Re: Question - Best forums to start an free project
On 3/22/2011 6:56 PM, David Kastrup wrote: RJacku...@example.net writes: On 3/22/2011 8:43 AM, Hiram wrote: Hello, I would like to know if you know of some forums or mailing lists where I can submit a message to START a free application project. I'm interested in developing a new integrated development environment and have some ideas on what to focus and what features to develop. However, I would like to exchange these ideas and try to start programming a new IDE and publish it somewhere but I'm kind of very lost. Discussions in this group are centered around a legally unenforceable but vexatious license known as the GPL. As you can see, this group has its resident trolls. Have a beautiful day DAK! _ _ |R| |R| |J| /^^^\ |J| _|a|_ (| o |) _|a|_ _| |c| | _(_---_)_ | |c| |_ | | |k| ||-|_| |_|-|| |k| | | | | / \ | | \/ / /(. .)\ \ \/ \/ / / | . | \ \ \/ \ \/ /||Y||\ \/ / \__/ || || \__/ () () || || ooO Ooo ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
On 3/22/2011 7:43 AM, RJack wrote: On 3/22/2011 6:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: RJack wrote: Best Buy Inc. has just filed a 28 page (available on PACER) Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Let the the fireworks begin! SFLC's exciting reply: http://www.terekhov.de/188.pdf The SFLC claimed in it's Complaint against Best Buy Inc. that: On information and belief, each Defendant has distributed firmware – embedded in electronic products or by itself that contains BusyBox or a derivative work of BusyBox. Next, in the Motion for Preliminary Injunction the SFLC claims: Further, version 1.2.1 is unquestionably a derivative work of version 0.60.3, as version 1.2.1 was indisputably based on and is substantially similar to version 0.60.3, so Best Buy's distribution of version 1.2.1 is itself a violation of Andersen's exclusive right to make and distribute derivative works of his registered copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 106 (2),(3). So... we see that Andersen's work unquestionably involves a derivative work of the original BusyBox that was written by Bruce Perens... *except* when pressed on Andersen's valid copyright registration, the SFLC claims a few paragraphs later that: Not only did Andersen write from scratch a significant portion of the code added between the time he left Lineo and the release of version 0.60.3, he is also entitled to a copyright for his direction and organization of BusyBox's development because the Copyright Act protects a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship ... . 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103; Feist Pub'lns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 362 (1991). SURPRISE!!! SURPRISE!!! Andersen's registered work has now magically morphed into a collective work. Not only is the registered BusyBox work a moving target -- it's moving at lightspeed. If I were Erik Andersen I would be moving at light speed too -- Best Buy Inc. is about to take a large bite out of his ass. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
RJack wrote: On 3/22/2011 7:43 AM, RJack wrote: On 3/22/2011 6:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: RJack wrote: Best Buy Inc. has just filed a 28 page (available on PACER) Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Let the the fireworks begin! SFLC's exciting reply: http://www.terekhov.de/188.pdf The SFLC claimed in it's Complaint against Best Buy Inc. that: On information and belief, each Defendant has distributed firmware embedded in electronic products or by itself that contains BusyBox or a derivative work of BusyBox. Next, in the Motion for Preliminary Injunction the SFLC claims: Further, version 1.2.1 is unquestionably a derivative work of version 0.60.3, as version 1.2.1 was indisputably based on and is substantially similar to version 0.60.3, so Best Buy's distribution of version 1.2.1 is itself a violation of Andersen's exclusive right to make and distribute derivative works of his registered copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 106 (2),(3). So... we see that Andersen's work unquestionably involves a derivative work of the original BusyBox that was written by Bruce Perens... *except* when pressed on Andersen's valid copyright registration, the SFLC claims a few paragraphs later that: Not only did Andersen write from scratch a significant portion of the code added between the time he left Lineo and the release of version 0.60.3, he is also entitled to a copyright for his direction and organization of BusyBox's development because the Copyright Act protects a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship ... . 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103; Feist Pub'lns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 362 (1991). SURPRISE!!! SURPRISE!!! Andersen's registered work has now magically morphed into a collective work. Not only is the registered BusyBox work a moving target -- it's moving at lightspeed. If I were Erik Andersen I would be moving at light speed too -- Best Buy Inc. is about to take a large bite out of his ass. I bet that SFLC legal beagles will suggest that what they actually mean is that Andersen's work in 1.2.1 is a derivative collective work (a derivative selection of material) based on his original collective work in 0.60.3. Of course the problem is that whatever alleged Andersen's work of whatever type and scope is not properly registered (and even not identified in the evidence before the court to date)... As for derivative v. collective works, SFLC legal beagles never groked the difference in concepts: http://gplv3.fsf.org/denationalization-dd2.html Works Based On Other Works Although the definition of ``work based on the Program'' made use of a legal term of art, ``derivative work,'' peculiar to US copyright law, we did not believe that this presented difficulties as significant as those associated with the use of the term ``distribution.'' After all, differently-labeled concepts corresponding to the derivative work are recognized in all copyright law systems. That these counterpart concepts might differ to some degree in scope and breadth from the US derivative work was simply a consequence of varying national treatment of the right of altering a copyrighted work. Ironically, the criticism we have received regarding the use of US-specific legal terminology in the ``work based on the Program'' definition has come not primarily from readers outside the US, but from those within it, and particularly from members of the technology licensing bar. They have argued that the definition of ``work based on the Program'' effectively misstates what a derivative work is under US law, and they have contended that it attempts, by indirect means, to extend the scope of copyleft in ways they consider undesirable. They have also asserted that it confounds the concepts of derivative and collective works, two terms of art that they assume, questionably, to be neatly disjoint under US law. We do not agree with these views... They simply do not agree with US Congress: (HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476) Between them the terms ''compilations'' and ''derivative works'' which are defined in section 101 comprehend every copyrightable work that employs preexisting material or data of any kind. There is necessarily some overlapping between the two, but they basically represent different concepts. A ''compilation'' results from a process of selecting, bringing together, organizing, and arranging previously existing material of all kinds, regardless of whether the individual items in the material have been or ever could have been subject to copyright. A ''derivative work,'' on the other hand, requires a process of recasting, transforming, or adapting ''one or more preexisting works''; the ''preexisting work'' must come within the general
9th Cir. License Primer
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals published a decision on Dec. 10th, 2010, MDY INDUSTRIES v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT that could serve as an excellent primer for open source license drafters. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BwLbiGagMEFMODNkNjdlYjEtNDJkZC00Yjc3LTg3NmQtY2UyMjQwMjJhOGVi This decision is *REQUIRED READING* for the Free Software Foundation! ... [7] “A copyright owner who grants a nonexclusive, limited license ordinarily waives the right to sue licensees for copyright infringement, and it may sue only for breach of contract.” Sun I, 188 F.3d at 1121 (internal quotations omitted). However, if the licensee acts outside the scope of the license, the licensor may sue for copyright infringement. Id. (citing S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 1989)). Enforcing a copyright license “raises issues that lie at the intersection of copyright and contract law.” Id. at 1122. [8] We refer to contractual terms that limit a license’s scope as “conditions,” the breach of which constitute copyright infringement. Id. at 1120. We refer to all other license terms as “covenants,” the breach of which is actionable only under contract law. Id. We distinguish between conditions and covenants according to state contract law, to the extent consistent with federal copyright law and policy. Foad Consulting Group v. Musil Govan Azzalino, 270 F.3d 821, 827 (9th Cir. 2001)... [9] A Glider user commits copyright infringement by playing WoW while violating a ToU term that is a license condition. To establish copyright infringement, then, Blizzard must demonstrate that the violated term — ToU § 4(B) — is a condition rather than a covenant. Sun I, 188 F.3d at 1122. Blizzard’s EULAs and ToUs provide that they are to be interpreted according to Delaware law. Accordingly, we first construe them under Delaware law, and then evaluate whether that construction is consistent with federal copyright law and policy. A covenant is a contractual promise, i.e., a manifestation of intention to act or refrain from acting in a particular way, such that the promisee is justified in understanding that the promisor has made a commitment. See Travel Centers of Am. LLC v. Brog, No. 3751-CC, 2008 Del. Ch. LEXIS 183, *9 (Del. Ch. Dec. 5, 2008); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 2 (1981). A condition precedent is an act or event that must occur before a duty to perform a promise arises. AES P.R., L.P. v. Alstom Power, Inc., 429 F. Supp. 2d 713, 717 (D. Del. 2006) (citing Delaware state law); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 224. Conditions precedent are disfavored because they tend to work forfeitures. AES, 429 F. Supp. 2d at 717 (internal citations omitted). Wherever possible, equity construes ambiguous contract provisions as covenants rather than conditions. See Wilmington Tr. Co. v. Clark, 325 A.2d 383, 386 (Del. Ch. 1974). However, if the contract is unambiguous, the court construes it according to its terms. AES, 429 F. Supp. 2d at 717 (citing 17 Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 460 (2006)). [10] Applying these principles, ToU § 4(B)(ii) and (iii)’s prohibitions against bots and unauthorized third-party software are covenants rather than copyright-enforceable conditions. See Greenwood v. CompuCredit Corp., 615 F.3d 1204, 1212, (9th Cir. 2010) (“[H]eadings and titles are not meant to take the place of the detailed provisions of the text,” and . . . “the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text.” (quoting Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Balt. Ohio R.R., 331 U.S. 519, 528—29 (1947))). Although ToU § 4 is titled, “Limitations on Your Use of the Service,” nothing in that section conditions Blizzard’s grant of a limited license on players’ compliance with ToU § 4’s restrictions. To the extent that the title introduces any ambiguity, under Delaware law, ToU § 4(B) is not a condition, but is a contractual covenant. Cf. Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 81 F. Supp. 2d 1026, 1031-32 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (“Sun II”) (where Sun licensed Microsoft to create only derivative works compatible with other Sun software, Microsoft’s “compatibility obligations” were covenants because the license was not specifically conditioned on their fulfillment). To recover for copyright infringement based on breach of a license agreement, (1) the copying must exceed the scope of the defendant’s license and (2) the copyright owner’s complaint must be grounded in an exclusive right of copyright (e.g., unlawful reproduction or distribution). See Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware Eng’g Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Contractual rights, however, can be much broader... Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
