Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the
original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge
for the software or allow any successor to charge ..
That is incorrect ..
Buy a DVD or CD for 32 or 64
TomTom alleges that Microsoft infringes on four patents in Microsoft
Streets and Trips .. TomTom is asking for triple damages for willful
infringement, since it says it had notified Microsoft about its alleged
infringement ...
Harald Welte who has reviewed the TomTom kernel sources a number of
times during the last couple of years as part of his GPL-compliance
reviews had this to say about Microsoft’s claim: “I can tell you, there
is nothing ‘TomTom specific’ in their FAT FS code. It is the plain
fat/msdos/vfat file
The GPL is unenforceable under U.S. copyright law, Rjack
Produce any citation where a recipient of GPL code successfully fought
and won such a case.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
'any company doing a patent cross license without covering its
downstream recipients, i.e. users, is a direct violation of [the GPL] ...'
'If Tom Tom or any other company cross licenses patents then by section
7 of GPLv2 (for the Linux kernel) they lose the rights to redistribute
the kernel
'the purpose of this portfolio is defensive .. because of the threats of
companies that are hostile to FOSS and that have amassed large
stockpiles of overbroad patents'
'Although there have been some recent questions about one of our patent
applications relating to the AMQP specification,
Rjack wrote:
Where is the offer of GPL source code? Is TomTom violating the GPL? Where is
the SFLC. He. He.
'This is a document describing the distribution of the source code used
on the TomTom GO, RIDER and ONE devices with version 8.x* of the
navigation software, which fall either under
amicus_curious wrote:
What is kind of interesting here is that the GPL purists, notably SJVN, a Linux
blogger of note, is insisting that TomTom be barred from making any kind of
patent deal with Mr. Softee. He suggests that the GPL provision denying such
deals be invoked and TomTom be put
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Do you both sillies have access to the IBM's w3 net?
NO again ..
The only silly arses here are you and amicus_fuddie
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Doug Mentohl wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Do you both sillies have access to the IBM's w3 net?
NO again ..
Here's the link, silly.
http://w3.ibm.com/search/do/search?queryType=simplepageType=resultslk=pageNumber=1tabName=w3q=%22There+are+very+few+cases
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Do you have a link to that article, the only related one I can find is
It's on IBM's w3 WikiCentral. Ask Rex Ballard for the details.
In other words, NO !!!
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
amicus_curious wrote:
That's assuming Tom-Tom are found guilty. The code would be available on the
server. All MS has to do is point it out. As such and in a court of law, it is
up to the plaintiff to prove the case not the other way round.
Yes. I said if Tom-Tom were found to be
amicus_curious wrote:
A big problem for Tom-Tom is that, if they lose, they have to pay for the
Microsoft effort required to uncover the infringement along with the rest of
the legal expenses. Given the uncertainty of a jury decision (remember OJ?) it
is a tough decision to make.
What
amicus_curious wrote:
All of the previously shipped Tom-Tom units would have to be recalled or else
Tom-Tom would have to pay for a license for them.
Wouldn't it be simpler for the endusers to go to the Update Site ..
How could Tom-Tom prove that they did? The hammer would be on Tom-Tom
amicus_curious wrote:
this article .. is rather 4th hand and not a very compelling analysis ..
Said he as he totally failed to address or refute anything in the article.
Yes, other companies have signed FAT patent licenses, both in the
context of patent cross licensing agreements and other
Rjack wrote:
The above mentioned programs are all knock-offs of stolen ideas and projects of
other folks:
As usual you pervert the language, the above programs were taken up and
improved and given back to the Open Source community. Now produce any
citations from the original developers
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Doug Mentohl doug_ment...@linuxmail.org writes:
you may need to distribute the entire thing -- not just the original
GPL never forces you to distribute what you wrote. Distribution, or not, is
conditions in the licence, such as making source code available.
I
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Copyright and patent laws give authors a right to charge more [than zero], so that
they can recover their fixed costs (and thus promote innovation) observed prolific
and learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook.
The GPL seeks to eliminate that right to charge more
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
If what you wrote is true, then it is surprising that companies like IBM,
From IBM's FAQ regarding open source:
There are very few cases where distribution of third party GPL/LGPL code is
appropriate; thus, most cases will NOT be
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The latest rumor in the GNU land is that all non-Plaintiff BusyBox copyright holders ..
have asked and received the same undisclosed amount of financial consideration as
an undisclosed amount of financial consideration paid to the plaintiffs
Do you have any links
Is open source software legal?
Yes, and almost everyone who uses e-mail or surfs the Web is an open
source software user. Most e-mail passes through an open source server
during its travels across the Internet. Most Web servers rely on open
source software. Google is based on open source. As
'Microsoft's got a long history of licensing its File Allocation
Table/Long File Name (FAT LFN) with companies in the car navigation
space and that have specifically been using Linux and open source'
'Microsoft's corporate vice president and deputy general counsel of
intellectual property and
Microsoft's current FAT file system licensing program could hobble the
development and free distribution of GPL-licensed software, says an
open-source legal advocate.
However, licensing terms that were once published on Microsoft's
website, which have since vanished, would have been
Rjack wrote:
The GPL attempts in sec. 2(b) to regulate the distribution of derivative works in
rem with a contract -- which is equivalent to formulating a new copyright law under
state common law.
'The risk, however, is vastly overstated. The GPL doesn’t use the word
“combination.” It uses
amicus_curious wrote:
Microsoft's anti-GPL offensive this summer has sparked renewed
speculation about whether the GPL is ``enforceable.'' This particular
example of ``FUD'' (fear, uncertainty and doubt) is always a little
amusing to me.
I'm the only lawyer on earth who can say this, I
'By using the software, you accept these terms .. You can recover from
Microsoft and its suppliers only direct damages up to the amount you
paid for the software'
'This limitation applies to .. claims for breach of contract, breach of
warranty, guarantee or condition, strict liability,
Rjack wrote:
The great debate on the software blogs about TomTom violating the GPL is sheer
nonsense of the same caliber as Eben Moglen's nonsense about a copyright
license not being a contract.
'The GPL only obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd
code, and only needs to be
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
No further extensions will be granted.
Daniel B. Racvicher .. March 6,2009 ..
Dear Judge Gardephe:
Plaintiff in the above captioned matter requests an adjournment of the
pre-trial conference currently scheduled for March 18, 2009, at 11:00AM,
to April 21, 2009,
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
No further extensions will be granted.
How do you twist the granting of an application into 'NYSD.USCOURTS.GOV
ready to call SFLC's bluff'. Where's 'Tim Smith' the guardian of lying
in the headline when we need him. You're worse than fuddie in making up
your own
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The latest rumor in the GNU land is that all non-Plaintiff BusyBox copyright holders
still alive (or their hairs) reachable by the Plaintiffs/SFLC in the GPL actions
(voluntarily dismissed in the NYSD federal court) have asked and received the same
undisclosed
During the heady dot-com heyday, patent attorney Scott Harris and his
buddies set off to patent a far-out sounding paradigm for marketing
software to customers.
The idea reached the end of the road Friday when the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that it's not worthy
the Apache Software Foundation voted thumbs down on Java EE 6. The
dissenting vote opens old wounds caused by the bitter battle between the
Apache Foundation and Sun over the licensing terms for the Java
Compatibility Kit (JCK)
Specifically, Apache believes Sun breached the terms of the JCP's
'Software Tree LLC claims that JBoss infringes on its database patent
for exchanging data and commands between an object oriented system and
a relational system. Software Tree's partners include Microsoft, and
that the suit was filed in Eastern Texas, which is known as a
plaintiff's paradise
Ever since Microsoft adopted the let's get along strategy of licensing
and interoperating, it has been hard to get people to volunteer their
time for the platform, and interest seems to be waning ..
Linux has always seemed strongest when being attacked by Microsoft, and
it clearly is missing
Vincent Fritters wrote:
And ..
Would you mind not agreeing with me and stop posting as 'Vincent
Fritters' ...
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
amicus_curious wrote:
Well, consider the facts of the Stac case. Stac bought a patent for
the compression method that they used and Microsoft bought a similar
patent for the one that they implemented in DOS themselves. For
convenience to their customers, they made their feature able to read
amicus_curious wrote:
Wouldn't it be simpler for the endusers to go to the Update Site ..
How could Tom-Tom prove that they did? The hammer would be on Tom-Tom as an
infringer a ..
That's assuming Tom-Tom are found guilty. The code would be available on
the server. All MS has to do is
Microsoft's lawsuit against Linux devicemaker TomTom is clearly a
provocation, and the action will ultimately make the open source
community stronger ..
The OIN, Software Freedom Law Center, and the Linux Foundation are
unified in our view that it is an act of provocation. The people
If you're altering for internal use only, typically there's no
requirement to do anything. If you alter the software and redistribute,
then it depends on the license whether you need to make changes
available or not, how you need to acknowledge the original software, and
so forth ..
There's
American Express has sent out letters to select customers telling them
if they will pay off their balance and close their accounts by April 30,
2009, American Express will give them $300 ...
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/7_on_your_sideid=6687260
Rjack wrote:
The SFLC stated in their FSF v. Cisco Complaint that:
They still own the copyright ...
This is an action by The Free Software Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts
(“Plaintiff”) by and through its attorneys, the
This patented technology generally relates to interactive maps and can
be used to provide user-generated data, such as places of interest or
reviews, over the Internet ..
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2203784/
___
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
These are allegations from the FSF/SFLC, not the court's holdings.
Then show the court ruling in that particular case ..
The court won't have a chance to state its disagreements with the FSF/SFLC view
on facts and/or legal conclusions because the FSF/SFLC will
Rjack wrote:
* Super Micro Computer, Inc. ..
That's the BusyBox case, where they complied and released the source code ..
* Bell Microproducts ..
The BusyBox case again ..
* Extreme Networks
The BusyBox case again ..
* Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. - voluntary dismissal no settlement
Rjack wrote:
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
GPL never forces you to distribute what you wrote. Distribution, or not, is a
choice. But if you choose to distribute, then you have to comply with the
conditions in the licence, such as making source code available.
Says who? The GPL has never
7 wrote:
This is the first shot in their patent war.
Not really, more like SCO 11 ...
Assertions are year-long, or two years long. Maybe Microsoft wanted to
buy TomTom, but they didn't want to sell. So they started asserting
patents, hoping to encourage them to at least only license
amicus_curious wrote:
In Microsoft's case against Tom-Tom, there are a bunch of patents that don't
have anything to do with Linux involved as well as the FAT filename patents ..
What effect on the case would it be if Tom-Tom eliminated all
proprietary software and used a purely GPL
The Linux Foundation Legal Defense Fund was created to defray legal
expenses of Linux end users who may become involved in litigation with
The SCO Group on issues that affect the Linux community and industry. If
the fund is not used for that litigation, it can be tapped for similar
threats ..
amicus_curious wrote:
What effect on the case would it be if Tom-Tom eliminated all proprietary
software and used a purely GPL solution?
All of the previously shipped Tom-Tom units would have to be recalled or else
Tom-Tom would have to pay for a license for them.
Wouldn't it be simpler
Open source can be a wonderful thing if you understand its values and
drawbacks,
You have to invest in an ecosystem around it if you are an enterprise
organization and have adopted an open source software, say outside the
confines of Linux
'I get slammed a lot for saying this, but that begs
amicus_curious wrote:
Well, consider the facts of the Stac case ..
Microsoft wanted STAC to give away STACKER, and when they wouldn't
comply went ahead and included it in DOS 6.0 anyway renaming it
DoubleSpace. When called on it by Stac went to a third party VertiSoft
and released
Microsoft has brought a lawsuit against car navigation system
manufacturer TomTom. The products in question incorporate Linux, and at
least one of the seven patents involved concerns a Linux kernel
implementation rather than TomTom's own software. Is this Microsoft's
first direct salvo against
'We reject the claim and will vigorously defend ourselves, TomTom
spokesman Taco Titulaer said, adding that Microsoft sent a letter to
TomTom's U.S. office informing it of the action'
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINLQ40872620090226?rpc=44
TomTom finances ..
A unit of BT Group Plc., the U.K.'s largest telephone company, sued
U.S. computer chipmaker Freescale Semiconductor Inc. for allegedly
infringing a patent for encoding and transmitting compressed data.
London-based British Telecommunications Plc contends Freescale is
intentionally using the
Microsoft .. and .. Dell .. were sued this week .. contending they're
wrongly using an invention for retrieving names and addresses with a
single mouse click. Arendi Holding Ltd., based in the Cayman Islands
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090301/BUSINESS/903010311/1003/BUSINESS
'Under Nokia’s patented system, when a picture is taken it is displayed
on the phone’s screen for a defined period of time. During this period
the user can assign a voice tag to the image which will define where the
picture is stored, or alternatively delete it.
To assign the voice tag, the
Friday's complaint in Manhattan federal district court against Lenovo
Group Limited .. is none other than Sullivan Cromwell. Sullivan's team
is led by partner Garrard Beeney.
Beeney's clients claim that Lenovo knowingly violated their patent on a
type of compression technology called MPEG-2,
Charge Notification Services Corporation (C.N.S.C.) has filed a lawsuit
against VISA, Inc. for patent infringement .. The C.N.S.C. patent covers
charge card transaction authorization and/or notification in real-time
via SMS to the cardholder's cellular phone ...
'the .. (USPTO) changed the International Classification of domain
name registration services to Class 45 (defined below). The reason that
the move is interesting is that it is just one more indication that the
world of the Internet is becoming less and less about technology and
more and more
'According to company officials, these patents include “fundamental
mechanisms for providing secure automated communications across the
Internet using VirnetX’s innovative domain names and domain name service
(DNS).
Applications such as VoIP, instant messaging, video conferencing, file
amicus_curious wrote:
Apparently the claim is not without some merit, though. The article goes on to
say:
Martijn den Drijver, analyst at SNS Securities, said given that TomTom rival Garmin
(GRMN.O) has already licensed technology from Microsoft, it s likely that TomTom will
settle the
Q: Is the technology being used by TomTom something it developed on its
own, or is it outside or open-source technology that they're using?
Gutierrez: Well, it's hard for me to tell where the technology comes
from .. the case involves infringement of Microsoft patents by TomTom
devices that
See also ..
Microsoft at a Crossroads: Future Trend-Setter or Future Pariah?
http://www.acrossad.com/articles/msftfuture.html
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
eBay said Friday, in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, that about 141,000 users have now joined lawsuits against
IAC, 2,000 more than the auction giant listed in its prior quarterly filing.
IAC previously had notified most of its roughly 20 million users that
One month after the Heartland Payment Systems (HPY) data breach was
revealed, a Philadelphia law firm filed a class action lawsuit against
the processor on behalf of two banks and three credit unions ..
http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/articles.php?art_id=1239
The Federal Patent Court has declared a Microsoft patent on the file
allocation system File Allocation Table (FAT) invalid for the Federal
Republic of Germany.
The claim in question is the protection claim granted by the European
Patent Office under EP 0618540 for a common namespace for long
Microsoft makes its promise “irrevocably,” but upon careful reading of
the entire OSP, this promise is weakened considerably in the definition
of Covered Specifications. In that provision, Microsoft clarifies that:
New versions of previously covered specifications will be
separately
Rjack wrote:
Are ..
AKA Gary M ..
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
During a presentation at the Southern California Linux Expo, Software
Freedom Law Center technical director Bradley Kuhn explained how the
free software community can overcome the challenges posed by cloud
computing ..
Rjack wrote:
I ..
You are a waste of brain cells ...
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
The Internet’s growth during the past few years has profoundly affected
the way software is licensed and distributed. One of the most important
changes that has occurred during this period is the emergence of
so-called open source licensing ...
http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/opensource.html
ARP DATACON GmbH, Asus, Belkin, D-Link Germany GmbH, Edimax Technology,
Fortinet Inc, Fujitsu-Siemens, Gigabyte Technologies B.V, Iliad,
Longshine Technology Europe GmbH, Medion, Siemens, SVC B.u.E. GmbH,
TARGA GmbH, TomTom B.V, Sitecom GmbH ...
http://gpl-violations.org/
Rjack wrote:
The GPL is not about freedom [flatties] Hymen -- it's all about control.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to *CLAIM* *RIGHTS* or
*contest* *your* *rights* to work written entirely by you; rather, the
intent is to exercise the right to control *the* *distribution* of
amicus_curious wrote:
What irks me is that the victims of the SDLC are the little companies that use
Linux the way that it was intended to be used and do not have the resources to
waste on defending their otherwise clean conduct ..
Whould you mind enumerating and detailing these cases of
Rjack wrote:
What I see is an increasingly negative reaction to the SFLC tactics and growing support
for projects that are developed under truly free open source licenses that do
not attempt to control other people's contributions to projects.
Whould you mind enumerating and detailing these
flattie amicus Rjack wrote:
This is the central flaw of the GPL license. It attempts to secure the exclusive rights of a
modifying author who accepts GPL code by attempting to force them to license their modifications
to all third parties under terms of the GPL. A viral public copyright
amicus_curious wrote:
Doug Mentohl doug_ment...@linuxmail.org wrote in message
news:gmmuqd$od...@news.datemas.de...
amicus_curious wrote:
Your question is too complicated for a simple answer.
Please quote all relevant legislation in any jurisdiction ..
But in the context
the FSF decided long ago to allow developers to use GCC's libraries to
compile any program, regardless of its license. Developing nonfree
software is not good for society, and we have no obligation to make it
easier. We decided to permit this because forbidding it seemed likely to
backfire,
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Thank God society has people like you and the F.S.F. to correct them concerning
the error of their ways. I can't understand how society managed to make any
technological progress before Richard Stallman and his acolytes invented Free
Article One Partners announced earlier today that two winners will share
the $50,000 prize for discovering prior art in Article One’s Garmin/SP
Technologies Patent Study. The Study related to a graphical interface
providing a touch screen keyboard display that may not be minimized,
maximized,
Of all those studies they reviewed, 23 in total, they found none that
could establish a strong relationship and many that found negative
relationships between patents and development: that is, that patents
actually impede progress ..
http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker131.html
Linux is different, you see. Open source, as Microsoft is starting to
recognize, is just another part of its ecosystem, one that it must
support .. In this context, Microsoft's recent patent deal with Brother
makes sense ..
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10159335-16.html
Kaspersky Lab has patented a statistics-based method for detecting
image-based spam that is used to bypass traditional text-based filters.
The technology analyses whether text is contained in images based on the
graphic pattern of words and lines, said developer Eugene Smirnov ..
The system
Radiation Shield Technologies says its Demron fabric, developed to offer
protections from chemical, biological, radiological threats, received
the patent. Officials say the nanotechnology developed for the Demron
fabric was the key advancement that led to the patent ..
Saxon Innovations of Tyler, a patent-holding company from Texas, is
reported to have claimed that up to three patents it owned had been
violated by six companies that import handsets into the United States,
including Research in Motion, Palm and Nokia ..
'Fidelis Security Systems .. is the first in its industry to develop a
platform that can stop information leaking from credit card data,
personal identity information, classified data, digital assets, and
intellectual property ..'
Sermo Malifer wrote:
How is this relevant to Linux?
gnu.misc.discuss: serious discussion about GNU and freed software. Do
you have anythig to say regarding patent trolls stockpiling bogus
patents and then using them to sue real companies?
amicus_curious wrote:
Your question is too complicated for a simple answer.
Please quote all relevant legislation in any jurisdiction ..
But in the context of this thread, the downloading is expressly permitted and
the GPL allows for your unfettered personal use of both the binary image
amicus_curious wrote:
.. The issue at bar is the harm to the copyright holder and if he is willing to
accept the result of one mechanism, i.e. the redistribution of the downloaded
and authorized copy, there can be no harm found to be associated with some
other mechanism that results in
flatties Hymen wrote:
It's the same with GPLed software. If you download it directly onto a DVD, you
have first-sale rights on the DVD. If you download it to hard disk and then
make a copy to a DVD, you can distribute that DVD only under terms of the GPL.
What are the legal differences in
90 matches
Mail list logo
