Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And how do the visitors/users of downloaded software from
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
suppose to know that they have the all the rights reserved to the
copyright owners?
[snip non-answer]
The page says
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
See also:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html
Yes, please do:
(l) Other Defenses Not Affected.— The failure of a
service provider’s conduct to qualify for limitation
of liability under this section shall not bear
adversely upon the
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:xpapl.52424$6r1.35...@newsfe19.iad...
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
See also:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html
Yes, please do:
(l) Other Defenses Not Affected.— The failure of a
service provider’s conduct to qualify for
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:0fcpl.43919$ci2.32...@newsfe09.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
You ignore the rather obvious fact that Verizon is distributing binary
code for the routers from its own website to anyone and everyone who
wants it without regard to the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Except for the glaring absence of source code from Verizon. Notice I
said V-e-r-i-z-o-n and not some other Joe Blow's server.
And that would be a problem if and only if Verizon actually
incurs an obligation under the GPL when someone obtains the
software
amicus_curious wrote:
Do you have the slightest understanding of how these
sites work? Apparently not, else you would not suggest
such a silly thing.
Webservers take disparate actions based on parsing the URL
string. As a truly simple example, .cgi URLs resulted in
webservers executing
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:b3dpl.2110$tp5@newsfe13.iad...
You would like to believe that this is because they were afraid
of Verizon, or secretly believe that the GPL is invalid, but that
is just your imagination. There is no evidence for this. It is
more plausible
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:26:56 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:0fcpl.43919$ci2.32...@newsfe09.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
You ignore the rather obvious fact that Verizon is distributing binary
code for the routers from its own website to anyone
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I don't know that they are afraid of Verizon, I think that they do
understand the meaning of dismissed with predjudice though and have no way
to complain of Verizon distributing executable code for Actiontec routers
that is not accompanied by any source code
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com writes:
Does the binary file which is being distributed reside on the verizon
server? If so, then Verizon would be required to make the source
available upon request from a customer. If the binary isn't on a Verizon
server then Verizon has no obligations
amicus_curious wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote
The basic answer is that making the source available is a
requirement of the license.
But not for Verizon anymore?
Verizon ships routers manufactured by Actiontec, which makes
the source available on its web page. Verizon also provides
amicus_curious wrote:
They filed a lawsuit without even such an obvious investigation?
It is difficult to launch an investigation without a lawsuit.
The target has no incentive to respond.
So they didn't suddenly become aware of anything at all. They just
became suddenly aware that they
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
I don't see this distinction in the GPL anywhere.
The distinction isn't in the GPL, it's in copyright law.
The GPL activates only in the context of doing something
that copyright law would otherwise not permit. Copyright
law has various distinctions about copying over
amicus_curious wrote:
I think that they do understand the meaning of dismissed with predjudice
It simply means they dropped their claims against Verizon
and agreed that they would not refile them. My assumption
is they did this because they concluded that the GPL did
not apply to Verizon in
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
[ About whether a file that is being distributed reside on a server
owned by Verizon ]
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
I don't see this distinction in the GPL anywhere.
The distinction isn't in the GPL, it's in copyright law.
No, copyright law grants a monopoly on what
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Huh? What the hell does your cited case have to 17 USC 301(a)?
Nothing at all, since federal preemption of copyright has absolutely
nothing to do with the GPL. The cited case demonstrates that even
though there was a contract
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Neither you nor the SFLC understand the difference between a
scope of permitted use restriction and a condition
precedent to a grant of rights...
But the defendants' legal counsel do, and have apparently decided
that your argument doesn't
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Huh? What the hell does your cited case have to 17 USC
301(a)?
Nothing at all, since federal preemption of copyright has
absolutely nothing to do with the GPL. The cited case
demonstrates that even though
Rjack u...@example.net presents another irrelevant citation:
Generally speaking, New York respects a presumption that terms of a
contract are covenants rather than conditions
The GPL is very clear that its conditions are conditions. From version 2,
and note the parts that I have
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net presents another irrelevant citation:
Generally speaking, New York respects a presumption that terms of a
contract are covenants rather than conditions
The GPL is very clear that its conditions are conditions. From version 2,
and note the parts
Rjack wrote:
impossible condition
And yet so easy to carry out.
strictly construed *against* the drafter
I eagerly await the court which will say so. Meanwhile,
most distributors have no problem following the conditions
of the GPL, including those who initially weren't and got
caught.
Rjack wrote:
Verizon told them to kiss their royal purple ass.
The manufacturer of Verizon's routers makes the source code
properly available on its web page, which is decorated with
symbols of Linux and the FSF.
While you would like to believe that Verizon deliberately
violates the GPL and
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net presents another irrelevant citation:
Generally speaking, New York respects a presumption that terms of a
contract are covenants rather than conditions
The GPL is very clear that its conditions are conditions. From version 2,
and note the
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
They are correct Hymen. Section 2(b) is an *illegal* contractual term.
Just for the sake of playing with you: if that were a case, the legal
document would be invalid.
Dak, dak, dak. Are you still in Germany? Don't you know that resulting
from Harald Welte's
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
They are correct Hymen. Section 2(b) is an *illegal* contractual
term.
Just for the sake of playing with you: if that were a case, the legal
document would be invalid.
Dak, dak, dak. Are you still in Germany? Don't you know that
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
They are correct Hymen. Section 2(b) is an *illegal* contractual
term.
Just for the sake of playing with you: if that were a case, the legal
document would be invalid.
Dak, dak, dak. Are you
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
the GPL is voluntary.
Go to doctor, Hyman.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
... you MUST give the recipients ... You MUST make sure that they, too,
receive or can get the source code ... you MUST show them these terms
... any patent MUST be
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
the GPL is voluntary.
How on earth could you call all that voluntary
Because no one is forced to accept those conditions.
They choose them voluntarily as the cost of copying and
distributing the code. It is voluntary in exactly the
same way as
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200703/court-upholds-copyright-infringement-and-unauthorized-access-claims-wh
Hey Hyman, consider how the case ended:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH FACULTY
Plaintiff,
vs.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hey Hyman, consider how the case ended:
... have reached a settlement in this matter whereby Plaintiff
has agreed to dismiss the entire action against Defendants with
prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and
costs incurred in this action;
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
the GPL is voluntary.
How on earth could you call all that voluntary
Because no one is forced to accept those conditions.
They choose them voluntarily as the cost of copying and
distributing the code. It is voluntary in
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hey Hyman, consider how the case ended:
... have reached a settlement in this matter whereby Plaintiff
has agreed to dismiss the entire action against Defendants with
prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys fees and
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
You confuse various concepts, Hyman. Would you call a condition to pay
as in
The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the payment terms of the
settlement for a period of thirty (30) days.
voluntary as well?
I have no idea what you even mean here.
Assuming the
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Verizon reached a settlement with SFLC's clients?
Of course. That's why the case was dismissed.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[ original on the topic of conditions versus covenants ]
Any attempt otherwise to [do other things] will AUTOMATICALLY
TERMINATE your rights under this License.
[A] breach by one party does not automatically result in rescission
of a contract
Uh-oh.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
If someone chooses to copy and distribute GPLed code,
they can do so legally only if they accept the GPL,
because nothing else gives them permission to do this.
If they accept the GPL, they must follow its dictates.
If someone copies and distributes GPLed code and
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Verizon reached a settlement with SFLC's clients?
Of course. That's why the case was dismissed.
LOL. Go to doctor, Hyman.
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since
Peter Köhlmann peter.koehlm...@arcor.de writes:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
They are correct Hymen. Section 2(b) is an *illegal* contractual
term.
Just for the sake of playing with you: if that were a case, the legal
document would be invalid.
Dak, dak,
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Why do you confuse the GPL dictates with the copyright, Hyman?
Because it's true, and it's confirmed by
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200703/court-upholds-copyright-infringement-and-unauthorized-access-claims-wh.
___
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
LOL. Go to doctor, Hyman.
You would prefer to believe that Verizon is deliberately
flouting the GPL and that the SFLC is too timid to pursue
them, but there is no evidence for this.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net presents another irrelevant citation:
Generally speaking, New York respects a presumption that terms of a
contract are covenants rather than conditions
The GPL is very clear that its conditions are conditions.
David Kastrup wrote:
[... GPL ...]
There is no contract
Let the judges in Munich and Frankfurt know about that, dear GNUtian
dak.
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
(in English)
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
LOL. Go to doctor, Hyman.
You would prefer to believe that Verizon is deliberately
flouting the GPL and that the SFLC is too timid to pursue
them, but there is no evidence for this.
ROFL.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... GPL ...]
There is no contract
Let the judges in Munich and Frankfurt know about that, dear GNUtian
dak.
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
(in English)
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... GPL ...]
There is no contract
Let the judges in Munich and Frankfurt know about that, dear GNUtian
dak.
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[ original on the topic of conditions versus covenants ]
Any attempt otherwise to [do other things] will AUTOMATICALLY
TERMINATE your rights under this License.
[A] breach by one party does not automatically result in rescission
of a
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
LOL. Go to doctor, Hyman.
You would prefer to believe that Verizon is deliberately flouting
the GPL and that the SFLC is too timid to pursue them, but there
is no evidence for this.
Verizon has a voluntary dismissal WITH PREJUDICE. Surely, the
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... GPL ...]
There is no contract
Let the judges in Munich and Frankfurt know about that, dear
GNUtian dak.
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Apparently though open source types (like myself) thought the Verizon
thing was a big deal, it apparently never reached the radar screen of
Verizon's top exec. Go figure.
Thank you for providing evidence that Verizon is not deliberately
flouting the GPL. I will now
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[ still arguing promissory estoppel ]
How do you get promissory estoppel without a promise?
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it...
Permission alone is not a promise. What is the writer of the GPL
promising to do or not to
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[ still arguing promissory estoppel ]
How do you get promissory estoppel without a promise?
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any
portion of it...
Permission alone is not a promise. What is the writer of the GPL
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:gnv0cu$28j...@colin2.muc.de...
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:gnujma$19h...@colin2.muc.de...
Speaking for
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:go0t2l$12p...@colin2.muc.de...
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:gnv0cu$28j...@colin2.muc.de...
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:go0i73$nu...@blue.rahul.net...
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[ still arguing promissory estoppel ]
How do you get promissory estoppel without a promise?
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any
Rjack wrote:
promissory estoppel
There can be no promissory estoppel in the case of the GPL because
it clearly spells out its requirements and consequences. The only
promises violated are those in your fevered imagination.
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Rjack wrote:
even if they must dismiss their clients case WITH PREJUDICE
In every one of the SFLC's cases the defendants or their agents
made the GPLed sources available.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Rjack wrote:
Ummm. . . do you *really* believe that:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above . . . doesn't offer a promise of
amicus_curious wrote:
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:go0i73$nu...@blue.rahul.net...
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[ still arguing promissory estoppel ]
How do you get promissory estoppel without a promise?
2. You may modify your copy or copies of
amicus_curious wrote:
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in
message news:go0i73$nu...@blue.rahul.net...
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[ still arguing promissory estoppel ]
How do you get promissory estoppel without a promise?
2. You may modify your copy or copies of
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:85fxi6u9li@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:gnq384$27e...@colin2.muc.de...
You could make the same sort of argument about any
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:gpjol.24760$ug1.4...@newsfe16.iad...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:51:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
But the BusyBox authors are totally willing to give their work away and
have been doing so for years.
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:w4uol.33009$ci2.27...@newsfe09.iad...
Rjack wrote:
even if they must dismiss their clients case WITH PREJUDICE
In every one of the SFLC's cases the defendants or their agents
made the GPLed sources available.
Actiontec was not an agent of
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:85bpsuu9if@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gnq41q$sr...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
even if they must dismiss their clients case WITH PREJUDICE
In every one of the SFLC's cases the defendants or their agents
made the GPLed sources available.
In every one of the SFLC's cases the defendants won when the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Ummm. . . do you *really* believe that: 2. You may modify your
copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus
forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute
such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above .
. . doesn't offer
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
That is something else entirely. You neglected that little tidbit
that they distributed GPLed binaries. By not distributing the
source, they were breaching the sole licence which allowed them
to distribute the binaries in the first place
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:85eixnrgc6@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:85fxi6u9li@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Peter Köhlmann peter.koehlm...@arcor.de wrote in message
Nobody can come up with the source is not changed, hunt it down
yourself
Would you have any trouble finding it? You say you know all about
this stuff and you are known to be an idiot, so the
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:85ab8brg9a@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:gpjol.24760$ug1.4...@newsfe16.iad...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:51:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
But the BusyBox
amicus_curious wrote:
Actiontec was not an agent of Verizon. Verizon did not make the GPL for
Actiontec devices available. Ergo your statement is false.
Verizon gets its routers from Actiontec. It makes firmware upgrades
available through a URL containing actiontec gateway. It's not at
all
Rjack wrote:
In every one of the SFLC's cases the defendants won when the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their frivolous claims. A fact
that is independently verifiable through federal court records.
In every one of the cases, the plaintiffs demanded that the
defendants comply with the GPL.
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:8563izrg2d@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:85bpsuu9if@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote
Rjack wrote:
It offers a promise of copyright permissions provided the *legal*,
enforcable license terms are obeyed.
You are continuing to offer the argument of the orphan who
murdered his parents. You would be in for a rude surprise
in the real world. Fortunately for you, this is just Usenet.
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Ben Pfaff b...@cs.stanford.edu wrote in message
news:87myce5s72@blp.benpfaff.org...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
No one takes apart complex applications in order to change
them, there is no value in having all those restrictions as
posed by
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
You seem to be fixated on the text of the GPL. I don't disagree with
what it says. I disagree with the notion that it has any practical
value. It is just an ego trip for the author to see his stuff
scattered around the internet. It doesn't help a soul,
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
amicus_curious wrote:
The FSF is a whole different issue. Here we are talking about the
two fellas who authored BusyBox. Did you come in late?
Unless you have evidence to the contrary, the logical
assumption is that people who adopt a license with
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
In every one of the cases, the plaintiffs demanded that the
defendants comply with the GPL.
Why don't you quote the corresponding passages (demanding that the
defendants comply with the GPL) from the plaintiffs' complaint(s)?
Stop hallucinating, Hyman.
amicus_curious wrote:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:85ab8brg9a@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:gpjol.24760$ug1.4...@newsfe16.iad...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:51:24 -0500, amicus_curious
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Why don't you quote the corresponding passages (demanding that the
defendants comply with the GPL) from the plaintiffs' complaint(s)?
Stop hallucinating, Hyman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation)
In other situations (as where the claims have been
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
In every one of the SFLC's cases the defendants won when the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their frivolous claims. A fact
that is independently verifiable through federal court
records.
In every one of the cases, the plaintiffs demanded that the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
It offers a promise of copyright permissions provided the *legal*,
enforcable license terms are obeyed.
You are continuing to offer the argument of the orphan who
murdered his parents. You would be in for a rude surprise
in the real world. Fortunately for you,
Rjack wrote:
Verizon told them to kiss their royal purple ass. They didn't
post any code. How many times does Alexander have to explain things
to you?
Verizon provides a URL through which firmware upgrades can be
downloaded. That URL contains actiontec gateway, suggesting
that the firmware
Rjack wrote:
Huh?
They told me I could do A if I did B, but I didn't think
that I really needed to do B so I did A anyway and now
they're suing me and it's not fair because they promised!
That's how promissory estoppel applies to the GPL. It's the
argument of a whiny crybaby.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...]
In every one of the cases, the plaintiffs demanded that the
defendants comply with the GPL.
Why don't you quote the corresponding passages (demanding that
the defendants comply with the GPL) from the plaintiffs'
complaint(s)?
Stop
Rjack wrote:
THe SFLC has *never* requested the defendants be forced to post the
source code.
Of course not. No one can be forced to post source code, because
the GPL is voluntary. The SFLC sued for copyright violation. In
all the cases, the defendants or their agents then decide that
they
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
THe SFLC has *never* requested the defendants be forced to post
the source code.
Of course not. No one can be forced to post source code, because
the GPL is voluntary. The SFLC sued for copyright violation. In
all the cases, the defendants or their agents
Rjack wrote:
Maybe reality will return for you too.
After each case filed by the SFLC, the defendants or their
agents made the GPLed sources available, complying with the
terms of the GPL. That is all the reality I need. It is the
anti-GPL folks who engage in fever dreams about all the ways
in
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Maybe reality will return for you too.
After each case filed by the SFLC, the defendants or their agents
made the GPLed sources available, complying with the terms of
the GPL. That is all the reality I need. It is the anti-GPL folks
who engage in fever
Rjack wrote:
imaginary settlements
In each case filed by the SFLC, the defendants or their agents
have made the GLPed sources available in proper compliance with
the GPL. That perfectly real source code is available for download
from perfectly real web sites.
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Rjack wrote:
imaginary settlements
In each case filed by the SFLC, the defendants or their agents
have made the GLPed sources available in proper compliance with
the GPL. That perfectly real source code is available for download
from perfectly real web
Rjack wrote:
In each case filed by the SFLC, the defendants have always received
a voluntary dismissal without any judgment being rendered against
them whatsoever.
And no one is arguing otherwise. Most cases settle. The goal of the
SFLC is to promote compliance with the GPL. In each case they
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[ still arguing promissory estoppel ]
Permission is a voluntary waiver of a legal right
...
The waiver of a legal right also constitutes consideration for a
promise:
'In general a waiver of any legal right at the request of another
party is a sufficient
Ben Pfaff wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Rjack wrote:
In each case filed by the SFLC, the defendants have always
received a voluntary dismissal without any judgment being
rendered against them whatsoever.
And no one is arguing otherwise. Most cases settle. The goal of
the SFLC
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:drvol.13172$hy7.3...@newsfe25.iad...
Rjack wrote:
Huh?
They told me I could do A if I did B, but I didn't think
that I really needed to do B so I did A anyway and now
they're suing me and it's not fair because they promised!
That's how
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:go0t2l$12p...@colin2.muc.de...
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:gnv0cu$28j...@colin2.muc.de...
In gnu.misc.discuss
Rjack wrote:
Interpretation of a copyright license as a contract makes all
the difference in the world concerning enforcement.
This is false. See, for example,
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200703/court-upholds-copyright-infringement-and-unauthorized-access-claims-wh
where a court
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
imaginary settlements
In each case filed by the SFLC, the defendants or their agents have
made the GLPed sources available in proper compliance with the
GPL. That perfectly real source code is available for
download from
In gnu.misc.discuss Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:35:17 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
They sell a comprehensive solution that is dependent on their
hardware, just like Actiontec sells a router as a comprehensive
functional device.
No, actually, OS/X isn't
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Interpretation of a copyright license as a contract makes all
the difference in the world concerning enforcement.
This is false. See, for example,
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200703/court-upholds-copyright-infringement-and-unauthorized-access-claims-wh
Rjack wrote:
Huh? What the hell does your cited case have to 17 USC 301(a)?
Nothing at all, since federal preemption of copyright has absolutely
nothing to do with the GPL. The cited case demonstrates that even
though there was a contract between the rights holder and the user,
when the user
101 - 200 of 480 matches
Mail list logo
