On 4/7/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And no costs against SFLC. Ha, ha.
04/06/2010 103 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiffs Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Andersen and Defendant Comtrend Corporation
hereby stipulate to dismiss defendant Comtrend Corporation from this
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/7/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And no costs against SFLC. Ha, ha.
04/06/2010 103 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiffs Software
Freedom Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Andersen and Defendant Comtrend
Corporation hereby stipulate to dismiss defendant Comtrend
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/7/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And no costs against SFLC. Ha, ha.
04/06/2010 103 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiffs Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Andersen and Defendant Comtrend Corporation
hereby stipulate to dismiss defendant
On 4/7/2010 1:37 PM, RJack wrote:
There is, of course, no link anywhere to BusyBox, v.0.60.3.
for which the plaintiffs Complaint claims infringement.
Interesting that your arguments have devolved into outright
lying instead of merely being wrong. Pointless, too, since it
is so easy to refute
On 4/7/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm
How did you come across that link?
It's the I'm Feeling Lucky link in a Google search for comtrend gpl.
Did you check the content of those tars?
No.
What exactly did you find in those
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/7/2010 1:37 PM, RJack wrote:
There is, of course, no link anywhere to BusyBox, v.0.60.3. for
which the plaintiffs Complaint claims infringement.
Interesting that your arguments have devolved into outright lying
instead of merely being wrong. Pointless, too, since it is
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/7/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm
How did you come across that link?
It's the I'm Feeling Lucky link in a Google search for comtrend
gpl.
Did you check the content of those tars?
No.
What exactly did
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/7/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm
How did you come across that link?
It's the I'm Feeling Lucky link in a Google search for comtrend gpl.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
The only mention of a particular version of BusyBox is
A copyright claim requires to identify PARTICULAR EXPRESSION, you
retard.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright
On 4/7/2010 2:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm
Yes? The archive shows that a version of this page was
present once in 2006 and throughout 2007, but not later.
When present, it contained code for the CT-536+/CT-5621
product. The
On 4/7/2010 2:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
A copyright claim requires to identify PARTICULAR EXPRESSION
And once the defendants choose to point out that they are
copying and distributing a different version, the BusyBox
rights holders will simply register that version and go on
with the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
they came back into compliance...
Sez who? Stop being utter retard Hyman.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/7/2010 2:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
A copyright claim requires to identify PARTICULAR EXPRESSION
And once the defendants choose to point out that they are
copying and distributing a different version, the BusyBox
rights holders will simply register that
On 4/7/2010 2:35 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
they came back into compliance...
Sez who?
It is the natural implication of Comtrend being
dropped from the suit and their GPL source code
web page (re)appearing. You may try to demonstrate
otherwise if you choose, but it is
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/7/2010 2:35 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
they came back into compliance...
Sez who?
It is the natural implication of Comtrend being
dropped from the suit and their GPL source code
Why don't you post here their GPL source code stupid Hyman?
On 4/7/2010 3:07 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Why don't you post here their GPL source code stupid Hyman?
What their GPL source code are you talking about, idiot Hyman?
The archives downloadable from http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm.
That web page says
The GPL source code contained in
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/7/2010 2:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm
Yes? The archive shows that a version of this page was present once
in 2006 and throughout 2007, but not later. When present, it
contained code for the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/7/2010 2:35 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
they came back into compliance...
Sez who?
It is the natural implication of Comtrend being dropped from the suit
and their GPL source code web page (re)appearing. You may try to
demonstrate otherwise if you
On 4/7/2010 4:30 PM, RJack wrote:
What appears to have happened is that the SFLC filed a mindless
copyright infringement claim concerning “BusyBox, v.0.60.3.” that
they can't possibly win so they are attempting to cut their losses as
quickly as possible. Further prosecution of the suit would
On 4/7/2010 4:33 PM, RJack wrote:
it'll help you get over your loss
There is no loss. Rather, since Comtrend is now complying
with the GPL, the SFLC has achieved its goal, and therefore
has won.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/7/2010 4:33 PM, RJack wrote:
it'll help you get over your loss
There is no loss. Rather, since Comtrend is now complying with the
GPL, the SFLC has achieved its goal, and therefore has won.
Try something stronger Hyman -- maybe some Jack Daniels.
Smooth sippin' for
Hyman Rosen pulled this Usenet boner:
On 4/7/2010 4:30 PM, RJack wrote:
What appears to have happened is that the SFLC filed a mindless
copyright infringement claim concerning ?BusyBox, v.0.60.3.? that
they can't possibly win so they are attempting to cut their losses as
quickly as possible.
amicus_curious wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:e46vn.200849$dv7.17...@newsfe17.iad...
On 4/7/2010 4:30 PM, RJack wrote:
What appears to have happened is that the SFLC filed a mindless
copyright infringement claim concerning BusyBox, v.0.60.3. that
they
On 4/8/2010 1:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
I was curious as to what was actually posted and I found, by following the
link:
Not Found
The requested document was not found on this server.
MORON Hyman
But the SFLC has already won, because it is the natural implication
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/8/2010 1:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
I was curious as to what was actually posted and I found, by following the
link:
Not Found
The requested document was not found on this server.
MORON Hyman
But the SFLC has already won,
On Apr 7, 1:13 pm, Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
And no costs against SFLC. Ha, ha.
04/06/2010 103 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiffs Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Andersen and Defendant Comtrend Corporation
hereby stipulate to dismiss defendant Comtrend
Rex Ballard wrote:
On Apr 7, 1:13 pm, Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
And no costs against SFLC. Ha, ha.
04/06/2010 103 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiffs Software
Freedom Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Andersen and Defendant Comtrend
Corporation hereby stipulate to dismiss
On 4/8/2010 3:18 PM, RJack wrote:
Post a verifiable settlement agreement or
admit the SFLC cut and ran.
It is not necessary to post a verifiable settlement agreement
and it is probably impossible to do so, since settlements are
often kept private. It is only necessary to see that the SFLC
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/8/2010 3:18 PM, RJack wrote:
Post a verifiable settlement agreement or
admit the SFLC cut and ran.
It is not necessary to post a verifiable settlement agreement
and it is probably impossible to do so, since settlements are
often kept private. It is only necessary to see
chrisv wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/8/2010 3:18 PM, RJack wrote:
Post a verifiable settlement agreement or admit the SFLC cut and
ran.
It is not necessary to post a verifiable settlement agreement and
it is probably impossible to do so, since settlements are often
kept private. It is
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/8/2010 3:18 PM, RJack wrote:
Post a verifiable settlement agreement or admit the SFLC cut and
ran.
It is not necessary to post a verifiable settlement agreement and
it is probably impossible to do so, since settlements are often kept
private. It is only necessary to
chrisv wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/8/2010 3:18 PM, RJack wrote:
Post a verifiable settlement agreement or admit the SFLC cut and
ran.
It is not necessary to post a verifiable settlement agreement and
it is probably impossible to do so, since settlements are often
kept private. It is
On 4/8/2010 3:53 PM, RJack wrote:
*When* they fix the broken link, will it point to the source code for
BusyBox, v.0.60.3 as claimed in their frivolous lawsuit?
Of course not, unless that is the version of the binary
which the (former) defendants are distributing. You are
also deliberately
On 4/8/2010 4:08 PM, RJack wrote:
I tried that link yesterday and it pointed to a tarball of a recent
(2008 I think) version of BusyBox. That's why in my prior post I asked
why the link didn't point to BusyBox, v.0.60.3 as claimed in their
frivolous infringement lawsuit.
You are deliberately
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/8/2010 3:53 PM, RJack wrote:
*When* they fix the broken link, will it point to the source code
for BusyBox, v.0.60.3 as claimed in their frivolous lawsuit?
Of course not, unless that is the version of the binary which the
(former) defendants are distributing. You are
RJack u...@example.net writes:
You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier of fact
compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to identify with an
*alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury members to compare?
Uh, by comparing code passages, like one always does in a
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
It is the job of the trier of fact to compare the *registered* work with
the alleged infringing copy for substantial similarity. In the instant
suit, no binary has been *registered* for comparison with the alleged
infringing binary. I'll leave it to you to explain
On 4/8/2010 6:44 PM, RJack wrote:
You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier of fact
compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to identify with an
*alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury members to compare?
Gathering such evidence will happen during discovery.
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[... typical Rex Ballard's amusing baloney ...]
Thanks for this contribution!
Seconded.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Depositions will be taken in order to determine the
provenance of the software being distributed by the
defendants, . . .
What are you smoking Hyman?
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards
On 4/9/2010 5:48 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
324 Deposit for registration: identifying material.
Yes, so? What does this have to do with registering
source vs. binary?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/8/2010 5:57 PM, RJack wrote:
BusyBox, v.0.60.3 is the version of BusyBox registered with the
Copyright Office by the plaintiff
According to the complaint
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf
this is a version registered by
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 5:48 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
324 Deposit for registration: identifying material.
Yes, so?
A copyright claim requires to identify PARTICULAR EXPRESSION, you
retard.
Why don't you post here their GPL source code, stupid Hyman?
What their GPL source
On 4/9/2010 11:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
A copyright claim requires to identify PARTICULAR EXPRESSION
Yes, so?
Why don't you post here their GPL source code?
For what?
What their GPL source code are you talking about?
The source code of BusyBox.
As usual, you are failing to
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
via its license, the GPL. If defendants are copying and
distributing any version of BusyBox without complying with
the GPL, then they are infringing copyright.
Sez who?
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds
On 4/9/2010 11:26 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
via its license, the GPL. If defendants are copying and
distributing any version of BusyBox without complying with
the GPL, then they are infringing copyright.
Sez who?
The Copyright Act, of course, in 17 USC 103:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/8/2010 6:44 PM, RJack wrote:
You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier of
fact compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to identify
with an *alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury members to
compare?
Gathering such evidence will happen
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 11:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
A copyright claim requires to identify PARTICULAR EXPRESSION
Yes, so?
Why don't you post here their GPL source code?
For what?
What their GPL source code are you talking about?
The source code of BusyBox.
As usual, you
On 4/9/2010 11:37 AM, RJack wrote:
The claim processing rules dictated by 17 USC sec. 411(a) require the
specific work be identified through registration with the Copyright
Office. Stop making up nonsense Hyman.
Tell it to the court:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/103.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html
See also [LOL] Hey Alan, Pee Jay's mind is going to explode soon
thread here:
Western Digital:
Plaintiffs claims are barred by the first sale doctrine.
On 4/9/2010 11:51 AM, RJack wrote:
You can only claim infringement for works that *you* own.
Register *your* contribution and stop claiming rights to
ownership of a derivative work as a whole.
That's what registration of copyright means; it reflects the
registrant's ownership of rights, but
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/8/2010 6:44 PM, RJack wrote:
You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier of
fact compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to identify
with an *alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury members to
compare?
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 11:37 AM, RJack wrote:
The claim processing rules dictated by 17 USC sec. 411(a) require
the specific work be identified through registration with the
Copyright Office. Stop making up nonsense Hyman.
Tell it to the court:
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/8/2010 6:44 PM, RJack wrote:
You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier
of fact compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to
identify with an *alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Like it happened every time so far.
Like
http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz
you moron dak.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards
On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html
The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright
infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual
sense. In particular, a copy of a GPL-covered work made
for use does not become a copy
On 4/9/2010 12:44 PM, RJack wrote:
That's one of the slickest out of context edits I've seen for a while
What do you believe the full context communicates that
the excerpt does not?
You're a great fan of provided that and may aren't you Hyman?
The court plainly states that the remedy for
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html
The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright infringement
of GPL-covered works, except in its usual sense. In particular, a
copy of a GPL-covered work made for use does
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 12:44 PM, RJack wrote:
That's one of the slickest out of context edits I've seen for a
while
What do you believe the full context communicates that the excerpt
does not?
You're a great fan of provided that and may aren't you Hyman?
The court plainly states
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 12:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Like
http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz
Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link.
Sometimes a claimed victory is just propaganda hype.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
On 4/9/2010 1:39 PM, RJack wrote:
Yeah -- in a future action. So what?
So if a court finds it cannot deal with a GPL copyright
infringement claim because the particular infringed
version isn't registered, the plaintiffs will register
that version and bring the case again, just as the court
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 1:39 PM, RJack wrote:
Yeah -- in a future action. So what?
So if a court finds it cannot deal with a GPL copyright infringement
claim because the particular infringed version isn't registered, the
plaintiffs will register that version and bring the case again,
On 4/9/2010 2:29 PM, RJack wrote:
The GPL is preempted under U.S. copyright law
The GPL functions properly under US copyright law.
The preemption of state laws equivalent to copyright
is irrelevant to the GPL.
as well as being unenforceable under the common law of
contracts.
The GPL is not
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 2:29 PM, RJack wrote:
The GPL is preempted under U.S. copyright law
The GPL functions properly under US copyright law. The preemption of
state laws equivalent to copyright is irrelevant to the GPL.
as well as being unenforceable under the common law of
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 2:54 PM, RJack wrote:
You can't accept illegal terms... the law refuses to enforce them.
Fortunately the terms of the GPL are legal.
Oh beautiful estoppel! Wondrous are your ways! You maketh my code
public domain! Oh fair estoppel!
There is no estoppel with
On 4/9/2010 3:46 PM, RJack wrote:
Crank this Mr. Denier:
To apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the proponent must
demonstrate: (1) a clear and unambiguous promise; (2) reasonable and
foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; and (3)
an injury sustained in reliance
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 3:46 PM, RJack wrote:
Crank this Mr. Denier:
To apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the proponent must
demonstrate: (1) a clear and unambiguous promise; (2) reasonable
and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made;
and (3) an injury
On 4/9/2010 4:32 PM, RJack wrote:
Don't go to a real court Hyman. You'll find the court won't indulge your
denials anymore than the federal courts listened to the Birther's claims
of non-citizenship for Obama. ROFL.
According to this paper,
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 2:29 PM, RJack wrote:
The GPL is preempted under U.S. copyright law
The GPL functions properly under US copyright law. The preemption of
state laws equivalent to copyright is irrelevant to the GPL.
as well as being
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
According to this paper,
http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf
the GPL is not a contract.
Part IV proposes that the GPL is a failed contract, which lacks only
consideration. It advocates enforcing the license through state
promissory estoppel law and the Copyright Act.
David Kastrup wrote:
[... Pee Jays therom ...]
a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do
What part of YOU INDICATE ACCEPTANCE don't you understand retard dak?
ACCEPTANCE is a contract thing, idiot.
Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 4:32 PM, RJack wrote:
Don't go to a real court Hyman. You'll find the court won't indulge
your denials anymore than the federal courts listened to the
Birther's claims of non-citizenship for Obama. ROFL.
According to this paper,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html
The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright
infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual
sense. In particular, a copy of a GPL-covered work made
for use
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
According to this paper,
http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf
the GPL is not a contract.
Part IV proposes that the GPL is a failed contract, which lacks only
consideration. It advocates enforcing the license through state
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... Pee Jays therom ...]
a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do
What part of YOU INDICATE ACCEPTANCE don't you understand retard dak?
ACCEPTANCE is a contract thing, idiot.
Just because the
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html
The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright
infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual
sense. In
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
According to this paper,
http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf
the GPL is not a contract.
Part IV proposes that the GPL is a failed contract, which lacks only
consideration. It advocates
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... Pee Jays therom ...]
a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do
What part of YOU INDICATE ACCEPTANCE don't you understand retard dak?
ACCEPTANCE is a contract
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
David Kastrup wrote: [...]
Like it happened every time so far.
Like
http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz
you moron dak.
Actually it's there somewhere... It's just that it's a *moving target* now:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell
us when they choose to comply after all (as they have consistently ended
up with so far)?
Like
http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz
you moron dak.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html
The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright
infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual sense. In
particular, a copy of a
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...]
According to this paper, http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf
the GPL is not a contract.
Part IV proposes that the GPL is a failed contract, which lacks
only consideration. It advocates enforcing the
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... Pee Jays therom ...]
a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to
do
What part of YOU INDICATE ACCEPTANCE don't you understand retard
dak? ACCEPTANCE is a contract thing, idiot.
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html
The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright
infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell
us when they choose to comply after all (as they have consistently ended
up with so far)?
Like
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
David Kastrup wrote: [...]
just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it
tell us when they choose to comply after all (as they have
consistently ended up with so far)?
Like
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html
The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright
infringement of
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html
The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Why would they make the source code available without necessity? Out of
court settlements are private. But the results speak for themselves.
Like
http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz
you moron dak.
regards,
Hadronhadronqu...@gmail.com writes:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell
us when they choose to comply after all (as they have consistently ended
up with so far)?
Like
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Comply with a small number of clearly spelled out conditions, and you
are fine, breach, and you are in trouble. It's not a particularly hard
concept unless you are a troll.
Samsung (several other 'humongous' defendants aside for a moment):
Defendant alleges that
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Why would they make the source code available without necessity? Out of
court settlements are private. But the results speak for themselves.
Like
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Comply with a small number of clearly spelled out conditions, and you
are fine, breach, and you are in trouble. It's not a particularly hard
concept unless you are a troll.
Samsung (several other 'humongous' defendants
RJack wrote:
[...]
Hyman has Pee Jay and Eben Moglen on his side.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/FLOSS_Weekly_13:_Eben_Moglen_on_GPL_3.0
[Leo Laporte:]
So, are you, youre an attorney, Eben?
[Eben Moglen:]
Yes, thats correct, I went to law school and got a history Ph.D. after
a career as a
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
URL:http://www.comtrend.com/na/privacy.htm says
LOL.
Firmware/Software License Agreement
In accordance with the terms accompanying the file (or the license
authorization which was supplied with the original product) one copy of
the firmware/software may be
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Let's see the judge take them up on this and other allegations. I
rather expect them to come into compliance and drop out of the suit via
that way rather than a ruling.
Yeah, like
Not Found
The requested document was not found on this server.
On 4/10/2010 7:33 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright
infringement of GPL-covered works
Samsung and several other defendants disagree with you
The defendants, as is proper, throw up every possible legal
defense against
On 4/10/2010 9:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Not Found
The requested document was not found on this server.
It is also the case that http://www.comtrend.com/na/contact.htm
says Comtrend Corporation North America provides downloads by
request only. so it may be that in order to get the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/10/2010 9:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Not Found The requested document was not found on this server.
It is also the case that http://www.comtrend.com/na/contact.htm
says Comtrend Corporation North America provides downloads by
request only. so it may be that in
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/10/2010 9:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Not Found The requested document was not found on this server.
It is also the case that http://www.comtrend.com/na/contact.htm
says Comtrend Corporation North America provides downloads by
1 - 100 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
