This is hilarious:
http://www.jmri.org/k/docket/289.pdf
(Transcript of Proceedings held on 12-19-08, before Judge Jeffrey White.
Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Wyatt, Telephone number
925-212-5224. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy,
this transcript may be viewed only
Rjack wrote:
You truncated my statement: Obviously there is no 'right of
attribution' mentioned in 17 USC 106. Shame on you!
The GPL describes how the work may be copied and distributed.
The attribution comes along with that.
Where in the Copyright Act does it give permission to force
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
What does this have to do with Artistic and/or GPL licenses
GPLed works may only be copied and distributed under the
terms of the GPL. The GPL prohibits a licensee from copying
and distributing a work licensed under it once the licensee
has copied and distributed the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The GPL isn't a bilateral contract.
Go to doctor Hyman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_telephone_number
Sincerely,
Rjack
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
If A grants a software license to B on the express
condition that the license will remain in effect
only so long as B makes monthly payments to A, and
B then stops making payments to A, any subsequent
copying of the software [...] by B would
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Does the following help, Hyman?
http://terekhov.de/2009-1221/AppelleeBrief.pdf
Not in the slightest. The amicus brief is correct. The
harm done by violation of open copyright licenses is
irreparable and immediate precisely because it is non-
economic in nature.
Harm
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Does the following help, Hyman?
http://terekhov.de/2009-1221/AppelleeBrief.pdf
Not in the slightest. The amicus brief is correct. The
harm done by violation of open copyright licenses is
irreparable and immediate precisely because it is
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Non-economic doesn't mean irreparable and immediate
Not necessarily, but in this case yes, for reasons
the brief and I both explained.
And contract laws provide for remedy known as
specific performance.
Unless the copyright violator has tracked the parties
to
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Non-economic doesn't mean irreparable and immediate
Not necessarily, but in this case yes, for reasons
the brief and I both explained.
And the reasons being what, silly?
Quote the brief and yourself, Hyman.
[... Remember that ...]
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And the reasons being what
Quote the brief and yourself
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/jacobsen-amicus-brief.html
FOSS license violations ... sever the developer’s legal
relationship with other licensees who never become aware
of their
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And the reasons being what
Quote the brief and yourself
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/jacobsen-amicus-brief.html
FOSS license violations ... sever the developers legal
relationship
And that allegedly severed
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And that allegedly severed legal relationship being what
exactly, to begin with?
The extra permissions granted to them by the copyright
holder, above those allowed by copyright law.
What makes you/SFLC think that those other licensees *never*
become aware of
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And that allegedly severed legal relationship being what
exactly, to begin with?
The extra permissions granted to them by the copyright
holder, above those allowed by copyright law.
And on basis of what law do you think that Appeelees are
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And on basis of what law do you think that Appeelees are obliged to let
third parties know about those extra permissions granted to them by the
copyright holder, above those allowed by copyright law
17 USC 106(3) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
The terms of distribution are under the control of the
copyright holder, as when he separately authorizes the
creation of hardcover and paperback copies of a book.
Why do you keeping confusing scope-of-use limitations of the grant with
conditions to the grant, Hyman?
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...]
The terms of distribution are under the control of the copyright
holder, as when he separately authorizes the creation of
hardcover and paperback copies of a book.
Why do you keeping confusing scope-of-use limitations of the grant
with
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Why do you keeping confusing scope-of-use limitations of
the grant with conditions to the grant, Hyman?
Fortunately, I am not doing that.
Hardcover (durable copy) and paperback (non-durable copy) uses have
nothing to do with covenants you want the licensee to
Rjack wrote:
A requirement for a scope of use restriction is the the alleged use
*must* violate sec. 106 rights in the absence of any license at all.
The violating use is distributing a copy of the copyrighted work,
prohibited by 17 USC 106(3). The GPL (and other open licenses)
describes the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
A requirement for a scope of use restriction is the the alleged
use *must* violate sec. 106 rights in the absence of any license
at all.
The violating use is distributing a copy of the copyrighted work,
You truncated my statement: Obviously there is no
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Brief of Amicus Curiae
The Volokh Conspiracy legal blog recently had some good posts
on amicus briefs - what they're for, and why they should be short.
Well worth reading.
Amicus Briefs -- Why File Them?
ROFL!
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/jacobsen-amicus-brief.html
--
Amicus Curiae: Jacobsen v. Katzer
Software Freedom Law Center
June 15, 2009
Download PDF | Download Postscript
2009-1352
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
ROFL!
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/jacobsen-amicus-brief.html
Since your thought processes are not like those of
rational human beings, I think you need to quote
more selectively from the brief the lines you find
amusing.
Although it's probably
LMAO!
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/2009/jun/15/jacobsen-amicus-brief/
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast-media/Software-Freedom-Law-Show_Special_Jacobsen-Amicus-Brief.ogg
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast-media/Software-Freedom-Law-Show_Special_Jacobsen-Amicus-Brief.mp3
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
ROFL!
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/jacobsen-amicus-brief.html
Since your thought processes are not like those of
rational human beings, I think you need to quote
more selectively from the brief the lines you find
amusing.
[Newsgroups: trimmed]
Hyman,
In gnu.misc.discuss Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Since your thought processes are not like those of
rational human beings, I think you need to quote
more selectively from the brief the lines you find
amusing.
Although it's
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
Don't feed the troll. Please.
Have a nice day Alan!
_ _
|a| |a|
|l| |l|
|e| |e|
|x| |x|
|a|
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
ROFL!
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/jacobsen-amicus-brief.html
Since your thought processes are not like those of rational human
beings, I think you need to quote more selectively from the brief
the lines you find amusing.
Rjack wrote:
Why follow a case from a Circuit Court that is totally without
authority to set copyright law precedent? The ruling will be utterly
useless to anyone other than the present litigants.
If a good outcome will annoy you, I'll be happy just with that.
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[Newsgroups: trimmed]
Hyman,
In gnu.misc.discuss Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Since your thought processes are not like those of
rational human beings, I think you need to quote
more selectively from the brief the lines you find
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Why follow a case from a Circuit Court that is totally without
authority to set copyright law precedent? The ruling will be
utterly useless to anyone other than the present litigants.
If a good outcome will annoy you, I'll be happy just with that.
Is
Rjack wrote:
Is annoying people your reason for posting in this group?
Pity. . .
No, the reason for posting is to correct errors. If you are
annoyed when your errors are demonstrated, that's just an
extra bonus.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Rjack wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Developments:
3. KAM filed a motion to transfer the case to the 9th Circuit:
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/cafc-pi-2/Katzer_Motion_to_Transfer_to_Ninth_Circuit_3-10-09.pd
Perhaps we will see the final copyright ruling in this case
Developments:
1.
In http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/284.pdf, Judge Jeffrey S. White
issued an order DENYING [236] Motion for Preliminary Injunction;
DENYING [267] Motion to Strike Declarations; DENYING IN PART AND
GRANTING IN PART [192] Third MOTION to Dismiss; DENYING Motion to
Strike;
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Developments:
3. KAM filed a motion to transfer the case to the 9th Circuit:
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/cafc-pi-2/Katzer_Motion_to_Transfer_to_Ninth_Circuit_3-10-09.pd
Perhaps we will see the final copyright ruling in this case brought to
a conclusion
LOL
Developments!
Katzer filed an answer to the complaint (denying any wrong doing) and
countersuing JMRI for copyright infringement regarding proprietary (no
licensing involved at all) NMRA DCC Reference Manual for QSI Quantum HO
Equipped Locomotives-Version 3.0. KAM registered its copyright
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
I find your reasoning fascinating. If the downloader doesn't know about
the license or doesn't agree to it, then it seems that at the time of
the download, at least, there is no assent and contract.
If a
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
I find your reasoning fascinating. If the downloader doesn't know about
the license or doesn't agree to it, then it seems that at the time of
the download, at least, there is no assent and
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Next thing you know you'll be calling a copyright license a contract:
I'm staying out of this license/contract debate, but since you are not,
how do you justify calling it a contract in the
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Downloading constitutes a manifestation of assent.
So if the downloader doesn't know about the license, or knows about it
but explicitly refuses to agree to it as he does the download, this is
still a manifestation of assent?
Merriam-Webster says assent
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
I find your reasoning fascinating. If the downloader doesn't know about
the license or doesn't agree to it, then it seems that at the time of
the download, at least, there is no assent and contract.
If a downloader don't know about the
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
OT: How do I get a @example.net email address? I thought this domain
is reserved?
--
Koh Choon Lin
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Next thing you know you'll be calling a copyright license a contract:
I'm staying out of this license/contract debate, but since you are not,
how do you justify calling it a contract in the specific case that the
person downloading GPL
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Next thing you know you'll be calling a copyright license a contract:
I'm staying out of this license/contract debate, but since you are
not, how do you justify calling it a contract in the specific case
that
Koh Choon Lin wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
OT: How do I get a @example.net email address? I thought this domain
is reserved?
Make it up, just like I did. An alternative is to use your valid
email address. If you you use your real email address, have at least
100 terabytes of disc
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Next thing you know you'll be calling a copyright license a contract:
I'm staying out of this license/contract debate, but since you are not,
how do you justify calling it a contract in the specific case that
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Presumably you, like most of us, simply skip past the numerous case law
links that Rjack posts, having realized that they seldom help us
understand how free software licensing works. Once in a while, though,
he posts something useful that has a significant bearing on how and
Presumably you, like most of us, simply skip past the numerous case law
links that Rjack posts, having realized that they seldom help us
understand how free software licensing works. Once in a while, though,
he posts something useful that has a significant bearing on how and why
copyright
Anyone knows if Eben has left the FSF?
He hasn't, he left the FSF board but is still active as General
Counsel for the FSF.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Next thing you know you'll be calling a copyright license a contract:
I'm staying out of this license/contract debate, but since you are not,
how do you justify calling it a contract in the specific case that the
person downloading GPL software hasn't agreed to the
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxjmrix.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gk6t8h$db...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I think that the issue of consideration is paramount. The copyright
laws exist to protect the author's ability to benefit from the author's
artistic
In article 85wsd5nzaq@lola.goethe.zz, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
wrote:
ZnU z...@fake.invalid writes:
In article 85r63dpho3@lola.goethe.zz, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
wrote:
To have the GPL evaluated on its merits, the defendant has to state
that he considers being in
amicus_curious wrote:
Why would anyone really care unless there were some benefit to be
obtained by the author due to the right to control the distribution?
These enforcement lawsuits demonstrate that some authors do care.
It is silly to suppose that the the purpose of a
copyright is to lock
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Why would anyone really care unless there were some benefit to be
obtained by the author due to the right to control the distribution?
The copyright act contains language such as ...to distribute copies or
phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other
understand how free software licensing works. Once in a while, though,
he posts something useful that has a significant bearing on how and why
copyright law is actually designed for the same purpose as free software
licenses. Here is an excerpt from one of his numerous links.
I treat it as
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxjmrix.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gk7q1h$q0...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Why would anyone really care unless there were some benefit to be
obtained by the author due to the right to control the distribution?
The copyright act
amicus_curious wrote:
[... RT COMPUTER GRAPHICS, INC. vs UNITED STATES ...]
It seems curious to me why you would cite this case. As far as I can tell,
RT Computer Graphics sued the Post Office on the basis that their copyright
was violated due to the Post Office's failure to attribute the
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
JOHN COWAN Further Responds:
I understand why you are trying to be safe, but the effect of CAPITALS
is that you are SHOUTING at the people you are trying to talk with.
This is a deeply ingrained synaesthetic reflex for people on Internet
mailing lists. If you *must*
Mark Radcliffe (I earned a B.S. in Chemistry magna cum laude from the
University of Michigan and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. I have been
practicing law in Silicon Valley for over 25 years and am now a senior
partner at DLA Piper. DLA Piper is a new global law firm formed in 2005
from the
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Why does this matter? State courts, the federal circuit courts of
appeal and the US Supreme Court have all uniformly and routinely
interpreted license restrictions as covenants rather than conditions
precedent. In other words, the courts presume that the restrictions
The answer, I suspect, is that the Free Software Foundation is not
accepting compliance with the GPL as a solution. It wants more. It wants
to push Cisco around and it wants money. Here's how it thinks it can do
that. The Software Lawyer
If the only consequence of being caught out of
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The answer, I suspect, is that the Free Software Foundation is not
accepting compliance with the GPL as a solution. It wants more. It
wants to push Cisco around and it wants money. Here's how it thinks
it can do that. The Software Lawyer
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The answer, I suspect, is that the Free Software Foundation is not
accepting compliance with the GPL as a solution. It wants more. It
wants to push Cisco around and it wants money. Here's how it thinks it
can do that. The Software Lawyer
If the only consequence of being
David Kastrup wrote:
To have the GPL evaluated on its merits, the defendant has to state
that he considers being in compliance with the GPL.
And so, just why does the defendant *have* to state that he
considers being in compliance with the GPL.? Is there a gun against
his head?
Why
ZnU wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this.
You are dealing with people who believe that the part of
the GPL that grants permission to do stuff can be obeyed
while the part that restricts how you may do that can be
ignored. Then when the copyright holder complains, he can
be sued for misuse of
ZnU z...@fake.invalid writes:
In article 85r63dpho3@lola.goethe.zz, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
wrote:
To have the GPL evaluated on its merits, the defendant has to state
that he considers being in compliance with the GPL. Up to now, none
of the defendants put forward that theory. So
In article 85r63dpho3@lola.goethe.zz, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The answer, I suspect, is that the Free Software Foundation is not
accepting compliance with the GPL as a solution. It wants more. It
wants to push Cisco
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I think that the issue of consideration is paramount. The copyright
laws exist to protect the author's ability to benefit from the author's
artistic cleverness. If the author chooses not to benefit in a
conventional way, the benefit that is expected must at
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/284.pdf
-
Jacobsens Motion for Preliminary Injunction on Copyright Claim.
1. Legal Standard.
Plaintiff moves for preliminary injunction, seeking a court order
enjoining Defendants from willfully infringing Plaintiffs copyrighted
material. A plaintiff
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/279.pdf
(NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S.
White on December 17, 2008. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2008))
[[...]] below is my own remarks, not judge's.
-
[...]
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
1. As
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/279.pdf
(NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S.
White on December 17, 2008. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2008))
A must read before analyzing the above referenced NOTICE OF
TENTATIVE RULING
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It follows that Katzer has invited the District Court to ignore the
CAFC's ruling
Asking and getting aren't the same thing.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Technically, the Federal Circuit's ruling will have no precedential,
effect. Because of an unusual quirk in US law, the court had to apply
the legal standards of a sister appellate court, the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals; and the Federal
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Technically, the Federal Circuit's ruling will have no precedential,
effect. Because of an unusual quirk in US law, the court had to apply
the legal standards of a sister appellate court, the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals; and the Federal Circuit's interpretation of
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
persons amounts to asking for murder and thus any of their conditions
and tariffs need not be heeded.
C'mon dak, according to CAFC's moronic trio, a license stating that you
can reproduce and/or perform my song _provided that_ the sound level
doesn't exceed 80 dB
Technically, the Federal Circuit's ruling will have no precedential,
effect. Because of an unusual quirk in US law, the court had to apply
the legal standards of a sister appellate court, the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals; and the Federal Circuit's interpretation of 9th Circuit law
has no
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://jmri.net/k/docket/227.pdf
Lastly, Plaintiff must prove a likelihood of success on the merits or
a fair chance of success on the merits of his copyright claim.
It's a lng way from over. The Federal Circuit ruled
* David Kastrup peremptorily fired off this memo:
When only isolated lunatics remain, it is over.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Sig material!
Although the one below I just have to leave stet, even though it break
Usenet etiquette.
--
I suppose some of the variation
http://jmri.net/k/docket/227.pdf
Jacobsen says:
Implementation of Federal Circuit Ruling
Jacobsen has proposed an injunction, which is attached as Exhibit A. The
original motion for preliminary injunction sought to enjoin infringement
of JMRI Decoder Definitions 1.7.1. Jacobsen asks
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://jmri.net/k/docket/227.pdf
Lastly, Plaintiff must prove a likelihood of success on the merits or
a fair chance of success on the merits of his copyright claim.
It's a lng way from over. The Federal Circuit ruled narrowly on
whether the terms were
79 matches
Mail list logo
