David Kastrup wrote:
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com writes:
RJack writes:
Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't
exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding.
If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com writes:
RJack writes:
Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't
exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding.
If the Federal Circuit's
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com writes:
RJack writes:
Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't
exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding.
the CAFC error
Crank vs. court. There is no error in the CAFC ruling
unless and until another court says so.
a waste of SCOTUS time
The decision would need to be appealed to them, and since
the case is settled, that won't happen. Not that they would
grant cert in something like this anyway.
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
On 2/22/2010 1:42 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
What matters is that the terms and conditions in the GPL are legally
valid, and have now been tested in an appeals court in the United States
of America.
That was the Artistic
RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel
violated CAFC rules.
If you were correct, a single time would suffice.
With Hyman listening? ROFL.
Maybe you've got a
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Sorry, Rjack, by definition the opinion of that appeals court is the
valid one.
Sorry Alan, some of you foreigners are utterly ignorant of that fact
that under U.S. law no appeals court can overrule the Supreme Court of
the United
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 5:50 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 use here is copying and
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
In this case, permission to copy was given depending on proper
attribution. Proper attribution was not made, so no permission to copy
was available.
If you rent me an apartment depending on proper monthly payment, my
failure to pay doesn't automatically nullify the
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
In this case, permission to copy was given depending on proper
attribution. Proper attribution was not made, so no permission to copy
was available.
If you rent me an apartment depending on proper monthly payment, my
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You are confusing a _contract_ with a _license_.
You're really a crackpot, dak.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizenz
Im Privatrecht regeln Kaufverträge, Leihverträge und spezielle
Lizenzverträge die Rechte des Erwerbers und seine Pflichten gegenüber
dem
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You are confusing a _contract_ with a _license_.
You're really a crackpot, dak.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizenz
Im Privatrecht regeln Kaufverträge, Leihverträge und spezielle
Lizenzverträge die Rechte des
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You are confusing a _contract_ with a _license_.
You're really a crackpot, dak.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizenz
Im Privatrecht regeln Kaufverträge, Leihverträge und spezielle
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 5:50 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 use here is
On 2/22/2010 6:39 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 use here is copying and distribution, which infringes
in the absence of any license agreement at
On 2/22/2010 6:48 PM, RJack wrote:
The Artistic License broadly *permits* copying and distribution just as
Judge White originally found when he applied the correct Supreme Court
precedents. Contractual covenants aren't grant conditioners. No end runs
around the Supreme Court Hyman.
The
On 2/23/2010 2:13 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes
in the absence of any license agreement at all.
Providing or not providing attribution is not copying you moron, it's
providing or not providing attribution. Take your
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/23/2010 2:13 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes
in the absence of any license agreement at all.
Providing or not providing attribution is not copying you moron, it's
providing or not
On 2/23/2010 9:48 AM, RJack wrote:
What you say *could* be true in a license. The critical word is
precedent which means to precede. Unfortunately for the
Artistic License, you can't attribute a work you haven't yet received
permission to create. The very thing that is supposedly being
On 2/23/2010 11:06 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman you retardedly confuse conditions precedent with scope
restrictions and covenants to do (or not do) something while doing so.
The CAFC appears to agree with me:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
The clear language of
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 2/23/2010 4:50 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
If you rent me an apartment depending on proper monthly payment, my
failure to pay doesn't automatically nullify the permission to occupy
your apartment and somehow making me liable for
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
That is because there are special laws that pertain to
apartment rentals and evictions, not because of any
general principle.
Forget apartments for a moment silly Hyman. If you rent a car on a
monthly fee basis and don't pay on time while using it, that DOESN'T
make
On 2/23/2010 11:25 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Forget apartments for a moment silly Hyman. If you rent a car on a
monthly fee basis and don't pay on time while using it, that DOESN'T
make you liable in tort (for theft).
That's because the contract specifies consequences for
default (and
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/23/2010 2:13 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in the
absence of any license agreement at all.
Providing or not providing attribution is not copying you moron,
it's providing or not providing
On 2/23/2010 12:00 PM, RJack wrote:
Give it up Alexander. It's Hyman Rosen vs. the United States Supreme
Court. Hyman will just indulge in his denial ad infinitum. There is no
logical way to counter a retreat into solipsistic denial. It is just as
futile as attempting to prove a negative. Hyman
RJack writes:
Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't
exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding.
If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court
precedents why has it not been appealed thereto?
--
John Hasler
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com writes:
RJack writes:
Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't
exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding.
If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court
precedents why has it not been
The comedy continues to unroll. Uh retarded crackpot free softies. LOL!
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=1294
A big legal victory for open source
Date: February 21st, 2010
Author: Jack Wallen
Category: General
Tags: Software, GPL, Victory, Open Source, Tools Techniques,
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
The comedy continues to unroll. Uh retarded crackpot free softies. LOL!
URL:http://www.pvponline.com/2008/06/30/interlude-the-adventures-of-lolbat/
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The comedy continues to unroll. Uh retarded crackpot free softies.
LOL!
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=1294
A big legal victory for open source
Date: February 21st, 2010 Author: Jack Wallen Category: General Tags:
Software, GPL, Victory, Open Source,
On 2/19/2010 5:02 PM, RJack wrote:
No, no Hyman, it's Judge vs. Judge:
The condition that the user insert a promin,ent notice of
attr noibution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather,
Defendants’ alleged violation of the conditions of the license
may have constituted a breach of the
On 2/22/2010 12:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman, why you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the
analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum?
There is no conundrum, just twisting and spinning by anti-GPL
cranks who want to convince people that
On 2/22/2010 12:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright
infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as
violation of a renting license constitutes a trespass, you retard Hyman.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
cranks who want to convince people that violation of a license
does not constitute copyright infringement. The only person I
Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright
infringement in pretty much the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance ...]
That's contract law claim, not tort. WHY ARE YOU BEING SUCH AN IDIOT
HYMAN?
regards,
alexander.
P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system
so that I can do the builds.
Hyman Rosen
On 2/22/2010 12:54 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
That's contract law claim, not tort. WHY ARE YOU BEING SUCH AN IDIOT
HYMAN?
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License
are enforceable copyright conditions, ...
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... enforceable copyright condition ...]
Hyman, please formulate what is enforceable copyright condition, you
retard.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system
so that I can do the builds.
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The
On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman, please formulate what is enforceable copyright condition, you
retard.
Copying and distributing without permission from the rights
holders, with such permission expressed in the license they
may offer.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman, please formulate what is enforceable copyright condition, you
retard.
Copying and distributing without permission from the rights
holders, with such permission expressed in the license they
may offer.
Hyman,
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman, please formulate what is enforceable copyright condition,
...
Copying and distributing without permission from the rights holders,
with such permission expressed in the
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
On 2/22/2010 1:42 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
What matters is that the terms and conditions in the GPL are legally
valid, and have now been tested in an appeals court in the United States
of America.
That was the Artistic License, not the GPL, but good
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 12:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright
infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as
violation of a renting license constitutes a trespass, you retard
Hyman.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 1:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the
analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum, why?
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Having determined that the
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman, please formulate what is enforceable copyright
condition, ...
Copying and distributing without permission from the rights
holders, with such
On 2/22/2010 4:33 PM, RJack wrote:
the entirely unremarkable principle
that “uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright
infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any
license agreement at all
Yes. And the use here is copying and distribution, which
On 2/22/2010 4:36 PM, RJack wrote:
“uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright
infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any
license agreement at all. -- {CAFC)
The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes
in the absence of any license
RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Alan is a poet and using poetic license...
I have a good sense of rhythm, balance, and flow, yes. :-)
Sincerely,
RJack
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
On 2/22/2010 5:06 PM, RJack wrote:
I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel
violated CAFC rules.
Court vs. crank. You can tell me a hundred times more, but
nothing you tell me changes the fact that the so-called
valid opinion is overturned.
RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel
violated CAFC rules.
If you were correct, a single time would suffice.
Here's the *valid* opinion:
[ ]
Sorry, Rjack, by definition the opinion of that appeals court is
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 5:06 PM, RJack wrote:
I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel
violated CAFC rules.
Court vs. crank. You can tell me a hundred times more, but nothing
you tell me changes the fact that the so-called valid opinion is
overturned.
1)
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel
violated CAFC rules.
If you were correct, a single time would suffice.
With Hyman listening? ROFL.
Here's the *valid* opinion:
[ ]
Sorry,
On 2/22/2010 5:30 PM, RJack wrote:
1) The erroneous Jacobsen decision, having been voluntarily settled,
can't be overturned.
The original decision was overturned and remanded.
That's the one you're quoting.
2) The erroneous Jacobsen decision can never be used as precedent in any
federal
On 2/22/2010 5:50 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 use here is copying and distribution, which infringes
in the absence of any license agreement at
On 2/22/2010 5:50 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.
Here is what Judge White said, in his decision post CAFC:
http://jmri.org/k/docket/395.pdf
Under
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 5:50 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 use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in the
absence of any
On 2/22/2010 6:15 PM, RJack wrote:
Show me the exclusive right to attribution in the Copyright Act
There is no exclusive right to attribution. There is the
exclusive right to authorize copying and distribution. Such
authorization may be conditional on the copier performing
certain actions, and
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 5:50 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.
Here is what Judge White said, in his decision post CAFC:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 6:15 PM, RJack wrote:
Show me the exclusive right to attribution in the Copyright Act
There is no exclusive right to attribution. There is the exclusive
right to authorize copying and distribution. Such authorization may
be conditional on the copier
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 5:50 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 use here is copying and distribution, which infringes
in the absence
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
report of Michael A. Einhorn).)2 Because there are facts
Oh yeah, report from Michael A. Einhorn. chuckles
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/369-6.pdf
(Case3:06-cv-01905-JSW Document369-6 Filed 11/13/09 Page 5 of 146)
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
1. Open source
RJack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
So, it's a complete victory for Jacobsen, including a payment of
$100,000 from Katzer.
For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:
The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their
particular circuits in all but the substantive
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Well, if the GPLed source is made available in the aftermath, it stands
How do you know that, silly dak?
Because the version numbers on the links match, right you retard?
Given that comrade Hyman is insufficiently motivated to go set up a
GNU/Linux system so that I
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Well, if the GPLed source is made available in the aftermath, it stands
How do you know that, silly dak?
Because the version numbers on the links match, right you retard?
I answered that already. There is nothing to be
David Kastrup wrote:
[... willful fraud ... ]
You're really a crackpot, dak.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system
so that I can do the builds.
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
P.P.S. Of course correlation implies
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... willful fraud ... ]
You're really a crackpot, dak.
And you've run out of arguments again. Really, it is a good thing
nobody is paying you for the sad spectacle you make of yourself.
--
David Kastrup
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... willful fraud ... ]
You're really a crackpot, dak.
And you've run out of arguments again. Really, it is a good thing
nobody is paying you for the sad spectacle you make of yourself.
me:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
RJack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
So, it's a complete victory for Jacobsen, including a payment of
$100,000 from Katzer.
For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:
The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their
particular
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=201002190850472
(A Big Victory for F/OSS: Jacobsen v. Katzer is Settled)
With the case now settled, there can be no further appeals - meaning
that the rulings of the District and Appeals courts are now
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25847971/Jacobsen-Settlement
A. Defendants and any and all persons or entities acting at
their direction or in concert with them, including, without
limitation, their agents, employees, independent contractors,
successors, or assignees, are permanently
Hyman Rosen wrote:
So, it's a complete victory for Jacobsen, including a payment of
$100,000 from Katzer.
For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:
The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their
particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned
On 2/19/2010 3:26 PM, RJack wrote:
For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:
Court vs. crank again.
How many times have you been told
that unverifiable settlement agreements are imaginary?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_%28litigation%29
The settlement of the lawsuit
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/19/2010 3:26 PM, RJack wrote:
For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:
Court vs. crank again.
How many times have you been told that unverifiable settlement
agreements are imaginary?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_%28litigation%29 The
settlement of
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/19/2010 3:26 PM, RJack wrote:
For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:
Court vs. crank again.
How many times have you been told that unverifiable settlement
agreements are imaginary?
On 2/19/2010 3:40 PM, RJack wrote:
Unverifiable settlement agreements are illusory.
After each case brought by the SFLC ended, the defendants
came into compliance with the GPL. This is verifiable, by
going to their websites and observing that the GPLed sources
are available.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/19/2010 3:26 PM, RJack wrote:
For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:
Court vs. crank again.
No, no Hyman, it's Judge vs. Judge:
The condition that the user insert a promin,ent notice of
attr noibution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather,
75 matches
Mail list logo
