the United States Supreme Court and Justice Scalia.
Fortunately, nothing the Supreme Court has said is inconsistent
with the CAFC JMRI decision.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 11:05 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 4/15/2010 10:14 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a
particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any
person authorized by such owner,
On 4/15/2010 11:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The normal process of serving files involves making copies
of the files being served, and those copies may be lawfully
made only by complying with the GPL.
Sez who?
17 USC 106
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 11:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The normal process of serving files involves making copies
of the files being served, and those copies may be lawfully
made only by complying with the GPL.
Sez who?
17 USC 106
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
you are living in a fantasy world.
*You* are living in a fantasy world (where copyright licenses are not
contracts and etc. GNU moronity), silly dak.
Since you are the one batting zero
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 5:45 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
See http://www.terekhov.de/Samsung-Answer.pdf for TWENTY (20)
reasons why it is perfectly fine to 'steal' GPL'd work. Several
additional reasons to the ones listed by Samsung can be found here:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote:
The statement . . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and
valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . .
. automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is
conjectural and hypothetical. The SFLC lawyers
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 11:06 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Under California contract law...
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936
http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf The GPL is Not a Contract
--
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 11:12 AM, me wrote:
Tell it to the United States Supreme Court and Justice Scalia.
Fortunately, nothing the Supreme Court has said is inconsistent with
the CAFC JMRI decision.
Also... up is down and black is white. ROFL.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
On 4/15/2010 11:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
The GPL-compliant sources for this firmware are found at
http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/fiosinternet/networking/troubleshooting/questionsone/124346.htm
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 11:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
The GPL-compliant sources for this firmware are found at
Without checking/verification all you say regarding GPL-compliant
sources is just hot air out of your ass.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 12:00 PM, RJack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf The GPL is Not a Contract
-- Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed
by ordinary principles of state contract law.'; McCoy v.
Mitsuboshi Cutlery,
On 4/15/2010 12:39 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Without checking/verification all you say regarding GPL-compliant
sources is just hot air out of your ass.
The web page says that it's the source code used to build
the firmware. I don't see what motivation Verizon would
have to lie about it,
On 4/15/2010 12:45 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Him is she, you idiot.
I am insufficiently familiar with Indian-sounding names
to determine their gender. The gender of the author has
no bearing on the validity of the work, in any case.
___
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 12:00 PM, RJack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf The GPL is Not a
Contract
-- Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed
by ordinary principles of state contract law.'; McCoy v.
Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
The web page says ...
Referring to www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf you said that
http://www.sapnakumar.org/IMG_2030.JPG/IMG_2030-full;init_.JPG
is 'he'.
But
http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/print.asp?PID=4715
and
http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/kumar/
says that 'he' is
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...]
The web page says ...
Referring to www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf you said that
http://www.sapnakumar.org/IMG_2030.JPG/IMG_2030-full;init_.JPG
is 'he'.
But
http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/print.asp?PID=4715
and
On 4/15/2010 1:09 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The web page says ...
Referring to www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf you said that
http://www.sapnakumar.org/IMG_2030.JPG/IMG_2030-full;init_.JPG
is 'he'.
The article at http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf does not
refer to the
On 4/15/2010 1:30 PM, RJack wrote:
Why believe your lyin' eyes when you've got Hyman Rosen and
his powerful cognitive abilities at your service? Hyman can,
through sheer mental concentration, turn fantasy into reality.
Upward points downward and white magically becomes black.
It's like having
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 1:09 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The web page says ...
Referring to www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf you said that
http://www.sapnakumar.org/IMG_2030.JPG/IMG_2030-full;init_.JPG
is 'he'.
The article at
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 1:30 PM, RJack wrote:
Why believe your lyin' eyes when you've got Hyman Rosen and
his powerful cognitive abilities at your service? Hyman can,
through sheer mental concentration, turn fantasy into reality.
Upward points downward and white magically
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Now for my prediction for the resolution of Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et. al.
I predict that Judge Scheindlin will grant a Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1). She will dismiss the
On 4/15/2010 1:56 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Then why did you refer to the author as he/him
Because I blindly assumed the author was male.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
On 4/15/2010 1:57 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz
Sometimes a broken link is a broken link. Looking directly
at http://opensource.actiontec.com/, we can see that there
is a link for
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 1:57 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz
Sometimes a broken link is a broken link. Looking directly
at http://opensource.actiontec.com. . .
Note that actiontec.com is not
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 1:56 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Then why did you refer to the author as he/him
Because I blindly assumed the author was male.
You blindly assume a lot of things. Stop it.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included,
On 4/15/2010 2:44 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Note that actiontec.com is not verizon.net as in
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/fiosinternet/networking/troubleshooting/questionsone/124346.htm
is, however, a Verizon web page. As
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 2:44 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Note that actiontec.com is not verizon.net as in
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/fiosinternet/networking/troubleshooting/questionsone/124346.htm
How did you
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 3:03 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/fiosinternet/networking/troubleshooting/questionsone/124346.htm
How did you come across that link
Googled for Verizon and GPL.
You could have googled for busybox if you really
On 4/15/2010 3:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
You could have googled for busybox if you really wanted the source code.
Verizon is obligated to provide the exact version of GPL-covered
sources used to build the binaries which they distribute. This
obligation exists regardless of whether the
On 4/15/2010 3:03 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/fiosinternet/networking/troubleshooting/questionsone/124346.htm
How did you come across that link
Googled for Verizon and GPL.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
On 4/15/2010 3:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Go tell Verizon that Verizon is obligated...
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
The GPL-compliant sources are provided by Verizon at
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 3:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
You could have googled for busybox if you really wanted the source code.
Verizon is obligated to provide the exact version of GPL-covered
sources used to build the binaries which they distribute. This
obligation exists
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 3:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Go tell Verizon that Verizon is obligated...
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
The GPL-compliant sources are provided by Verizon at
On 4/15/2010 3:42 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The (incomplete) sources are provided by/from actiontec.com,
not verizon.net
Links to the downloadable sources are on a Verizon web page,
http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/fiosinternet/networking/troubleshooting/questionsone/124346.htm
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 3:42 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The (incomplete) sources are provided by/from actiontec.com,
not verizon.net
Links to the downloadable sources are on a Verizon web page,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 1:30 PM, RJack wrote:
Why believe your lyin' eyes when you've got Hyman Rosen and his
powerful cognitive abilities at your service? Hyman can, through
sheer mental concentration, turn fantasy into reality. Upward
points downward and white magically becomes
On 4/15/2010 3:57 PM, RJack wrote:
Undisputed fact 1) There has never been a link to BusyBox v. 0.60.3
published by any BusyBox defendant in an SFLC suit -- ever.
No one is obligated to distribute the source to BusyBox v. 0.60.3
unless they are distributing that version of the binary. They are
On 4/15/2010 3:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Click on
http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz
That link is currently broken, presumably because it has not
yet been updated to point to a newer version of the source.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
This is because the defendants agree to comply with the GPL,
See COUNTERCLAIMS in
http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-Answer.pdf
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.
On 4/15/2010 4:38 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
This is because the defendants agree to comply with the GPL,
See COUNTERCLAIMS in http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-Answer.pdf
That case is still in progress. To date, after each case
brought by the SFLC has ended, the
On Apr 16, 2:36 am, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote:
The statement . . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable
property whose market value is impossible to assess, . . .
automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 3:57 PM, RJack wrote:
Undisputed fact 1) There has never been a link to BusyBox v.
0.60.3 published by any BusyBox defendant in an SFLC suit -- ever.
No one is obligated to distribute the source to BusyBox v. 0.60.3
unless they are distributing that version
peterwn wrote:
On Apr 16, 2:36 am, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote:
The statement . . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and
valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . .
. automatically establishes the fact that any alleged
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 4/15/2010 3:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Click on
http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz
That link is currently broken, presumably because it has not
yet been updated to point to a newer version of
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Now for my prediction for the resolution of Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et. al.
I predict that Judge Scheindlin will grant a Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Now for my prediction for the resolution of Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et. al.
I predict that Judge Scheindlin will grant a
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Undisputed fact 2) No court has ever granted *any* relief requested by
any BusyBox plaintiff -- ever.
This is because the defendants agree to comply with the GPL,
and therefore there is no further matter for the court to
decide. This is exactly how the GPL is
On 4/15/2010 6:26 PM, RJack wrote:
To institute the Best Buy et al suit, the plaintiff was required by
statute to identify the allegedly infringed work's registration:
§ 411 · Registration and civil infringement actions
(a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the
On 4/15/2010 6:34 PM, RJack wrote:
The value of a nonexclusive copyright license like the GPL
is called its contractual interest.
Something like this:
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/sun-to-acquire-mysql.html
SANTA CLARA, CA January 16, 2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: JAVA)
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 6:26 PM, RJack wrote:
To institute the Best Buy et al suit, the plaintiff was required by
statute to identify the allegedly infringed work's registration:
§ 411 · Registration and civil infringement actions
(a) Except for an action brought for a
On 4/16/2010 10:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective
and subject to dismissal.; Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195,
1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
If the court requires that each specific version of a work
be
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/2010/04/tool-sniffs-oss-binaries-for-sweet-smell-of-license-compliance.ars
Software development company Loohuis Consulting
and process management consultancy OpenDawn have
released a new binary analysis tool that is
designed to detect Linux and
Hyman Rosen wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/2010/04/tool-sniffs-oss-binaries-for-sweet-smell-of-license-compliance.ars
Developed with funding from the Linux Foundation and the NLnet
Foundation, the binary analysis tool is distributed under the permissive
Apache license.
LOL.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/16/2010 10:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective
and subject to dismissal.; Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195,
1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
If . . .
On 4/16/2010 12:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.oblon.com/files/news/514.pdf
under the “Registration Approach,” only after the Register of
Copyrights actually approves the application and issues a registration,
or notifies the copyright applicant that the application is rejected, is
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
The court may also give them the option of registering and
then amending the complaint.
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
On 4/16/2010 12:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The court may also give them the option of registering and
then amending the complaint.
Sez who?
The Supreme Court:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/371/178/case.html
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) declares that
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/16/2010 12:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The court may also give them the option of registering and
then amending the complaint.
Sez who?
The Supreme Court:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/371/178/case.html
Federal Rule of Civil
On 4/16/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And what would such hallucination-motion say to the court to
justify the request to amend the complaint silly Hyman?
Well, they could say we forgot.
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/77imono.phtml
Or they could say that because the infringers are
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
These are lawyers.
SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards.
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.
On 4/16/2010 1:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards.
Since they have so far gained compliance from every
defendant whose case has ended, one can only imagine
how much more good for the GPL could be accomplished
by competent lawyers of average intelligence.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/16/2010 1:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards.
Since they have so far gained . . .
http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in
On 4/16/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz
Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 6:34 PM, RJack wrote:
The value of a nonexclusive copyright license like the GPL
is called its contractual interest.
Something like this:
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/sun-to-acquire-mysql.html
SANTA CLARA, CA January 16, 2008 Sun Microsystems,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/16/2010 10:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is
defective and subject to dismissal.; Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592
F.Supp. 1195, 1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
If the court requires that each specific
Hyman Rosen wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/2010/04/tool-sniffs-oss-binaries-for-sweet-smell-of-license-compliance.ars
Software development company Loohuis Consulting and process
management consultancy OpenDawn have released a new binary analysis
tool that is designed to detect Linux
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/16/2010 12:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.oblon.com/files/news/514.pdf
under the “Registration Approach,” only after the Register of
Copyrights actually approves the application and issues a
registration, or notifies the copyright applicant that the
On 4/16/2010 2:30 PM, RJack wrote:
Yup. Only the author of a work of visual art
You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize
the value of moral rights.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/16/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And what would such hallucination-motion say to the court to
justify the request to amend the complaint silly Hyman?
Well, they could say we forgot.
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/77imono.phtml
Or they could say that
On 4/16/2010 2:36 PM, RJack wrote:
Virtually all open source licenses are unenforceable due to lack of
Article III standing. Open source licenses in general are only
useful for defenses against copyright infringement suits.
That's false, as we can see from this court decision:
On 4/16/2010 2:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
An invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL) is always an
invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL).
The GPL is not a contract but a copyright license,
and it is copyright infringement to copy and distribute
GPL-covered works without
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...]
These are lawyers.
SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards.
I'll second that motion. All in favor say aye.
aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye
aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/16/2010 1:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards.
Since they have so far gained compliance from every defendant whose
case has ended, one can only imagine how much more good for the GPL
could be accomplished by competent lawyers of
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/16/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz
Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link.
Sometimes a GNUtian is a moron. Other times he is just a fool.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/16/2010 2:36 PM, RJack wrote:
Virtually all open source licenses are unenforceable due to lack of
Article III standing. Open source licenses in general are only
useful for defenses against copyright infringement suits.
That's false, as we can see from this court
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/16/2010 2:30 PM, RJack wrote:
Yup. Only the author of a work of visual art
You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize
the value of moral rights.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html
Under VARA, moral rights
801 - 900 of 966 matches
Mail list logo
