On 6/15/2011 3:32 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 6/15/2011 3:17 PM, RJack wrote:
The GPL license was dead the day it was stillborn.
The GPL is in wide use, so you are wrong.
Yep. And pigs hold hands while flapping their wings
ROFL.
Reality will eventually bite you in the ass Hyman.
LMAO
On 6/15/2011 3:54 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 6/15/2011 3:45 PM, RJack wrote:
On 6/15/2011 3:32 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 6/15/2011 3:17 PM, RJack wrote:
The GPL license was dead the day it was stillborn.
The GPL is in wide use, so you are wrong.
Yep. And pigs hold hands while flapping
fees.
I would refer you to earlier claims concerning undocumented settlement
agreements as described by legal expert Hyman Rosen
who posts to this group.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https
, editing, computer program.
Rights and Permissions: Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc., 137
MONTAGUE ST STE 380, BROOKLYN, NY, 11201, United States
*
Let the games begin anew with an amended complaint.
Sincerely,
RJack
/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/52496-busybox-replacement-project-fuels-animated-verbal-spat
http://www.landley.net/toybox/about.html
Sincerely, RJack :)
From Rob Landley:
December 16, 2011...
The FSF is its own worst enemy, and it has comprehensively fragmented
and FUDded its greatest
not to do so?
How odd.
How else do you believe a badly losing plaintiff gets a winning
defendant to agree to a stipulated Rule 41 voluntary dismissal WITH
PREDJUDICE?
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https
liability must fail.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion to join WD is denied. The
Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion (Docket No. 133).
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https
*if* the registration were valid. Goodbye fraudulent
Bradley and Erik.
Hope they enjoy paying *all* the defendant's attorney fees in this matter.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu
the GPL.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
,
RJack :)
You said WHAT?
_ _
|L| |R|
|M| /^^^\ |O|
_|A|_ (| o |) _|F|_
_| |O| | _(_---_)_ | |L
recipients
of copies of his software.
Covenants -- not conditions dummkopf.
What rock have you been living under, silly dak?
Do you really not understand what a license is? After all this
time?
Sincerely,
RJack :)
dummkopf -- n. A stupid person; a dolt.
[German : dumm, dumb (from Middle High
this License.
Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute
[BusyBox] is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
this License.”).; Plainiff's Reply Memeorandum.
The games have begun!
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss
the: ...nor does it have rights to Broadcom’s *proprietary source*
code...
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
On 3/24/2011 3:40 PM, RJack wrote:
On 3/24/2011 10:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
As they say:
The GPL Is a License, not a Contract.
LMAO!
Seriously, I am very disappointed that Best Buy did not raise the
issue of copyright v. contract breach thus far.
It is instructive to look
On 3/22/2011 6:56 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
RJacku...@example.net writes:
On 3/22/2011 8:43 AM, Hiram wrote:
Hello,
I would like to know if you know of some forums or mailing lists
where I can submit a message to START a free application project.
I'm interested in developing a new integrated
On 3/22/2011 7:43 AM, RJack wrote:
On 3/22/2011 6:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
RJack wrote:
Best Buy Inc. has just filed a 28 page (available on PACER)
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.
Let the the fireworks begin!
SFLC's exciting reply
or distribution). See Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom
Hardware Eng’g Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir.
2005). Contractual rights, however, can be much broader...
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss
On 3/22/2011 6:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
RJack wrote:
Best Buy Inc. has just filed a 28 page (available on PACER)
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.
Let the the fireworks begin!
SFLC's exciting reply:
http://www.terekhov.de/188.pdf
1
under the BSD style open source license. The Apache license is also
a good license to use for open source, truly free applications.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu
Bag attempting to masquerade as a
journalist. Too bad she only continues to sully the reputation of real
professional journalists such as Maureen O'Gara.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
a copyright infringement suit over Busybox... Kinda'
destroys your faith in the U.S. legal system and makes you want to puke,
doesn't it?
Sincerely,
RJack :)
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
On 3/8/2011 6:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
RJack wrote:
Best Buy Inc. has just filed a 28 page (available on PACER)
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.
How much is that in attoney's fees and costs?
We should remember, there are *four
On 3/7/2011 5:49 PM, RJack wrote:
On 3/7/2011 4:08 PM, RJack wrote:
Best Buy Inc. has just filed a 28 page (available on PACER)
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.
Let the the fireworks begin!
H... Overreach ?
From the Best Buy Inc
,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
of a plaintiff (not defendant) and carries the burden of proof
and must plead facts to establish ownership of the copies in order to
defeat a Motion to Dismiss.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/4:2010cv02769/233708/47/0.pdf
Sincerely,
RJack
On 2/2/2011 9:47 AM, RJack wrote:
Uh... buh bye SFC and Erik Andersen:
---Filed 02/01/11---
ANSWER OF PHOEBE MICRO, INC.
... [snip]
AFFIRMATIVE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
Phoebe Micro, as and for affirmative and additional defenses, alleges as
follows:
1. The Complaint fails to state
On 2/3/2011 10:54 AM, RJack wrote:
On 2/2/2011 9:47 AM, RJack wrote:
Uh... buh bye SFC and Erik Andersen:
---Filed 02/01/11--- ANSWER OF PHOEBE MICRO, INC.
... [snip]
AFFIRMATIVE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
Phoebe Micro, as and for affirmative and additional defenses, alleges
as follows
On 2/3/2011 11:24 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
RJack wrote: [...]
All this ruling really says, is that Hoops as a counter-claimant
has the status of a plaintiff (not defendant) and carries the
burden of proof and must plead facts to establish ownership of the
copies in order to defeat
On 2/3/2011 10:59 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
RJacku...@example.net writes:
On 2/2/2011 9:47 AM, RJack wrote:
Uh... buh bye SFC and Erik Andersen:
---Filed 02/01/11--- ANSWER OF PHOEBE MICRO, INC.
Uh, that's the reply of the defendant, not a court order. Let's see
how much
On 2/2/2011 9:47 AM, RJack wrote:
Erik Andersen's application for injunction claims:
Plaintiff Erik Andersen “is the owner of the copyright of both the
derivative and pre-existing work, the registration certificate relating
to the derivative work in this circumstance will suffice to permit
On 1/4/2011 11:58 AM, RJack wrote:
SFLC filed a dismissal for VERSA TECHNOLOGY INC pursuant to Rule 41(a)1
(after an Vera's ANSWER was filed) but there is no record of Versa's
involvement or agreement to the dismissal:
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), plaintiffs
with the freedom provided by BSD contributions in XNU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU
Look at Apple now:
And. . . Boom: Apple Worth More Than Microsoft.
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100526/apple-worth-more-than-microsoft/
Sincerely,
RJack :)
Capitalism Always Wins
/20100526/apple-worth-more-than-microsoft/
Sincerely,
RJack :)
Capitalism Triumphs!
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Torvalds has said that if 386BSD had been available at
the time, he probably would not have created Linux.[see n.7]
http://gondwanaland.com/meta/history/interview.html
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
On 1/4/2011 11:58 AM, RJack wrote:
Just a scheduling reminder for the Best Buy litigation.
...
SHRIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, U.S.D.J.:
WHEREAS, the Court issued a Scheduling Order on Feb~22,2010 (the
Scheduling Order); and
WHEREAS, certain parties now seek a two month eXtension of certain dates
of six defendants still heading to jury trial, the litigation costs will
be in the seven figures range. Ouch.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
contract law for more reasons than you will ever be
able to grasp.
Hyman, give up reading the law and try reading something that you can
understand.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
that answer
your question? :-)
The article's author makes it perfectly clear what he means by
communist. Read the article instead of the NNTP header GPL moron.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
, distribute, study, change, and improve the software (see my
above note about groupthink – philosophy of BSD is in harmony with FSF,
but not in total harmony) ...
How very true!
Sincerely,
RJack
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
, their respective rights are generally addressed by a contract
between them.[24] In these situations, it is clear that two works have
been created, requiring separate copyright registrations to preserve
those rights in court.
http://www.oblon.com/media/index.php?id=41#_ednref24
Sincerely,
RJack
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will
soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends.
Bullshit. Linux and GPL is only growing. The BSDs are dying.
Its a shame because BSD is a GREAT system.
Or Shut up and Hack. Come
need more hackers. PCC and the BSD's need more donations and
support from commercial vendors for drivers.
I put my money where my mouth is and proudly donate.
http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html
http://bsdfund.org/projects/pcc/
Sincerely,
RJack
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
OK I'm so fucking tired of this.
I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.
BSD is free. GPL is free.
Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software religion will
soon reside in history's trashbin
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
OK I'm so fucking tired of this.
I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.
BSD is free. GPL is free.
Don't worry. The GPL license and the Free Software
.
ROFL. This, from a GNUtian moron who claims a copyright license is not a
contract.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
to those who claim nonexistent GPL
settlement victories.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
RJack wrote:
All this bantering about prior cases is moot.
The SFLC has just filed a request for a pre-conference motion for
summary judgment against Westinghouse. The near future now holds all the
answers about GPL enforcement. I'm sure Judge Scheindlin will suffers no
fools in this action
or argument from personal
incredulity, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false,
implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this
gap in knowledge as evidence in favor of an alternative view of his or
her choice.
Sayeth RJack:
ROFL
OF THEM
ROFL.
In the battle of crank vs. court, court always wins.
In the battle of Supreme Court vs. moron, Supreme Court always wins.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
of the theft is done at the time I take the
ware, the status of the theft is established when I pass the cash
register. Passing a cash register, however, is not what the law
considers a crime.
WTF does the foregoing rant have to do with anything in reality?
Sincerely,
RJack
Department of
the Year” for 2003, noting that our firm “hails from the heartland, but
goes for the jugular.”
http://www.rkmc.com/Intellectual_Property_Litigation.htm
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
as this Court deems just and equitable.
. . .
This means that the SFLC cannot file a vouluntary dismissal without
the permission of Best Buy Inc.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu
of promissory estoppel applies.
Unlike many GNUtians, the court won't pretend that neither doctrine exists.
That's pretty much the usual clueless first response.
Mindless denial is always a GNUtians first response.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss
.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
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
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:
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
estoppel? Perhaps your
feigned ignorance is just stubbornness (like Hyman Rosen)?
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
the
patchwork of laws of Europe but it's dead in the USA.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
the work.
(Of course the arrest caused a contretemps and the charges were
subsequently dropped, but that's not relevant.)
... but that's not relevant. Neither is your analogy.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
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
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
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
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
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
. JS A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422, 223
USPQ 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc).
ROFL.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
us know Hymen.
ROFL.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 5:01 PM, RJack wrote:
U.S. federal district courts ignore CAFC copyright decisions
There is no reason to believe that other courts would decide the
matter differently, since CAFC made the correct analysis of the
situation.
Yeah... especially the Supreme Court
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 5:18 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 only use in question is the copying and distribution of work
without permission
blather.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
RJack wrote:
PACER:
SFLC just voluntarily dismissed GCI Technologies Corp.
Has anyone seen this pattern before?
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/10/2010 10:58 AM, RJack wrote:
The truth of the matter is that there is no victory for open
source licenses. Open source licenses and proprietary are
interpreted using the exact same rules. Each license (contract) is
individually interpreted according to the state
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/10/2010 11:18 AM, RJack wrote:
Sigh... That's nothing new. If conditions precedent are not
satisfied in a proprietary license the same thing results. The
Artistic license had no conditions precedent -- only covenants. One
erroneous decision by a non-precedental court
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/10/2010 12:17 PM, RJack wrote:
Limited strictly to one defendant in a nation of 310 million.
One is greater than zero.
Not in the land of GNU.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
the difference.
Simply calling something a condition without satisfying the
appropriate definition is nonsense. You may call a horse a Cadillac
but it doesn't make it one -- except in Hyman's world.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/10/2010 12:51 PM, RJack wrote:
...blindly confused...
You will let me know when another court reverses CAFC, or an
equivalent court agrees with you on open licenses.
You will let me know when you find a court that legally defines what an
open license is.
Sincerely
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/10/2010 2:11 PM, RJack wrote:
You will let me know when you find a court that legally defines
what an open license is.
Not necessary. Any one of them should do. There's a list here:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
Not necessary is a dodge
ROFL ROFL
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/10/2010 3:03 PM, RJack wrote:
The Copyright Act's pass-through permissions provision eh?
No, the license's pass-through permission.
The Copyright Act gives rights holders the exclusive right to
authorize others to copy and distribute covered works.
Yep you're
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
RJack wrote: [...]
I find it interesting that in 2008 Judge Scheindlin found that an
assertion of condition in a contract is interpreted to mean a
condition precedent:
n52 Plaintiffs bring claims for Contract Failure of Condition
against each defendant. The Court
of
copyright will be filed that challenges the GPL.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
saying that a contract cannot bind a non-party.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. 534 U.S.
279, 122 S.Ct. 754, 151 L.Ed.2d 755.
ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/16/2010 11:42 AM, RJack wrote:
GPLv2: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or
any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all
third parties under the terms
test requires more than an injury
to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be
himself among the injured.” Koziara v. City of Casselberry, 392 F.3d
1302 (11th Cir. 2004)
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/16/2010 12:03 PM, RJack wrote:
That's a really brilliant tautology. If I never use the GPL then
the Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply! Clever. Really clever.
If you choose not to avail yourself of the permissions granted by the
GPL, then you are not bound
RJack wrote:
Plaintiffs Humax, Western Digital, JVC, Versa and Best BUy correctly
asserted that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the GPL claims.
The GPL attempts to grant benefits to all third parties (hence the
name Public License). Nowhere in the GPL is either actual party
(i.e. non
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/16/2010 12:27 PM, RJack wrote:
A plaintiff must point to some type of cognizable harm, whether
such harm is physical, economic, reputational, contractual, or even
aesthetic. . . But the injury in fact test requires more than an
injury to a cognizable interest
of derivative works? Really?
Hop on over to your copy of the Copyright Act and show us.
Who am I supposed to believe? You or my lyin' eyes?
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu
1 - 100 of 1255 matches
Mail list logo
