Hyman Rosen wrote:
The results of the JMRI appeal are in, and the court has held that
open source licenses, including the Artistic License, are valid
copyright limitations, and violations of those conditions provide
grounds for suing for infringement.
So there, rjack and Terekhov! :-)
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Utter bullshit ruling.
But a ruling nonetheless. As I recall, when you brought up the
JMRI case I agreed that the court ruling was opposite to what I
believed was correct and more in line with what you believed, and
I also said that I would await the results of the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Utter bullshit ruling.
But a ruling nonetheless.
With utter nonsense reasoning.
The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the
open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes
How on earth can
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Drunken self-contradictory idiots.
Just as predicted!
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
I'm looking forward to the day when Mr. Terekhov declares SCOTUS a pack of
drunkards.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:31:28AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
I'm looking forward to the day when Mr. Terekhov declares SCOTUS a pack of
drunkards.
We'll get there... just you wait...
Rui
--
All Hail Discordia!
Today is Sweetmorn, the 7th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how
John Hasler wrote:
I'm looking forward to the day when Mr. Terekhov declares SCOTUS a pack of
drunkards.
That will happen as soon as SCOTUS will dare to confuse conditions
(precedent) with scope limitations (such as for example you can make
only ten verbatim copies, all other rights
Tim Smith wrote:
[...]
You'd have a good point if the alleged copyright liability was for
downloading the file. However, the copyright liability is for what the
defendant did with the file AFTER downloading.
You seem to misunderstand. Downloading is irrelevant in this case. Think
of making
Hyman Rosen wrote:
rjack wrote:
This ruling has no precedental value whatsoever.
Facts are stubborn things
You will come to regret your choice of signature.
Facts *are* stubborn things. It is a fact that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled:
Although
