Re: Circumventing the GPL

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> You don't need to become the owner.
>> It is enough if you become _responsible_.
>
> Enough for what? I just don't understand what you're
> saying. Remember, the GPL is just a copyright license.
> It has no notion of responsibility.

But the courts have.  I can't drop a brick on someone's head and then
claim that I am not responsible for gravity's actions.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
>> I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the
>> buyer of the router, the right to get source code from somewhere.
>
> It does, unless the chain of GPL licensing is somehow broken,
> perhaps through the use of the First Sale Doctrine.

No, it doesn't.  It gives the buyer the possibility to notify the
copyright holder, because the copyright holder (and nobody else) has the
right to enforce the form of distribution.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> rjack wrote:
>> The trouble is you can't write a copyright license that controls
>> "all third parties" as long "as they follow the GPL". Congress
>> specifically forbid this situation with 17 USC sec. 301.
>
> That's the federal preemption clause. What does that
> have to do with anything? Who says anything about
> controlling anyone? The distributor is licensing the
> code to all third parties under the terms of the GPL.

Uh no.  Third parties are not involved.  Only recipients.  In GPLv2,
there was a clause that you could replace source code with a written
offer to source code, and this offer had to be valid for any third party
(namely, any downstream recipients) and had to be passed on to any such
third party.  That was a very specific circumstance and only made third
parties involved when you _used_ that option.

GPLv3 contains no such option AFAICS.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[David Kastrup]

JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On 2008-07-22, Rahul Dhesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> thufir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
 I guess that the plaintiffs decided that having the manufacturer of
 the routers comply with the GPL was good enough for them, because
 it would be difficult to explain in court that Verizon was not
 complying with the GPL given this availability. But that's just a
 guess.
>>
>>>If it's an action tek router, sold to an importer exporter, and then
>>>to another middleman, and then to a retailer, to whom do you go for
>>>the source code?  presumably, just action tek.
>>
>> I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the
>> buyer of the router, the right to get source code from somewhere. I
>> don't think it does.
>
> THAT is EXACTLY what the GPL provides for.

Yes, but it is not a right of the buyer, but a right of the copyright
owner that this happens.  So the buyer can't sue, he can just notify the
copyright owner.  If the copyright owner can't be bothered, the buyer is
pretty much out of options.

That is the reason that the FSF wants copyright assignments to
contributions for important GNU software.

>> All is does is require everybody distributing the router to others to
>> also give recipients the source code, which is not quite the same
>> thing as giving you the right to demand it.
>>
>> So where would you get the source code? From anywhere where it's
>> available.
>
> No. Whomever distributes the software is on the hook for providing the
> source.

Quite so.  But the line to the hook is held by the author, not the
buyer.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[David Kastrup]

rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> Rjack wrote:
>>> The GPL is a purported third party donee beneficiary contract:
>>>   b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>>> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
>>> part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
>>> parties under the terms of this License.
>>
>> Notice that "licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties"
>> does not mean that there is any obligation to deliver anything to
>> them.
>
> True. No distribution no problem. So what? Presumably some authors do
> want their code to be distributed though.

That's their problem.  The GPL only places conditions on the _kind_ of
distribution (has to be with access to the source at no additional
cost).  As long as any recipients (including zero) receive the material
in the prescribed form, no further duty regarding accessibility or
distribution exists.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Tim Smith]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> > I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the 
> > buyer of the router, the right to get source code from somewhere.
> 
> It does, unless the chain of GPL licensing is somehow broken,
> perhaps through the use of the First Sale Doctrine.

There are two cases to consider, as GPLv2 provides two options for the 
person distributing binaries (the same general considerations apply to 
GPLv3, and pretty much any other free software license):

1. Accompany the binary with the source, or

2. Accompany the binary with a written offer to provide source to anyone 
who asks for it, for at least three years.

Let's consider first software that is distributed under option #1.  I 
see two scenarios that are reasonably likely to become common where 
First Sale will lead to binaries in circulation with no one obligated to 
provide source.

1. Consumer buys a gadget that runs Linux.  The source is on a CD in the 
box.  Consumer doesn't give a damn about source and loses track of the 
CD.  Consumer sells the gadget on eBay.

Result: no one is obligated to provide the buyer with source.  The 
seller is covered by First Sale.  The original vendor completely 
satisfied their GPL obligation by including the source with the device 
when they sold it to the first consumer.

People are selling used Linux-based gadgets now

2. Company X makes a stand-alone box that has Linux in flash memory, and 
has an empty slot to install more flash memory.  The system is 
configured so that when it automatically mounts the filesystem on any 
flash memory inserted in the slot, and looks for "runme.sh" shell 
script, which it runs.  Company Y buys these boxes from X, an inserts 
into the slot flash memory that contains their proprietary applications 
that turn the box into a router, or a set-top box, or whatever.  X ships 
each box to Y with a CD containing the source.  Y takes the boxes, 
sticks a Y logo and model number sticker on it, and ships it to stores 
in Y labelled boxes with manuals in them.  Y doesn't give a damn about 
the source CDs and tosses them in the nearest landfill.  Consumers buy 
the boxes from stores.

Result: quite similar to the consumer gadget scenario, actually.  X 
satisfied their GPL obligation by shipping the source with the box.  
That qualifies them for branch #1 of the GPL options.  They are done.
Company Y has not modified the software or made copies.  All they've 
done is take the copies they have received, and redistributed those 
physical copies.  That puts them right smack dab in the middle of First 
Sale, so they aren't responsible for supplying source to the customer.

Note that these results change if the gadget maker (in scenario 1) or 
company X (in scenario 2) choose to go with option #2 from GPL, 
accompany the software with a written offer to provide source to anyone.  
The consumer selling on eBay, and company Y, are still covered by first 
sale.  But the eBay buyer, or buyer of Y's boxes, can now at least go 
back to the gadget maker or company X and ask for and receive source.  
(Well, if it is within three years...).

There are still practical problems in this case for the consumer, 
though.  Company Y has no obligation to tell the consumer that the box 
was made by company X.  Y might even consider this fact to be a trade 
secret.

So how likely are any of these scenarios?  The first, a consumer 
reselling a used gadget, is pretty likely.  People sell used Linux 
gadgets now, and that's only going to become more common as Linux 
becomes more popular as a gadget OS.  I think most gadget makers are 
going with GPL option #2 at the moment, so source should be available 
somewhere, but I think that's going to change.  Why opt for #2, which 
required you to deal with source distribution for at least three years, 
when you can go for option #1, and deal with your obligation 
immediately?  I'd go for #1 every time unless for some reason it was not 
feasible to ship source with the gadget.

How about the company X/company Y case?  I think there will be many 
companies playing the role of company X (I'd be surprised if there 
aren't already such boxes available to OEMs).  The big question here is 
will there be many companies in the roll of Y.  That is, companies who 
do not make any modifications to the box software, but just add their 
own applications?  And that don't bother to include the source CD?  If I 
were advising them, I'd tell them to include the source CD--even though 
they don't have to and are legally safe thanks to First Sale, it doesn't 
HURT them to include the source CD, and it will avoid ill will.  But I 
will not be surprised if a lot of Y's consider the box to be a black 
box, and pretty much ignore the source CD that comes with it.

Anyway, I think First Sale is going to become a big deal in the world of 
free software licensing.  I'm surprised how little discussion t

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:

thufir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I guess that the plaintiffs decided that having the manufacturer 
of the routers comply with the GPL was good enough for them, 
because it would be difficult to explain in court that Verizon 
was not complying with the GPL given this availability. But 
that's just a guess.


If it's an action tek router, sold to an importer exporter, and 
then to another middleman, and then to a retailer, to whom do you 
go for the source code?  presumably, just action tek.


I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the 
buyer of the router, the right to get source code from somewhere. I 
don't think it does. All is does is require everybody distributing 
the router to others to also give recipients the source code, which 
is not quite the same thing as giving you the right to demand it.



The GPL is a purported third party donee beneficiary contract:

  b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.

The seller of the router, when he distributes it to a buyer purportedly
promises to license the code to "all third parties". The irony is that
the GPL specifically excludes the *parties* to the contract (the
distributors) since the class "all third parties" does not include the
contracting parties.

The "parties" to the GPL contract have no legal right to complain about
all third parties not receiving the code. Legal standing doctrine
clearly states that a plaintiff in a lawsuit cannot claim injuries
suffered by "all third parties".

So where would you get the source code? From anywhere where it's 
available.


Sincerely,
Rjack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[thufir]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:31:50 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:

> I guess that the plaintiffs decided that having the manufacturer of the
> routers comply with the GPL was good enough for them, because it would
> be difficult to explain in court that Verizon was not complying with the
> GPL given this availability. But that's just a guess.


If it's an action tek router, sold to an importer exporter, and then to 
another middleman, and then to a retailer, to whom do you go for the 
source code?  presumably, just action tek.

Dunno if that totally applies here, but seems reasonable.



-Thufir
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Hyman Rosen]

John Hasler wrote:

Hyman writes:
Why does it have to be arms-length? 


In order to be a first sale under the intent of the law.

> "First sale" clearly contemplates a transaction such as
> walking into a bookstore, grabbing a book, plunking down
> $20, and walking out.


TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 § 109
§ 109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer
of particular copy or phonorecord
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the
owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under
this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled,
without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or
otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.

Pure and simple. If you have a legally made copy of a copyrighted
work, you can sell it.


You propose a contract wherein the seller gives up some of his

> exclusive rights as author. Surely you don't expect the court
> to let A get away with not providing source when A has acquired
> the exclusive right to do so.

Authors can give up some exclusive rights. That happens all
the time, such as when they make agreements with publishers.
In the scenario I propose, the author has completely honored
the GPL - with every copy he sells, he includes the source,
and has no further obligation.

There may be a deal he has entered into not to distribute the
program in particular ways, but that's fine - he's the author,
he's not obligated to distribute if he doesn't want to.

The person who has purchased the copy is then free to sell it
without getting permission from the copyright holder, the author.
Because that sale does not require a license, the recipient has
not received it under the terms of the GPL, and has no one from
whom he can demand the source code.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[John Hasler]

I wrote:
> The sale is then no longer an arms-length transaction.  A US Federal
> judge will see right through the subterfuge and tell A that it is a
> distributor.

Hyman writes:
> Why does it have to be arms-length? 

In order to be a first sale under the intent of the law.  "First sale"
clearly contemplates a transaction such as walking into a bookstore,
grabbing a book, plunking down $20, and walking out.  You propose a
contract wherein the seller gives up some of his exclusive rights as
author.  Surely you don't expect the court to let A get away with not
providing source when A has acquired the exclusive right to do so.

> Where is the subterfuge?

In the attempt to evade the intent of the GPL.

> A software developer is perfectly free to enter an arrangement whereby he
> agrees *not* to distribute software. If the software is GPLed, he cannot
> require recipients not to distribute, but he is free to choose not to
> distribute his own software, and to accept payment for doing so.

Yes, of course he is.  There is nothing illegal about what you propose.  It
just won't work as a GPL evasion.

Do you think no one has ever tried to use a similar scheme to evade his
obligations before?  The courts have seen it all.
-- 
John Hasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Hyman Rosen]

John Hasler wrote:

The sale is then no longer an arms-length transaction.

> A US Federal judge will see right through the subterfuge
> and tell A that it is a distributor.

Why does it have to be arms-length? Where is the subterfuge?

A software developer is perfectly free to enter an arrangement
whereby he agrees *not* to distribute software. If the software
is GPLed, he cannot require recipients not to distribute, but
he is free to choose not to distribute his own software, and to
accept payment for doing so.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Hyman Rosen]

rjack wrote:
There is no such thing as a "chain of licensing" under the GPL. The GPL 
is a nonexclusive license and there is no such thing as "sub-licensing"

> under a nonexclusive license. The best you can do is a "transfer of 
contractual

interest". You can't transfer ownership of copyrights with a nonexclusive
license and you can't license what you don't own.


Wrong. The GPL itself explains that there is no sub-licensing.
Instead, as a work is conveyed under terms of the GPL, the
recipient receives a license from the copyright holders.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Linonut]

* rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:

> The trouble is you can't write a copyright license that controls "all third 
> parties" as long "as they follow the GPL". Congress specifically forbid this
> situation with 17 USC sec. 301.

Tell it to IBM lawyers (for example).  Their copyright is appended to a
GPL notice in many Linux kernel modules.  Roughly 870 C and assembler files.
Sample:

/*
 *  Kernel Probes (KProbes)
 *
 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 *
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of   
   * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details. 
   *
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
 * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
 *
 * Copyright (C) IBM Corporation, 2002, 2004


-- 
Ask not for whom the telephone bell tolls...
if thou art in the bathtub, it tolls for thee.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Hyman Rosen]

rjack wrote:
The trouble is you can't write a copyright license that controls "all 
third parties" as long "as they follow the GPL". Congress specifically 
forbid this situation with 17 USC sec. 301.


That's the federal preemption clause. What does that
have to do with anything? Who says anything about
controlling anyone? The distributor is licensing the
code to all third parties under the terms of the GPL.
The third parties can take it or leave it.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[John Hasler]

I wrote:
>  It also means that B is free to sell or give the software, source
> and all, to anyone, including A's customers.

Hyman writes:
> But A and B can enter into an arrangement where B will agree not to do
> this, perhaps with A paying B for this.

The sale is then no longer an arms-length transaction.  A US Federal judge
will see right through the subterfuge and tell A that it is a distributor.
-- 
John Hasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

Rahul Dhesi wrote:

I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the buyer of
 the router, the right to get source code from somewhere.


It does, unless the chain of GPL licensing is somehow broken, perhaps through
 the use of the First Sale Doctrine.


There is no such thing as a "chain of licensing" under the GPL. The GPL is a
nonexclusive license and there is no such thing as "sub-licensing" under a
nonexclusive license. The best you can do is a "transfer of contractual
interest". You can't transfer ownership of copyrights with a nonexclusive
license and you can't license what you don't own.

Sincerely
Rjack :)

Sec. 101 definitions.
A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment, mortgage, exclusive
license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or hypothecation of a copyright or
of any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, whether or not it is
limited in time or place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license.
(Copyright Act of 1976)

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

Rjack wrote:

The GPL is a purported third party donee beneficiary contract:
  b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.


Notice that "licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties"
does not mean that there is any obligation to deliver anything to
them.


True. No distribution no problem. So what? Presumably some authors do want their 
code to be distributed though.



It only means that third parties have license to the software
such that they are permitted to do anything they want with it as
long as they too follow the GPL.


The trouble is you can't write a copyright license that controls "all third 
parties" as long "as they follow the GPL". Congress specifically forbid this

situation with 17 USC sec. 301.

Sincerely
Rjack :)


-- "[I]f an extra element is required instead of or in addition to the acts of
reproduction, performance, distribution or display in order to constitute a
state-created cause of action, there is no preemption, provided that the extra
element changes the nature of the action so that it is qualitatively different
from a copyright infringement claim." Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283
(United States Court Of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2004) --





___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:

The "parties" to the GPL contract have no legal right to complain about
all third parties not receiving the code.


Yes they do. The "source to all third parties" is one option that
the GPL offers for conveying a non-source form of the software.
This option comes in the form of a written offer valid for all
third parties that the distributor must send along with the
software. It is this lack of a written offer which the copyright
holder can complain about.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Ciaran O'Riordan]

rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see you have [...]

What I've done is I've applied Richard Feynman's simple rule about theories:
if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.

You proposed a controversial, completely unproven idea of copyright law that
would have certain consequences.  I pointed out that the observed
consequences in the real world do not match the consequences that would be
seen if your theory was right.

That makes your idea look wrong.

> Who, pray tell, are these mysterious billion dollar companies and what would
> their business model resemble?

Microsoft is an obvious example.  Making problems for GPL'd software is a
big priority for them.  This is clear from the millions they pumped into SCO
and the press statements that Bill and his replacement have made about the
GPL.


-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19, http://ciaran.compsoc.com/

Support free software, join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fsfe.org

Recent blog entries:

http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/using_latex_to_make_pdf_documents_with_japanese_characters
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/links_sean_daly_kde_swpat_chessboxing
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/links_india_pats_clipperz_freegis_rms_emacs
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/using_and_writing_emacs_22_input_methods


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Hyman Rosen]

John Hasler wrote:

 It also means that B is free to sell or give the software, source
and all, to anyone, including A's customers.


But A and B can enter into an arrangement where B will
agree not to do this, perhaps with A paying B for this.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[rjack]

Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:

rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

[...]the license is preempted by 17 USC sec 301.[...]


And since invalidating the GPL would be worth billions to some companies, how
 do you explain that your discovery (and that of Alexander Terekhov) are 
ignored by everyone in a position to act?




I see you have shifted the topic from the specific legal enforceability question
under U.S. law to that of a speculative question of motivations based upon
dubious assumptions.

Who, pray tell, are these mysterious billion dollar companies and what would
their business model resemble?

Sincerely,
Rjack

-- "[I]f an extra element is required instead of or in addition to the acts of
reproduction, performance, distribution or display in order to constitute a
state-created cause of action, there is no preemption, provided that the extra
element changes the nature of the action so that it is qualitatively different
from a copyright infringement claim." Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283
(United States Court Of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2004) --
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Hyman Rosen]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:

I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the buyer of the
router, the right to get source code from somewhere.


It does, unless the chain of GPL licensing is somehow broken,
perhaps through the use of the First Sale Doctrine.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:

The seller of the router, when he distributes it to a buyer purportedly
promises to license the code to "all third parties". The irony is that
the GPL specifically excludes the *parties* to the contract (the
distributors) since the class "all third parties" does not include the
contracting parties.


There's no irony at all. The seller already has a license,
and the buyer is getting one with the software. The third-
parties language is there to prevent the seller from imposing
license fees on third parties which could constrain the buyer
from distributing the software as he wished, under the terms
of the GPL.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

The courts should simply not enforce invalid contracts. LAW 101. To
date, the courts did NOT enforce the GPL. And violations flourish.


What a strange notion! The courts vigorously enforce copyright
on songs and movies. And violations flourish.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:

The GPL is a purported third party donee beneficiary contract:
  b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.


Notice that "licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties"
does not mean that there is any obligation to deliver anything to
them. It only means that third parties have license to the software
such that they are permitted to do anything they want with it as
long as they too follow the GPL.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Hyman Rosen]

David Kastrup wrote:

You don't need to become the owner.

> It is enough if you become _responsible_.

Enough for what? I just don't understand what you're
saying. Remember, the GPL is just a copyright license.
It has no notion of responsibility. It states only
whether and how covered software may be conveyed when
copyright law would otherwise forbid it.

The software developers retain the copyright of the
works they create, regardless of who specified the
behavior of the software. Do you disagree with that?

They may sell copies of this software, as long as they
keep to the provisions of the GPL, which they do by
sending a copy of the source with each copy of the binary.
Do you disagree with that?

The buyers of this software may in turn sell the copy
they received, without requiring any license at all, at
least in the U.S., because of the first sale doctrine.
They may sell the binary part without the source part.
Do you disagree with that?

Now these secondary buyers have no one from whom to
demand source code. The developers have discharged their
GPL obligations by shipping source to the first buyers.
The first buyers who resold the software don't have any
obligations at all - they may as well have sold a book
to a used-book store. Do you disagree with that?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Alexander Terekhov]

Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> 
> rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [...]the license is preempted by 17 USC sec 301.[...]
> 
> [... ]invalidating the GPL would be worth billions to some companies,

Sez who? Why's that? I doubt that rjack wants money paid to anyone for
official and final invalidation of the GPL.

The courts should simply not enforce invalid contracts. LAW 101. To
date, the courts did NOT enforce the GPL. And violations flourish.

"We currently have 185 open tickets (i.e. reported GPL violations) at
gpl-violations.org"

-- The GNU Monk Harald Welte

The GPL is unenforceable inspite of all those "Selling Brooklyn Bridge"
complaints from Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337) et. al. and their blog and
press release "settlements."

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2008-07-22, Rahul Dhesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>You can force people to walk the chain all the way back to the manufacturer,
>>but they are still ultimately on the hook for using someone elses work without
>>proper authorization.
>
> Ultimately the GPL depends on copyright law, so unless you own the
> copyright, you are in no position to make anybody to do anything.

You make it sound like RMS isn't the rabid chiuiaua that he is...

-- 
 Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you 
attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in  / | \
events not in their control.

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
--   
http://www.usenet.com
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Rahul Dhesi]

JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>You can force people to walk the chain all the way back to the manufacturer,
>but they are still ultimately on the hook for using someone elses work without
>proper authorization.

Ultimately the GPL depends on copyright law, so unless you own the
copyright, you are in no position to make anybody to do anything.
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2008-07-22, Rahul Dhesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> thufir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> I guess that the plaintiffs decided that having the manufacturer of the
>>> routers comply with the GPL was good enough for them, because it would
>>> be difficult to explain in court that Verizon was not complying with the
>>> GPL given this availability. But that's just a guess.
>
>>If it's an action tek router, sold to an importer exporter, and then to 
>>another middleman, and then to a retailer, to whom do you go for the 
>>source code?  presumably, just action tek.
>
> I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the buyer of 
> the
> router, the right to get source code from somewhere. I don't think it does.

THAT is EXACTLY what the GPL provides for.

Any binary that is a derivative of any GPL work cannot be distributed
without also providing the source along with that binary. The sort of
hardware we're talking about right now is precisely the sort of hardware
that gave RMS trouble to begin with.

It is EXACTLY THIS SITUATION that the GPL was crafted to deal with.

> All is does is require everybody distributing the router to others to also 
> give
> recipients the source code, which is not quite the same thing as giving you 
> the
> right to demand it.
>
> So where would you get the source code? From anywhere where it's available.

No. Whomever distributes the software is on the hook for providing the source.

You can force people to walk the chain all the way back to the manufacturer,
but they are still ultimately on the hook for using someone elses work without
proper authorization.

-- 
Sophocles wants his cut.|||
   / | \

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
--   
http://www.usenet.com
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[John Hasler]

Hymen writes:
> A gives specifications to B. B develops the software.  A buys a bunch of
> copies of the software from B and resells the copies to its own
> customers.

I assumed that you meant that A (used to be B) was going to require B (used
to be A) to sell the software only to A as a condition of the contract.
The arrangement you describe above, assuming the description is complete,
is fine.  It also means that B is free to sell or give the software, source
and all, to anyone, including A's customers.  Note that the binary copies A
sells minus source must be the actual tangible copies it gets from B.

> I don't know why you find this concept so strange. This kind of
> arrangement must be ubiquitous in the industry.

I doubt it.  Commonly, B grants A a license and A makes the copies they
need themselves.

> Note, by the way, that this is similar to a model that's often proposed
> for how people can make money from free software. A company pays a
> developer to develop customized free software, but the developer retains
> rights to it and can further develop it for other customers.

The company doesn't get every copy they need from the developer.  They get
one copy (with source) and a license (the GPL) permitting them to duplicate
it.
-- 
John Hasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Rahul Dhesi]

thufir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> I guess that the plaintiffs decided that having the manufacturer of the
>> routers comply with the GPL was good enough for them, because it would
>> be difficult to explain in court that Verizon was not complying with the
>> GPL given this availability. But that's just a guess.

>If it's an action tek router, sold to an importer exporter, and then to 
>another middleman, and then to a retailer, to whom do you go for the 
>source code?  presumably, just action tek.

I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the buyer of the
router, the right to get source code from somewhere. I don't think it does.
All is does is require everybody distributing the router to others to also give
recipients the source code, which is not quite the same thing as giving you the
right to demand it.

So where would you get the source code? From anywhere where it's available.
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Ciaran O'Riordan]

rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]the license is preempted by 17 USC sec 301.[...]

And since invalidating the GPL would be worth billions to some companies,
how do you explain that your discovery (and that of Alexander Terekhov) are
ignored by everyone in a position to act?

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19, http://ciaran.compsoc.com/

Support free software, join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fsfe.org

Recent blog entries:

http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/using_latex_to_make_pdf_documents_with_japanese_characters
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/links_sean_daly_kde_swpat_chessboxing
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/links_india_pats_clipperz_freegis_rms_emacs
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/using_and_writing_emacs_22_input_methods


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Hyman Rosen]

David Kastrup wrote:

I recommend that you reread the thread and decide on who you call A and
who B.  It will make it easier for the judge to figure out things.


Oops, I did mix them up. But in any case, there is
no law of copyright that says that if I ask someone
to develop software, even if I tell them the details
of what I want, that I become the owner of the
developed software. There is no law that prevents me
from buying individual copies of the software. And
there is a law in the U.S. that says I may resell
those copies without any license.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> I recommend that you reread the thread and decide on who you call A and
>> who B.  It will make it easier for the judge to figure out things.
>
> Oops, I did mix them up. But in any case, there is
> no law of copyright that says that if I ask someone
> to develop software, even if I tell them the details
> of what I want, that I become the owner of the
> developed software.

You don't need to become the owner.  It is enough if you become
_responsible_.  If I pay somebody to drop a brick when I tell him, I
don't become legally untouchable if he happens to be the owner of the
brick.

> There is no law that prevents me from buying individual copies of the
> software. And there is a law in the U.S. that says I may resell those
> copies without any license.

Again: we have judges and not robots for interpreting the law.  The law
is just words.  The words carry literal meaning and intent.
Sidestepping the intent is not something that will make life easy for
you in the court.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> B gets _paid_ by A and yet receives the disks by first _sale_ rather
>> than acting as an agent of A?  You'll have a _really_ hard time selling
>> that to a judge.
>
> A gives specifications to B. B develops the software.
> A buys a bunch of copies of the software from B and

I recommend that you reread the thread and decide on who you call A and
who B.  It will make it easier for the judge to figure out things.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Hyman Rosen]

David Kastrup wrote:

B gets _paid_ by A and yet receives the disks by first _sale_ rather
than acting as an agent of A?  You'll have a _really_ hard time selling
that to a judge.


A gives specifications to B. B develops the software.
A buys a bunch of copies of the software from B and
resells the copies to its own customers. I don't know
why you find this concept so strange. This kind of
arrangement must be ubiquitous in the industry.

Note, by the way, that this is similar to a model that's
often proposed for how people can make money from free
software. A company pays a developer to develop customized
free software, but the developer retains rights to it and
can further develop it for other customers.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> I was asking where the point was for B.
>
> B gets handsomely paid by A.

B gets _paid_ by A and yet receives the disks by first _sale_ rather
than acting as an agent of A?  You'll have a _really_ hard time selling
that to a judge.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Hyman Rosen]

David Kastrup wrote:

That's the same if I pay somebody to drop a brick when I signal him.


It's not illegal to hire a company to develop software
to your specifications, allow them to retain all rights
to that software, and just buy copies from them.

Any software vendor who accepts suggestions from customers
is doing the same.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Hyman Rosen]

David Kastrup wrote:

I was asking where the point was for B.


B gets handsomely paid by A.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Where is the point in throwing away valuable material?  Where is the
>> point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you
>> unable to do copies yourself?
>
> That way Company A gets to have its cake and eat it to.

I was asking where the point was for B.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> You mean if I pay somebody to drop a brick from a window
>> when I signal him, I am not accountable for murder?
>
> If I hire a company to develop a program for me, that
> company is not me. I pay money, I provide a specification,
> they deliver the software to me, and that's that.

That's the same if I pay somebody to drop a brick when I signal him.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- "A telling admission" by Aaron Williamson (AW1337)

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   I just wonder how long will it take until some GPL defendant decides
   that "enough is enough" and initiates disbarrment of the entire SFLC
   gang including Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337).

Under what grounds? Calling something a web log, or a funny comment?
None of those are reasons for disbarrment.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

[Dann Corbit]

"Ben Pfaff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

James Kanze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


C doesn't have any support for decimal arithmetic, nor any means
of adding it comfortably.


http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/open/n4060.pdf


And in case you don't feel like waiting, there is IBM's excellent package:
http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/decimal/#decNumber

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

[Ben Pfaff]

James Kanze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> C doesn't have any support for decimal arithmetic, nor any means
> of adding it comfortably.

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/open/n4060.pdf
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
http://benpfaff.org
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:
http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx


So when did this page appear? And do they actually honor
requests for the source? If they do, I would once again
assume that a grabber has come around to meeting the license
requirements once a suit was filed, and that we will thus
soon see another dismissal, which you will proclaim as a




defeat and everyone else will regard as a victory.


Uhh! "Everyone" is plural. Contrast with "I".

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

-- A quorum of one saves much time and effort --
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

[Richard Harter]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:34:02 +, Richard Heathfield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>> Willem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In other words: There cannot be any commercial applicaiton written in C,
>>> because in your view it is not well suited to one or two application
>>> types you can think of.
>> 
>> I don't think that's what James meant.  I think when he said "commercial
>> application", he really meant "business data processing application".  C
>> really *isn't* well suited to most BDP applications, so his statement is
>> much more reasonable when interpreted that way.
>
>Whether you have interpreted him correctly is not for me to say, but what I 
>am in a position to say is that I've written plenty of "BDP" applications 
>in C, and I found it a very suitable language for the purpose. That is not 
>to say that there are no other such languages, of course, but it's one of 
>the better ones. I've used quite a few languages for "BDP", and I'd rank C 
>in the top two of those few. Whether I'd place it first or second is a 
>tough call. (C++ ranks a close third in my estimation.)

But, Richard, you place C first or second in all applications.
:-)

>
>> But I still suspect
>> that there are at least a few BDP applications written in C nonetheless.
>
>Loads. Absolutely loads.
>
>-- 
>Richard Heathfield 
>Email: -http://www. +rjh@
>Google users: 
>"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Richard Harter, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Save the Earth now!!
It's the only planet with chocolate.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Hyman Rosen]

David Kastrup wrote:

You mean if I pay somebody to drop a brick from a window

> when I signal him, I am not accountable for murder?

If I hire a company to develop a program for me, that
company is not me. I pay money, I provide a specification,
they deliver the software to me, and that's that. If I
hire a tailor to make me a suit, he and I do not become
one entity.


You'll have a hard time explaining to the judge that this first

> company was not acting on your behalf and is an independent seller
> of prepackaged software.

That's not hard at all. Let's say I'm a phone compnay,
just for example, and I've developed a new fiber optic
system for which I need routers. I contract with a
company who knows how to build routers, give them specs,
and they build hardware and software for it. Then when
my customers want the routers, I buy a bunch from the
router company and sell them to my customers. Unless
I've arranged otherwise, the router company is going to
keep the copyright to the software they've developed,
which is just as I want it.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Hyman Rosen]

David Kastrup wrote:

Where is the point in throwing away valuable material?  Where is the
point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you
unable to do copies yourself?


That way Company A gets to have its cake and eat it to.
It leverages available GPLed software so that the software
it needs can be developed faster, and it prevents the source
of the modified software from becoming visible to anyone else
other than itself and the developers, so that it can gain
competitive advantage and withhold secrets.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> John Hasler wrote:
>> Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the
>> source CDs, and sell the binary ones.  So what?  Are suggesting that
>> company B contract with company A to do this?  If so company A is
>> company B's agent and the GPL is violated, not circumvented.
>
> I don't see anything in the GPL that would imply that when
> one company hires another to create GPLed software, the two
> companies become united into a single entity. The GPL does
> not talk about agents.

You mean if I pay somebody to drop a brick from a window when I signal
him, I am not accountable for murder?

> It's also perfectly legal for one company to pay another to
> develop modified works derived from GPLed code, and to pay
> that company more money in exchange for not distributing the
> software to anyone else. The software developer delivers the
> multiple copies of sources and binaries to the hiring company,
> gets money to not deliver it to anyone else, and is done. The
> hiring company uses the first sale doctrine to resell only the
> binaries.

You'll have a hard time explaining to the judge that this first company
was not acting on your behalf and is an independent seller of
prepackaged software.

A really hard time.

The difference between computers and judges are that neither considers
it funny if you try meeting the letter of the law while violating its
intent.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Alexander Terekhov]

John Hasler wrote:
> 
> Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source
> CDs, and sell the binary ones.  So what?  Are suggesting that company B
> contract with company A to do this?  If so company A is company B's agent
> and the GPL is violated, not circumvented.

An agent relationship is established by authorization to act on behalf
(in the name) of authorizing person. The consequence of such
relationship is that contracts entered by the agent (within the scope of
agent contract) are enforceable against the authorizing person. What
does that have to do with the GPL and A + B scenario, exactly? Please
explain in details, uncle Hasler (including the pesky detail that
someone has to prove existence of agent contract... and giving attention
to the GPL concession that "Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies").
TIA.



regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> It occurs to me that in the U.S. there is a relatively easy
> way to circumvent the requirement of giving away source code
> for GPLed software.
>
> Company A prepares a work derived from GPL-licensed code.
> Company B purchases copies of this work from Company A.
> For each copy purchased, Company A sends Company B two disks,
> one with the binaries and one with the sources. Company A has
> thus completely discharged its duties under the GPL. Then
> Company B turns around resells only the binary disks to its
> customers, but not the source. Company B is allowed to do this
> under the First Sale Doctrine, and therefore does not need a
> license to resell the software. The customers of Company B
> have no one from whom they can demand source code, and thus the
> GPL is circumvented.

Where is the point in throwing away valuable material?  Where is the
point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you
unable to do copies yourself?

I mean, it's like circumventing robbery laws by withdrawing money from
your own bank account pointing your gun on an ATM all the while.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Hyman Rosen]

rjack wrote:
I was objecting to your use of the pronoun "everyone". On what day was 
the election held that empowered you to speak for "everyone"?


It's the "isolating we" :-)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Hyman Rosen]

John Hasler wrote:

Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source
CDs, and sell the binary ones.  So what?  Are suggesting that company B
contract with company A to do this?  If so company A is company B's agent
and the GPL is violated, not circumvented.


I don't see anything in the GPL that would imply that when
one company hires another to create GPLed software, the two
companies become united into a single entity. The GPL does
not talk about agents.

It's also perfectly legal for one company to pay another to
develop modified works derived from GPLed code, and to pay
that company more money in exchange for not distributing the
software to anyone else. The software developer delivers the
multiple copies of sources and binaries to the hiring company,
gets money to not deliver it to anyone else, and is done. The
hiring company uses the first sale doctrine to resell only the
binaries. It never has to accept the GPL. The end users have a
license from the the original developers under the GPL, but no
one from whom they can demand the modified sources.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

Rjack wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

defeat and everyone else will regard as a victory.

Uhh! "Everyone" is plural. Contrast with "I".


I don't understand what you mean. Do you believe that
"We will thus soon see another dismissal,
 which you will proclaim as a defeat and
 everyone else will regard as a victory."
is not grammatically correct? Why not?


I was objecting to your use of the pronoun "everyone". On what day was the 
election held that empowered you to speak for "everyone"? (U.S. population 
300,000,000) Do you have a list of the antecedent electors names? (Beside you 
and Linonut and Hasler that is)


Sincerely
Rjack :)

--- "Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits
on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition
on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights, . . ."; Allen v.
Wright 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) ---
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

It occurs to me that in the U.S. there is a relatively easy
way to circumvent the requirement of giving away source code
for GPLed software.


You assume the GPL is enforceable and then scheme to circumvent it, but the 
license is preempted by 17 USC sec 301. You can't "circumvent" a copyright 
license that is intrinsically unenforceable.


Scheme no more my lad. Take up crochet or needlepoint.

Sincerely,
Rjack

--- "[I]f an extra element is required instead of or in addition to the acts of 
reproduction, performance, distribution or display in order to constitute a 
state-created cause of action, there is no preemption, provided that the extra 
element changes the nature of the action so that it is qualitatively different 
from a copyright infringement claim." Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283 
(United States Court Of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2004) ---

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Circumventing the GPL

[John Hasler]

Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source
CDs, and sell the binary ones.  So what?  Are suggesting that company B
contract with company A to do this?  If so company A is company B's agent
and the GPL is violated, not circumvented.
-- 
John Hasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Circumventing the GPL

[Hyman Rosen]

It occurs to me that in the U.S. there is a relatively easy
way to circumvent the requirement of giving away source code
for GPLed software.

Company A prepares a work derived from GPL-licensed code.
Company B purchases copies of this work from Company A.
For each copy purchased, Company A sends Company B two disks,
one with the binaries and one with the sources. Company A has
thus completely discharged its duties under the GPL. Then
Company B turns around resells only the binary disks to its
customers, but not the source. Company B is allowed to do this
under the First Sale Doctrine, and therefore does not need a
license to resell the software. The customers of Company B
have no one from whom they can demand source code, and thus the
GPL is circumvented.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- "A telling admission" by AaronWilliamson(AW1337)

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> requires that the source for those versions be made available.

Read the complaint you idiot. The claimed unresolved issue is 

"18. On June 25, 2008, after a series of communications between the
parties regarding other of Plaintiffs’ requirements for settlement,
Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiffs."
 
> The "complete corresponding source code" has to build into
> an installable binary. You say that defendants do not comply.
> In what way?

Do you own research and post here your findings, stupid.

[... you cannot know ... what the web server is doing ...]

Man oh man. 

Newsflash: After dismissing the case against Verizon WITH PREJUDICE,
SFLC files the same case against Verizon's *web server* -- thinking
machine (AI) comes true!!!

Go to clinic, Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- "A telling admission" by AaronWilliamson (AW1337)

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

None of those mirrors of out-dated busybox and other GPL'd source code
that nobody really cares about comply with the FSF/SFLC view on
"complete corresponding source code" regarding "Infringing Products"
being made available by defendants.


It is false that "nobody really cares about" the source code
for these GPLed products; the copyright holders care, which
is why they are bringing suit.

The source code has to correspond to the binaries being
distributed; if the binaries are of out-dated versions then
the sources must be for those out-dated versions. Since these
are the versions present on the router, a user of the software
who wanted to run, examine, modify, and distribute them would
want to start with those versions, and that is why the GPL
requires that the source for those versions be made available.

The "complete corresponding source code" has to build into
an installable binary. You say that defendants do not comply.
In what way?


Furthermore, SFLC had to dismiss WITH PREJUDICE (Verizon must

> have threatened sanctions unless they dismiss their moronic
> complaint WITH PREJUDICE) without Verizon making any source code
> available in spite of making available GPL'd binary code for
> downloading FROM ITS OWN HOST (without any browser redirection).

As I said, you cannot know simply by looking at a URL what the
web server is doing. The web server parses the entire URL and
it may certainly decide to base its actions on a piece of it,
and fetch data from some arbitrary location and serve it. It is
suggestive that the URL contains "actiontec gateway" within it,
but we can't really know.

We do know that for most of 2007 neither Actiontec nor Verizon
was in compliance, and that after the suit ended, GPLed source
code for the FIOS router firmaware is available from Actiontec.
Presumably this satisfies the copyright holders sufficiently that
they no longer care to pursue further action against Verizon.

You infer that SFLC "had to" dismiss the case and that they were
"threatened" by Verizon, but I don't see why anyone else should
subscribe to this interpretation.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- "A telling admission" by AaronWilliamson (AW1337)

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> rjack wrote:
> > The S.F.L.C. attorneys are *consistent* and we may *always*
>  > count on them. They have filed six consecutive incompetent
> > pleadings in the Southern District of New York.
> 
> In any of these cases, is there an instance where the
> source code of the GPLed software was not available
> once the case was over? If not, then the SFLC has done
> its work successfully.

None of those mirrors of out-dated busybox and other GPL'd source code
that nobody really cares about comply with the FSF/SFLC view on
"complete corresponding source code" regarding "Infringing Products"
being made available by defendants. Furthermore, SFLC had to dismiss
WITH PREJUDICE (Verizon must have threatened sanctions unless they
dismiss their moronic complaint WITH PREJUDICE) without Verizon making
any source code available in spite of making available GPL'd binary code
for downloading FROM ITS OWN HOST (without any browser redirection).

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:
> > http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx
> 
> So when did this page appear? And do they actually honor

So once again you want me to prove something? 

The latest (as of now) google's cached version is of 5 Jul 2008 05:33:37
GMT. Go check it yourself.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- "A telling admission" by Aaron Williamson (AW1337)

[Linonut]

* Hyman Rosen peremptorily fired off this memo:

> rjack wrote:
>> The S.F.L.C. attorneys are *consistent* and we may *always*
> > count on them. They have filed six consecutive incompetent
>> pleadings in the Southern District of New York.
>
> In any of these cases, is there an instance where the
> source code of the GPLed software was not available
> once the case was over? If not, then the SFLC has done
> its work successfully.
>
> Over and over again, you appear to miss the point of a
> lawsuit. It is to achieve an objective. That objective
> is to make distributors of GPLed software comply with
> the requirements of the license. After each suit filed
> by the SFLC, this has happened.

rjack is wearing green-colored glasses.

-- 
"How many boxes will it sell?"
-- Hypothetical discussion in a Microsoft feature team
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

defeat and everyone else will regard as a victory.

Uhh! "Everyone" is plural. Contrast with "I".


I don't understand what you mean. Do you believe that
"We will thus soon see another dismissal,
 which you will proclaim as a defeat and
 everyone else will regard as a victory."
is not grammatically correct? Why not?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- "A telling admission" by Aaron Williamson (AW1337)

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
May 28th, 2008 
Today I was admitted to practice


And your point is what, exactly? Public interest groups often
hire interns and people just starting out in the profession.
The group gets relatively cheap labor, and the employee gets
experience.

For all your wailing and gnashing of teeth, it isn't even as
if these distributors are trying to hide some great secret that
they've incorporated into their software. They're just too lazy
to comply with the license until someone gets their attention
with a two-by-four. When you do business, there's a bunch of
stuff you just have to do - filings, taxes, bills, and so on.
Honoring software licenses is one of them. These are the same
kind of companies that get raided by the BSA and are discovered
to be using illegal copies of non-free software. It's a mindset.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- "A telling admission" by Aaron Williamson (AW1337)

[Hyman Rosen]

rjack wrote:

The S.F.L.C. attorneys are *consistent* and we may *always*

> count on them. They have filed six consecutive incompetent

pleadings in the Southern District of New York.


In any of these cases, is there an instance where the
source code of the GPLed software was not available
once the case was over? If not, then the SFLC has done
its work successfully.

Over and over again, you appear to miss the point of a
lawsuit. It is to achieve an objective. That objective
is to make distributors of GPLed software comply with
the requirements of the license. After each suit filed
by the SFLC, this has happened.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:
http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx


So when did this page appear? And do they actually honor
requests for the source? If they do, I would once again
assume that a grabber has come around to meeting the license
requirements once a suit was filed, and that we will thus
soon see another dismissal, which you will proclaim as a
defeat and everyone else will regard as a victory.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- "A telling admission" by Aaron Williamson (AW1337)

[rjack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:


I just wonder how long will it take until some GPL defendant decides that 
"enough is enough" and initiates disbarrment of the entire SFLC gang 
including Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337).




Alexander,

We must give credit where credit is due. The S.F.L.C. attorneys are *consistent*
and we may *always* count on them. They have filed six consecutive incompetent
pleadings in the Southern District of New York. Six complaints that fail to
comply with the jurisdictional requirements set forth by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit involving copyright infringement
complaints. To wit:

"It [The Copyright Act] provides that 'no action for infringement of the
copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or
registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this
title.' . . .  Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is not up for debate
in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we have squarely held that it is".; In
re Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation 509 F.3d 116 (2nd
Cir. 2007).

Just one more reason why Americans distrust lawyers. The S.F.L.C. lawyers
need not fear the court's rebuke though. The one (and probably only) thing they
learned in law school was how to file a motion for voluntary dismissal --
conveniently preventing the court from reviewing their moronic, incompetent
pleadings.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or
the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
-- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre
Trials,' December 1770


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- "A telling admission" by Aaron Williamson (AW1337)

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:
> 
> http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx
> 
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >
> > Yet another complaint.
> >
> > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jul/21/busybox/extreme-networks.pdf

The piece of shit above is signed

-
  Respectfully submitted,
  SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC.
  By:
  Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337)
  ...
-

It appears that someone named "Aaron Williamson" has a domain*** and a
blog:

http://www.copiesofcopies.org
http://www.copiesofcopies.org/webl/
http://www.copiesofcopies.org/webl/?page_id=2

-
copiesofcopies :: webl

Aaron Williamson gives you what-for.


About

This is the personal webl of Aaron Williamson, and it isn’t legal
advice.

FAQ

Q: What is a “webl”?

A: It is a convenient abbreviation of the term “weblog.”
-

Now, this is really interesting entry:

-
A telling admission

May 28th, 2008 

Today I was admitted to practice before the District Court for the
Southern District of New York and assigned my requested attorney bar
code: AW1337. I will be pwning n00bs briefly, meaning both “in the near
future” and “by virtue of briefs, which are things that lawyers file.”

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 at 3:53 am and is
filed under i am a lawyer. 
-

I just wonder how long will it take until some GPL defendant decides
that "enough is enough" and initiates disbarrment of the entire SFLC
gang including Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337).

> >
> > Now, this is interesting:
> >
> > --
> > 17. On March 12, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs sent Defendant
> > their requirements for settling the dispute, which included that
> > Defendant: comply with the License; appoint an Open Source Compliance
> > Officer; notify prior recipients of infinging products of their rights
> > under the License; and compensate Plaintiffs.
> >
> > 18. On June 25, 2008, after a series of communications between the
> > parties regarding other of Plaintiffs’ requirements for settlement,
> > Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiffs.
> >
> > 19. On June 26, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs again notified
> > Defendant that its continued distribution of the Program was in
> > violation of the License and an infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights.
> > Plaintiffs’ counsel requested a call to discuss the matter further.
> >
> > 20. Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s June 26 notice, and
> > continues to distribute the Infringing Products and Firmware in
> > violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
> > --
> >
> > 
> >
> 

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

***) Whois Record

Domain ID:D149411650-LROR
Domain Name:COPIESOFCOPIES.ORG
Created On:15-Oct-2007 16:23:39 UTC
Last Updated On:09-Apr-2008 00:24:25 UTC
Expiration Date:15-Oct-2010 16:23:39 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:GODA-038672170
Registrant Name:Aaron Williamson
Registrant Street1:460 15th St.
Registrant Street2:Apt. 8
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Brooklyn
Registrant State/Province:New York
Registrant Postal Code:11215
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.7737278363
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Admin ID:GODA-238672170
Admin Name:Aaron Williamson
Admin Street1:460 15th St.
Admin Street2:Apt. 8
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Brooklyn
Admin State/Province:New York
Admin Postal Code:11215
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.7737278363
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tech ID:GODA-138672170
Tech Name:Aaron Williamson
Tech Street1:460 15th St.
Tech Street2:Apt. 8
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Brooklyn
Tech State/Province:New York
Tech Postal Code:11215
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.7737278363
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Alexander Terekhov]

Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:

http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> Yet another complaint.
> 
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jul/21/busybox/extreme-networks.pdf
> 
> Now, this is interesting:
> 
> --
> 17. On March 12, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs sent Defendant
> their requirements for settling the dispute, which included that
> Defendant: comply with the License; appoint an Open Source Compliance
> Officer; notify prior recipients of infinging products of their rights
> under the License; and compensate Plaintiffs.
> 
> 18. On June 25, 2008, after a series of communications between the
> parties regarding other of Plaintiffs’ requirements for settlement,
> Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiffs.
> 
> 19. On June 26, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs again notified
> Defendant that its continued distribution of the Program was in
> violation of the License and an infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights.
> Plaintiffs’ counsel requested a call to discuss the matter further.
> 
> 20. Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s June 26 notice, and
> continues to distribute the Infringing Products and Firmware in
> violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
> --
> 
> 
> 

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Alexander Terekhov]

Yet another complaint.

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jul/21/busybox/extreme-networks.pdf

Now, this is interesting:

--
17. On March 12, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs sent Defendant
their requirements for settling the dispute, which included that
Defendant: comply with the License; appoint an Open Source Compliance
Officer; notify prior recipients of infinging products of their rights
under the License; and compensate Plaintiffs.

18. On June 25, 2008, after a series of communications between the
parties regarding other of Plaintiffs’ requirements for settlement,
Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiffs.

19. On June 26, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs again notified
Defendant that its continued distribution of the Program was in
violation of the License and an infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights.
Plaintiffs’ counsel requested a call to discuss the matter further.

20. Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s June 26 notice, and
continues to distribute the Infringing Products and Firmware in
violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
--



regards,
alexander.

-- 
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

[James Kanze]

On Jul 21, 9:02 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Willem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > In other words: There cannot be any commercial applicaiton
> > written in C, because in your view it is not well suited to
> > one or two application types you can think of.

> I don't think that's what James meant.  I think when he said
> "commercial application", he really meant "business data
> processing application".  C really *isn't* well suited to most
> BDP applications, so his statement is much more reasonable
> when interpreted that way.  But I still suspect that there are
> at least a few BDP applications written in C nonetheless.

Exactly.  And obviously, you can do it; I know one person who
wrote relational data base code in assembler.  But C isn't
really appropriate; there are almost always better alternatives.
C doesn't have any support for decimal arithmetic, nor any means
of adding it comfortably.

But I'd forgotten that today, "commercial" generally means the
opposite of "open source", or "free", and doesn't refer to the
application domain.  I should have been clearer.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
   Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss