Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/29/2010 11:53 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Where does the GPL say that each case must be examined individually?
By specifying ...
You have nothing meaningful to quote from. Stop ignoring the facts
Hyman.
Recall that the FSF itself is on record:
http
http://www.ifross.org/artikel/russische-foederation-wirtschaftsministerium-wirksamkeit-gpl
Grundlage hierfür sieht es vor allem in Art. 1286 Pkt. 3 ZGB, wonach
durch die Aufnahme von Nutzungshandlungen ein Vertragsschluss bewirkt
werden kann.
Damit ist das Wirtschaftsministerium eine weitere
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Misuse of copyright, when applied at all (its appearance is rare
as hen's teeth), is found in anti-competitive and anti-trust
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise15.html
The copyright misuse defense is similar to an antitrust claim, where a
copyright owner
David Kastrup wrote:
[... the GPL is not a contract baloney ...]
Really, you should stop quoting stuff ...
How about the following quote, dak?
http://www.ifross.org/artikel/russische-foederation-wirtschaftsministerium-wirksamkeit-gpl
Grundlage hierfür sieht es vor allem in Art. 1286 Pkt. 3
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/29/2010 12:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
You have nothing meaningful to quote from.
On the contrary, all of my quotes are germane.
You quoted nothing in your message, silly Hyman.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/29/2010 12:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The copyright misuse defense is similar to an antitrust claim, where a
copyright owner has misused the limited monopoly granted by the
copyright. However, the Lasercomb decision made it clear that the
copyright misuse
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/29/2010 3:07 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On the contrary, all of my quotes are germane.
You quoted nothing in your message.
On other occasions.
I lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of your statement
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceFSFGrantingDismiss.pdf
copyright protection. As such, the GPL encourages, rather
than discourages, free competition...
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Fortunately the GPL carefully defines when a collective work
must as a whole be licensed under the GPL and when it need not
To quote the FSF itself, the GPL itself rejects ANY (to repeat: ANY,
ANY, ANY) automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL,
you
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
the market based on what they offer. The GNU manifesto
does not say that it will prevent people from developing
operating systems, but that it will be unprofitable for
them to do so.
It will be unprofitable for people to develop drugs.
It will be unprofitable for
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/29/2010 3:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
To quote the FSF itself, the GPL itself rejects ANY (to repeat: ANY,
ANY, ANY) automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL
That's correct, there is no automatic aggregation of software
copyright under
[LMAO!]
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Best Buy Co., Inc. (Best Buy), erroneously sued in place of Best Buy
Stores, L.P. and BestBuy.Com, LLC, answers Software Freedom Conservancy,
Inc. and Erik Andersens (Plaintiffs) Original Complaint (Complaint)
as follows:
[... snip answer
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf
Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer
program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
3. Best Buy is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of
business at 7601 Penn Ave. South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423.
3. Plaintiffs are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3
End of Message.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental
RJack, I must disagree with you that SCO's suit against Novell was
moronic.
As for the loss, consider that the loss in a jury trial was anticipated
by SCO:
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Novell-761.pdf
Plaintiffs claim for specific performance should be tried to the
Court
RJack wrote:
[...]
I noticed today that Versa Technology had two pro hac vice attorneys
approved and entered. This indicates they are not talking settlement
with the SFLC.
I must agree with you, RJack.
03/30/2010 98 ORDER ADMITTING ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE. Attorney Paul Kim
for Versa
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
notices did. The significance of registration is that it is a
prerequisite to a suit to enforce a copyright.
Yes silly Hyman, but
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/intellectual-property-copyright/125937-1.html
Fraud on the Copyright Office. (The Law of the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
A covered work means either the unmodified Program or
a work based on the Program.
Uh stupid Hyman... yes, I've been telling you all along that the GPL
doesn't cover non-GPL'd works included in compilations (aka
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/29/2010 4:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It will be unprofitable
THAT'S AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY
No, it's not. There is no public policy that it must
be possible to profit in certain fields of endeavor.
Uh stupid Hyman...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/1/2010 4:37 PM, RJack wrote:
Do you make this stuff up on the fly or do you sit
around and dream about it first?
On the fly, generally, since your errors are simple
enough to explain and refute without much effort.
You mean like refuting the GPL is a license
From pacer... interesting bits from Samsung's answer :
Defendant denies that Mr. Anderson is the author or developer of the
BusyBox computer program, and the owner of the copyright in that
computer program.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Claim)
36. As a separate and distinct
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The GPL is not preempted by any law, since a law can't preempt a
permission. It _is_ unenforceable and states so itself: the licensee
_retains_ the option to use it or ignore it, at will. However,
_copyright_ is enforceable under _state_ law. If you want to make
And no costs against SFLC. Ha, ha.
04/06/2010 103 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiffs Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Andersen and Defendant Comtrend Corporation
hereby stipulate to dismiss defendant Comtrend Corporation from this
action WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and without costs to any
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/7/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And no costs against SFLC. Ha, ha.
04/06/2010 103 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiffs Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Andersen and Defendant Comtrend Corporation
hereby stipulate to dismiss defendant
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/7/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
http://www.comtrend.com/gplcddl.htm
How did you come across that link?
It's the I'm Feeling Lucky link in a Google search for comtrend gpl.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.comtrend.com
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
The only mention of a particular version of BusyBox is
A copyright claim requires to identify PARTICULAR EXPRESSION, you
retard.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
they came back into compliance...
Sez who? Stop being utter retard Hyman.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/7/2010 2:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
A copyright claim requires to identify PARTICULAR EXPRESSION
And once the defendants choose to point out that they are
copying and distributing a different version, the BusyBox
rights holders will simply register
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/7/2010 2:35 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
they came back into compliance...
Sez who?
It is the natural implication of Comtrend being
dropped from the suit and their GPL source code
Why don't you post here their GPL source code stupid Hyman
due to her if it turns out Terekhov is behind attacks on the GPL paranoia.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100403103524185#comments
Enforcement of the GNU GPL in Germany and Europe, by Till Jaeger
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 12:07 PM EDT
Terekhov will not be
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
should try to format your messages so that readers don't give
up in incomprehension.
Try
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... indentation ...]
Uh idiot Hyman...
For indentation, go to
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100403103524185#comments
and search for Terekhov, silly Hyman.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 4/8/2010 12:01 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
due to her if it turns out Terekhov is behind attacks on the GPL
paranoia.
I know that creating single-spaced incomprehensible screeds
is the hallmark of every good crank
amicus_curious wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:e46vn.200849$dv7.17...@newsfe17.iad...
On 4/7/2010 4:30 PM, RJack wrote:
What appears to have happened is that the SFLC filed a mindless
copyright infringement claim concerning BusyBox, v.0.60.3. that
they
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/8/2010 12:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Uh idiot Hyman...
For indentation, go to
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100403103524185#comments
and search for Terekhov, silly Hyman.
The point of communication is to communicate.
Here's
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/8/2010 1:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
I was curious as to what was actually posted and I found, by following the
link:
Not Found
The requested document was not found on this server.
MORON Hyman
But the SFLC has already won
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/8/2010 12:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Uh idiot Hyman...
For indentation, go to
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100403103524185#comments
and search for Terekhov, silly
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
So the wording of the verdict makes clear that the GPL is the
_permission_ to enter into a contractual relation, but not a contract in
Hey dak,
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drogenbesitz
Hth.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
It is the job of the trier of fact to compare the *registered* work with
the alleged infringing copy for substantial similarity. In the instant
suit, no binary has been *registered* for comparison with the alleged
infringing binary. I'll leave it to you to explain
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Seriosly, as for Dan Wallace, I've told him
I suggest you file a request for hearing en banc. If the
price for doing it is a restraint, please let me know.
He replied:
This appellate level ruling completely peels
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[... typical Rex Ballard's amusing baloney ...]
Thanks for this contribution!
Seconded.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Depositions will be taken in order to determine the
provenance of the software being distributed by the
defendants, . . .
What are you smoking Hyman?
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
[ snip ]
If there was any meaning, any point made in the snipped material, it
totally escapes me. Any chance you might like to restate your point in a
concise and clear paragraph? I'm assuming that you had some point
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 5:48 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
324 Deposit for registration: identifying material.
Yes, so?
A copyright claim requires to identify PARTICULAR EXPRESSION, you
retard.
Why don't you post here their GPL source code, stupid Hyman?
What their GPL source
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
via its license, the GPL. If defendants are copying and
distributing any version of BusyBox without complying with
the GPL, then they are infringing copyright.
Sez who?
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/103.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html
See also [LOL] Hey Alan, Pee Jay's mind is going to explode soon
thread here:
Western Digital:
Plaintiffs claims are barred by the first sale doctrine.
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Like it happened every time so far.
Like
http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz
you moron dak.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
According to this paper,
http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf
the GPL is not a contract.
Part IV proposes that the GPL is a failed contract, which lacks only
consideration. It advocates enforcing the license through state
promissory estoppel law and the Copyright Act.
David Kastrup wrote:
[... Pee Jays therom ...]
a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do
What part of YOU INDICATE ACCEPTANCE don't you understand retard dak?
ACCEPTANCE is a contract thing, idiot.
Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html
The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright
infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual
sense. In particular, a copy of a GPL-covered work made
for use
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
According to this paper,
http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf
the GPL is not a contract.
Part IV proposes that the GPL is a failed contract, which lacks only
consideration. It advocates
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... Pee Jays therom ...]
a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do
What part of YOU INDICATE ACCEPTANCE don't you understand retard dak?
ACCEPTANCE is a contract
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell
us when they choose to comply after all (as they have consistently ended
up with so far)?
Like
http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz
you moron dak.
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Why would they make the source code available without necessity? Out of
court settlements are private. But the results speak for themselves.
Like
http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz
you moron dak.
regards,
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Comply with a small number of clearly spelled out conditions, and you
are fine, breach, and you are in trouble. It's not a particularly hard
concept unless you are a troll.
Samsung (several other 'humongous' defendants aside for a moment):
Defendant alleges that
RJack wrote:
[...]
Hyman has Pee Jay and Eben Moglen on his side.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/FLOSS_Weekly_13:_Eben_Moglen_on_GPL_3.0
[Leo Laporte:]
So, are you, youre an attorney, Eben?
[Eben Moglen:]
Yes, thats correct, I went to law school and got a history Ph.D. after
a career as a
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
URL:http://www.comtrend.com/na/privacy.htm says
LOL.
Firmware/Software License Agreement
In accordance with the terms accompanying the file (or the license
authorization which was supplied with the original product) one copy of
the firmware/software may be
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Let's see the judge take them up on this and other allegations. I
rather expect them to come into compliance and drop out of the suit via
that way rather than a ruling.
Yeah, like
Not Found
The requested document was not found on this server.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/12/2010 7:45 AM, RJack wrote:
It claims infringement of BusyBox v. 0.60.3 causes the problem.
Who are people going to believe? You or their lyin' eyes?
The SFLC does not claim that BusyBox v. 0.60.3 causes the
infringement problem. This can easily be seen by
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Hint: the only registered Busybox copyright allegedly owned by
Plaintiffs (actually only Erik) according to the utter fraudulent
registration is BusyBox v. 0.60.3.
The complaint states
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/10/2010 9:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Yeah, like
Not Found
The requested document was not found on this server.
The links are working once more.
Said the idiot who is insufficiently motivated to go set up a
GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... retard Hyman's quoting from Gaiman_v._McFarlane ...]
notices did. The significance of registration is that it is a
prerequisite to a suit to enforce a copyright.
More precisely, an application to register must be filed, and either
granted or refused, before
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You can't come into compliance by putting up some arbitrary source.
A source to what exactly do you want, idiot dak.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/12/2010 3:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
A source to what exactly do you want
The exact source code used to build the binary which the
defendants copy and distribute.
It costs money, silly Hyman.
How much are you willing to pay?
regards,
alexander
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You can't come into compliance by putting up some arbitrary source.
A source to what exactly do you want, idiot dak.
Since I have not acquired any binaries, there is nothing for me to want
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/12/2010 3:33 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It costs money, silly Hyman.
How much are you willing to pay?
I'm not willing to pay anything, since I did not receive
any binaries and have no particular use for them. . .
IOW, you are admittedly just blowing hot air
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You can't come into compliance by putting up some arbitrary source.
A source to what exactly do you want, idiot
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/12/2010 4:01 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
blowing hot air
People who copy and distribute GPL-covered works must
Sez who?
I say that people who copy and distribute GPL-covered works must not
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Every computer program in the world
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/12/2010 4:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Sez who?
The rights holders, by virtue of the license under which
they allow the works to be copied and distributed.
Hyman, stop being utter idiot: the claim is of copyright/tort, not
license/contract.
regards
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/12/2010 4:39 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
the claim is of copyright/tort, not license/contract.
The claim is for copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement is a tort you idiot. Note that SFLC's claim of
copyright infringement is baseless and frivolous
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/12/2010 4:01 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
blowing hot air
People who copy and distribute GPL-covered works must
Sez who?
The courts.
Stop hallucinating dak.
regards,
alexander
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Yup. That's what makes the GPL relevant if you want to copy or
distribute when you have no other permission from the rights holder.
As a separate and distinct Twelfth Affirmative Defense and each
claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs
RJack wrote:
[...]
Bye bye General Public License! Only a complete fucking moron would
claim to have written a General Public scope license that controls
copyrights outside of contractual privity. ROFL.
http://www.fsf.org/news/gpl3.html
The GPL is the Constitution ...
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The GPL legally establishes a heterogenuos pool of software.
Hey dak, how come that the FSF claimed in court that the GPL is NOT A
POOLING LICENSE (and is merely a vertical agreement between the
licensee and the licensor of the underlying software instead)?
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Yup. That's what makes the GPL relevant if you want to copy or
distribute when you have no other permission from the rights holder.
As a separate and distinct Twelfth Affirmative Defense
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That's actually why the FSF has to get copyright assignments for
strategically important software: they can't just reimport GPLed
According to the FSF itself, the FSF uses copyright assignments to avoid
joint ownership issues stupid dak.
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The GPL legally establishes a heterogenuos pool of software.
Hey dak, how come that the FSF claimed in court that the GPL is NOT A
POOLING LICENSE (and is merely a vertical agreement
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That's actually why the FSF has to get copyright assignments for
strategically important software: they can't just reimport GPLed
According to the FSF itself, the FSF uses copyright
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Correct statement is
The GPL *ILLEGALLY* purports to establishes a pool of software
because the GPL purports to control the licensee's copyrights with
respect to all third parties (i.e. the world)
No, you
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That sort of handwaving waffle got Wallace thrown out of court for
failure to state a claim.
Wallace's case was dismissed because Chief Judge Eaterbrook is of
opinion that
*** FOSS is junk ***
People willingly pay for quality software even when they can get
free
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
No, you are confused again. The GPL gives you permission to pass copies
Read 17 USC 109, idiot.
Western Digital:
Plaintiffs claims are barred by the first sale doctrine.
Westinghouse:
Plaintiffsâ claims for relief are barred by the First Sale
Hadron wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Samsung (calling SFLC):
Hello SFLC, this is Samsung calling. Please be advised that we've made 1
(ONE) BILLION copies of GPL'd material copied verbatim and/or with
modifications. Please contact us within 3 (THREE) BUSINESS
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You really have to beat your habit of quoting attempted defenses as if
they were of any legal importance.
Samsung (calling SFLC):
Wow, now you are quoting imagined sneers. Talk about
Good morning Hyman!
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
hence the insistence that the GPL is not a contract.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Under California contract law...
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936
---
This is not legal advice...
As an attorney
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 9:20 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936
dteme...@nvalaw.com is a real attorney spending a great deal of time on
software related IP licensing and litigation matters.
http://nvalaw.com/
I can quote
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 9:30 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Absent a license
Notice a problem here?
Notice was licensed in
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claim for copyright infringement
is barred under at least the provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), as
Defendant
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 9:34 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
It's easy to read the first-sale doctrine, but fortunately
it does not apply to the copying and distribution carried
out by the defendants in this case.
Sez who?
The GPL, of course, which does
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Notice was licensed in
It is only anti-GPL cranks (and lawyers who need to raise
every possible defense) who believe that one may accept the
permissions of a license while refusing its obligations.
Hot, hot, hot, Hyman
RJack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
It is possible that the court will decide it does not have
subject-matter jurisdiction over the versions which the defendants
are copying and distributing because those versions are not
registered.
That is no longer good law. It is now a claim
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 10:49 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
In essense, a plaintiff without a registration will still lose,
just for different reasons.
If the plaintiff loses for that reason, they will simply
register the work and refile the claim.
After paying defendants
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 10:37 AM, RJack wrote:
Hyman you bandy about the term open license as if it is a special,
exceptional category of copyright license -- it isn't.
Open licenses are special, since they are offered unilaterally
by licensors without communication or
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 11:30 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And the contract laws (not the copyright act) provide remedies for
breach of established (enforcable/valid) rules you idiot.
Copyright is its own law, and specifies the nature of
infringement and penalties
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 12:02 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Implicit in a nonexclusive copyright license is the promise not to sue
for copyright infringement.
But it is only an anti-GPL crank who would believe that
he could accept the permissions of a license but not its
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 12:32 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The contract laws recognize a concept called efficient breach which
*encourages* breach of (enforcable) obligations if it's economically
efficient to do so.
However, copyright law provides for injunctions to prevent
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
if you choose not to comply with
licensing conditions, the license just does not apply.
I'm just curious, what automatically terminate does
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf
then
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
A promise to licensees availing themselves of the license. Without any
Uh retard dak.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
by [blah-blah], you indicate your acceptance of this License
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance#Communication_of_acceptance
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 1:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
17 U.S.C. § 109(a)
The works copied and distributed by the defendants are not
first-sale copies.
Copies lawfully made fall under 17 USC 109 (fair use copies are also
lawfully made but distribution of such copies
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 1:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I'm just curious, what automatically terminate does
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf
then talking about, in your view, oh paragon of GNUtardiness dak?
What it says:
http
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 1:34 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
by [blah-blah], you indicate your acceptance of this License
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance#Communication_of_acceptance
It may be implied from the construction
201 - 300 of 2379 matches
Mail list logo
