Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
On 6/17/2011 8:55 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote: On 6/17/2011 8:47 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The contradiction would be if the court would order not to pay attorney's fees. Do you believe that at the conclusion of a case, one party pays the attorney fees of another unless a court instructs them not to do so? How odd. How else do you believe a badly losing plaintiff gets a winning defendant to agree to a stipulated Rule 41 voluntary dismissal "WITH PREDJUDICE"? Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: BusyBox and the GPL... LMAO
On 2/1/2012 6:45 PM, me wrote: LMAO... A BSD replacement for BusyBox under a BSD license. From ROB LANDLEY no less: "Toybox is released under a simple 2-clause BSD-style license." http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Controversy-around-Busybox-alternative-1426119.html http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/52496-busybox-replacement-project-fuels-animated-verbal-spat http://www.landley.net/toybox/about.html Sincerely, RJack :) From Rob Landley: December 16, 2011... "The FSF is its own worst enemy, and it has comprehensively fragmented and FUDded its greatest achievement. The graph in the above article estimates that GPL usage in open source software will fall below 50% next year, and anybody familiar with network effects can expect it to retreat to a niche pretty quickly after that. The silver lining in all this is it reduces the FSF to complete irrelevance, allowing the open source developers to get on with their work without distraction from religious zealots." http://landley.net/notes-2011.html#16-12-2011 Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
Erik Andersen has registered BusyBox 1.00 with the Copyright Office: BusyBox, version 1.00. Type of Work: Text Registration Number / Date: TX0007412131 / 2011-09-06 Application Title: BusyBox, version 1.00. Title: BusyBox, version 1.00. Description:Electronic file (eService) Copyright Claimant: Erik Andersen, 1971- . Address: 352 N 525 East, SPRINGVILLE, UT, 84663-1579, United States. Date of Creation: 2004 Date of Publication:2004-10-13 Nation of First Publication:United States Authorship on Application: Erik Andersen, 1971- ; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: text, compilation, editing, computer program. Previous Registration: 2008, TX 6-869-051. Pre-existing Material: text, computer program. Basis of Claim: text, compilation, editing, computer program. Rights and Permissions: Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc., 137 MONTAGUE ST STE 380, BROOKLYN, NY, 11201, United States * Let the games begin anew with an amended complaint. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
On 6/17/2011 8:35 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote: On 6/17/2011 6:53 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Why do you claim, in contradiction to this document, that SFLC paid any costs to Best Buy? Not in contradiction. Court costs != attorney's fees. The document does not order either side to pay attorney's fees. I would refer you to earlier claims concerning "undocumented" settlement agreements as described by legal expert Hyman Rosen who posts to this group. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
On 6/15/2011 3:54 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: On 6/15/2011 3:45 PM, RJack wrote: On 6/15/2011 3:32 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: On 6/15/2011 3:17 PM, RJack wrote: The GPL license was dead the day it was stillborn. The GPL is in wide use, so you are wrong. Yep. And pigs hold hands while flapping their wings ROFL. Reality will eventually bite you in the ass Hyman. LMAO. In reality, the GPL is in wide use. Even Insignia makes GPLed sources available for at least one product, here: <http://insignia.chumby.com/pages/source_code> Yeah -- dismissal WITH PREJUDICE and forking over $75,000 in attorneys' fees to Best Buy Inc. counsel ia a real victory Hyman. The blithering idiots at SFC and SFLC can't even file a proper copyright registration certificate. How would they ever defend the use of an obviously unenforceable, crackpot license like the GPL? Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
On 6/15/2011 3:32 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: On 6/15/2011 3:17 PM, RJack wrote: The GPL license was dead the day it was stillborn. The GPL is in wide use, so you are wrong. Yep. And pigs hold hands while flapping their wings ROFL. Reality will eventually bite you in the ass Hyman. LMAO. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
On 4/27/2011 5:28 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Just in: 04/26/2011 194 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Emmett J. McMahon, dated 4/25/2011, re: Counsel for the defendant Best Buy Co., writes to request a pre-motion conference regarding a motion to strike Plaintiffs' claim for "actual damages and any additional profits of [Best Buy] incurred as the result of infringement." ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. A premotion conference will be held on May 6 at 2:30. So Ordered. (Pre-Motion Conference set for 5/6/2011 at 02:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/25/2011) (lnl) (Entered: 04/26/2011) The letter: http://www.terekhov.de/194.pdf Best Buy says that Plaintiffs have suffered no damages at all. (And rightly so.) You are soo right Alex! The plaintiffs aren't eligible for statutory damages even *if* the registration were valid. Goodbye fraudulent Bradley and Erik. Hope they enjoy paying *all* the defendant's attorney fees in this matter. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
SFC and Erik Andersen's motion to join Westinghouse Digital Electronics,
LLC ("WDE") as a defendant has been DENIED.
Judge Scheindlin:
"Because plaintiffs have failed to prove the "crucial factor" of
inadequate consideration, their de facto merger and mere continuation
theories of successor liability must fail.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion to join WD is denied. The
Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion (Docket No. 133)."
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: 9th Cir. License Primer
On 3/30/2011 6:04 PM, David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] What rock have you been living under? The whole point of the GPL (as opposed to, say, BSD style licenses) is that it is firmly rooted in copyright ... In context, copyright means that the owner has exclusive right to copy in order to sell (permissions to make) copies verbatim and copies of derivative works of his work without interference from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/freeloaders . . . In contrast, the GPL means . . . The GPL is about an imaginary "right" called "copyleft" that is allegedly created with a license that infects and steals other programmer's exclusive rights in their original creations and gives them to Karl Marx's heirs. a particular set of conditions under which the owner uses his exclusive rights to grant certain permissions to selected recipients of copies of his software. "Covenants" -- not conditions dummkopf. What rock have you been living under, silly dak? Do you really not understand what a license is? After all this time? Sincerely, RJack :) dummkopf -- n. A stupid person; a dolt. [German : dumm, dumb (from Middle High German tump, tumb , from Old High German tumb) + Kopf, head (from Middle High German, cup, cranium , from Old High German, cup , from Late Latin cuppa).] ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: 9th Cir. License Primer
On 3/30/2011 10:28 AM, David Kastrup wrote: RJack writes: As the SFLC and Erik Andersen are learning to their dismay, a valid Copyright Office registration of an open source project such as a version of BusyBox requires the registration of all the *individual* contributors' work all the way back to the original author's initial contribution. In order for a complex and evolving derivative work "as a whole" to be registered, each recursive, preexisting version must also be registered -- a virtually impossible task when multiple authors are involved see for example: [...] The chances of a GPL project's enforcement in a federal court is dead long before the judge ever reads the GPL. The respective chances for success of copyright enforcement in court are what causes the FSF to get copyright assignments for key pieces of GNU software, pretty much from the start of when the GPL has been designed. So it is not exactly news for them or the SFLC that distributed copyright makes for rougher sailing. There is no indication so far, however, that anything is going amiss here. That the situation leaves more to fantasize about for our resident legal nincompoops (as witnessed by their quite-worse-than-random prediction track records) until the case closes is not actually cause for worry. DAK is still live! I thought he had died and went to the great Gnuvana after Alex had beaten him about the cognitive head and body. Will miracles never cease? Sincerely, RJack :) You said WHAT? _ _ |L| |R| |M| /^^^\ |O| _|A|_ (| "o" |) _|F|_ _| |O| | _(_---_)_ | |L| |_ | | | | ||-|_| |_|-|| | | | | | | / \ | | \/ / /(. .)\ \ \/ \/ / / | . | \ \ \/ \ \/ /||Y||\ \/ / \__/ || || \__/ () () || || ooO Ooo ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: 9th Cir. License Primer
As the SFLC and Erik Andersen are learning to their dismay, a valid Copyright Office registration of an open source project such as a version of BusyBox requires the registration of all the *individual* contributors' work all the way back to the original author's initial contribution. In order for a complex and evolving derivative work "as a whole" to be registered, each recursive, preexisting version must also be registered -- a virtually impossible task when multiple authors are involved see for example: "[5] Morris contends that the holding in Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. Vandam, Inc., 159 F.3d 739, 747 (2d Cir. 1998), that the registration of a derivative work meets the jurisdictional requirements of 411(a) in a suit for infringement of the original work where the claimant owns the copyright in both, requires us to find that if Cond Nast was a "copyright owner" of Morris's articles at the time it registered the issues of Allure in which they appeared, then those articles are registered for the purposes of 411(a). See Woods v. Universal Studios, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 62, 64 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), cited in Streetwise Maps, 159 F.3d at 747. We disagree. In Streetwise Maps, the plaintiff apparently owned all of the rights to the original work at the time it registered the copyright. See 159 F.3d at 746-47. In this case, it is undisputed that Cond Nast owned only some of the rights to Morris's articles at the time it registered the relevant issues of Allure."; MORRIS v. BUSINESS CONCEPTS, INC., 283 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 2001). This leaves the remaining possibility that an individual contributor may register with the Copyright Office only his own *exclusive* contribution of source code. This requires submitting for registration the source code files *not* modified or patched by other project members. The next looming question is how do you find and compare an individual author's contribution in thousands to possibly millions of bytes of object code in some executable program? The chances of a GPL project's enforcement in a federal court is dead long before the judge ever reads the GPL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: 9th Cir. License Primer
The SFLC is eager to cite Second Circuit authority when it suits its
purposes:
"...[T]he Second Circuit in Salinger abrogated the longstanding practice
of presuming irreparable harm based upon the plaintiff's prima facie
claim of copyright infringement... [T]he Second Circuit has approved of
this practice. See e.g., Pharmaceutical Soc'y of New York, Inc. v. New
York StateDept. of Soc. Servs., 50 F.3d 1168, 1174-75 (2d Cir. 1995).";
Plaintiff's Memorandum on Motion.
But when it doesn't suit it purpose the SFLC chooses to utterly ignore
Second Circuit precedent such as:
"One party's breach does not automatically cause recission of a
bilateral contract. See Fosson v. Palace (Waterland), Ltd., 78 F.3d
1448, 1455 (9th Cir.1996) (recognizing "the rule applied in other
circuits that once a non-breaching party to an express copyright license
obtains and exercises a right of rescission by virtue of a material
breach of the agreement, any further distribution of the copyrighted
material would constitute infringement") (emphasis added);
Hyman v. Cohen, 73 So.2d 393, 397 (Fla.1954) (" "A material breach, as
where the breach goes to the whole consideration of the contract, gives
to the injured party the right to rescind the contract or to treat it as
a breach of the entire contract' ") (quoting 12 Am.Jur. Contracts §
389) (emphasis added); 3 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright §
10.15[A], at 10-125-126 (1996) (" Upon such rescission, the assignment
or license is terminated and the copyright proprietor may hold his
former grantee liable as an infringer for subsequent use of the work.")
(emphasis added)."
Now, the SFLC utterly ignores the circuit precedent and claims:
"Further, once Best Buy made a distribution of BusyBox that did not
comply with the license terms, the license terminated, and therefore any
further act of copying or distributing BusyBox by Best Buy (even if in
compliance with the license) is without Andersen's permission.
Andersen Decl. Ex. 2, § 4 (“You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or
distribute [BusyBox] except as expressly provided under this License.
Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute
[BusyBox] is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
this License.”)."; Plainiff's Reply Memeorandum.
The games have begun!
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: 9th Cir. License Primer
On 3/24/2011 3:40 PM, RJack wrote: On 3/24/2011 10:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: As they say: "The GPL Is a License, not a Contract." LMAO! Seriously, I am very disappointed that Best Buy did not raise the issue of copyright v. contract breach thus far. It is instructive to look at the Best Buy Inc. litigation and SFLC claims concerning the GPL in light of the recent Ninth Circuit decision in MDY INDUSTRIES v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BwLbiGagMEFMODNkNjdlYjEtNDJkZC00Yjc3LTg3NmQtY2UyMjQwMjJhOGVi The Ninth Circuit held: "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)." This holding is in accord with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling: "An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement" unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). The Best Buy Inc. et. al. complaint states: Thus, to comply with the License, when a party distributes an object code or executable form of BusyBox, they must include either (i) the “complete corresponding machine-readable source code” or (ii) a “written offer ... to give any third party ... a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code.” The GPL's flaw is obvious. Neither including "(i) complete... source code..." nor "(ii) a ...written offer..." is grounded in one of the specific exclusive rights enumerated in the Copyright Act, thus these acts comprise contractual covenants and *cannot* give rise to an infringement claim. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: 9th Cir. License Primer
On 3/24/2011 10:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: As they say: "The GPL Is a License, not a Contract." LMAO! Seriously, I am very disappointed that Best Buy did not raise the issue of copyright v. contract breach thus far. The language of Best Buy's latest filing in 1:09-cv-10155-SAS Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et al almost sounds that Best Buy buys into GPL "condition" moronity... I suppose that they are sure that they can win even under that "condition" so to speak. We'll see. It's all about strategy. The present motion is for a Preliminary Injunction -- not Summary Judgement. Best Buy is adhering to the principle espoused in the pleadings -- "The license speaks for itself". The focus of Best Buy's attorneys is to defeat the motion -- not defeat the GPL at this point. If Best Buy defeats the motion because it claims "compliance" with an unenforceable license, the defendant *still wins*. It is glaringly obvious that Best Buy's attorneys consider GPL "viral" claims to be complete nonsense. To wit: 1) "...Plaintiffs used their pretended enforcement rights in the entire BusyBox code, as well as other open source software, to attempt to extract prior review and veto rights over future models of Insignia Blu-ray players and firmware releases." See the: "...*pretended* enforcement rights in the entire BusyBox code..." 2) "...Under that license, anyone can copy or distribute the “Program,” which at best is Mr. Andersen’s contribution to BusyBox after 2001, provided that such distributor meets only one of certain conditions..." See the: "...the 'Program,' *which at best* is Mr. Andersen’s contribution..." 3) "...Yet, later that same day, Plaintiffs continued to demand source code for other open source software, and proprietary code, that has nothing to do with BusyBox." See the: "...*proprietary code, that has nothing to do with BusyBox*." 4) "...Conservancy demanded that Broadcom include proprietary source code with the code that would be offered under Paragraph 3 of GPLv2. Conservancy argued that the particular file in question was a derivative work of an open source Linux kernel. (Id. at ¶ 12.) But Conservancy does not have rights to Linux, nor does it have rights to Broadcom’s proprietary source code. Whether that code was proprietary to Broadcom, or derivative of Linux open source code, it is completely unrelated to BusyBox." See the: "...nor does it have rights to Broadcom’s *proprietary source* code..." Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
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
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: Question - Best forums to start an "free" project
On 3/22/2011 6:56 PM, David Kastrup wrote: RJack 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: Question - Best forums to start an "free" project
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. Thanks for your help beforehand, /Hiram Discussions in this group are centered around a legally unenforceable but vexatious license known as the "GPL". The license vainly attempts to convince folks that it can take control of others exclusive rights in their source code. The GPL is not a "free" license but one that attempts to be highly restrictive. Avoid it at all costs. You should google for various "BSD" groups that release their projects under the BSD style open source license. The Apache license is also a good license to use for open source, truly free applications. 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
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 1. They don't object Best Buy claim that SFC 'agent' has no standing at all. Ciao SFC plaintiff. Ha ha. 2. Regarding the bogus copyright registration and lack of identification of Andersen's actual work, the answer is basically "it's all in the CVS and Subversion logs so go dig it out yourself dear copyright office and defendants". Ha ha. 3. The rights under the GPL really really automatically terminate on a slightest breach with no way to cure and the only way out is to beg for "reinstantiation" of rights. Ha ha. 4. The plaintiffs are really really irreparably harmed. LOL. 5. Dear judge, free us poor plaintiffs from the obligation to post the security bond... LMAO. The SFLC is utterly clueless concerning the registration of derivative works. SFLC says: "The first version of BusyBox Andersen released after leaving Lineo was version 0.60.3. That version contained 8,897 lines of brand new code added by Andersen after leaving Lineo. This new code added functionality and improvements to the stability of BusyBox's core features. Williamson Decl. Ex. A at 274:5– 276:24. A large portion of this code, 5,794 lines, he wrote entirely by himself." So... we are now down to 5,794 lines of code of unregistered, unidentified lines of code -- not BusyBox 0.60.3. Remember the SFLC Complaint? "BusyBox is a single computer program that comprises a set of computing tools and optimizes them for computers with limited resources, such as cell phones, PDAs, and other small, specialized electronic devices." Andersen was registering "...a single computer program...", *except* it is now "...5,794 lines..." of code. Best Buy anticipated this ploy: "[n.11] If Mr. Andersen were to later claim that he is trying to enforce only his personal contributions to v.0.60.3, those contributions have not been defined, they are not before the Court, and they are not alleged to be in the accused devices." Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Groklaw's left handed spin
On August 03, 2010, Pamela Jones posted an article on her Groklaw site that trumpeted, "I thought you'd want to hear about what's just happened in the Software Freedom Conservancy v. Best Buy, et al case. It's another BusyBox case regarding infringement of the GPL... one thing you know for sure now: the GPL has teeth, it is enforceable in a court of law" http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100803132055210 PJ has forever misled her gullible, loyal followers by quoting and interpreting various court filings and rulings out of context , waxing brilliant when she wants to spin some ruling in her philosophical favor and pretending ignorance when some court rules against one of her faux causes. Pamela can at times make Glen Beck appear as a paragon of virtue. Best Buy Inc. has filed it's utterly devastating response to the Software Freedom Conservancy and Erik Andersens' fraudulent infringement claims. http://ia600409.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.355978/gov.uscourts.nysd.355978.178.0.pdf Here's a nugget from the Best Buy Inc, response: "[n. 10] Plaintiffs made the same misstatements when moving for a default judgment against Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC. See Dkt. 113 at 6, n 4, (“. . . since Mr. Anderson ‘is the owner of the copyright of both the derivative and pre-existing work, the registration certificate relating to the derivative work in this circumstance will suffice to permit it to maintain an action for infringement based on defendants’ infringement of pre-existing work.”)” and Dkt. No. 115 at 1-2 (referring to work beginning in 1999 and saying “I . . . retained all ownership of the copyrights therein.”) Plaintiffs sought and obtained an injunction and turnover order for “all articles containing BusyBox.” (Dkt. No. 113 at 9; and Dkt. No. 131 at 9, 15.) In doing so, they did not advise that Mr. Andersen’s former employer, Lineo, had copyrights in Mr. Andersen’s earlier work on BusyBox, that 25 other “authors” contributed to v.0.60.3 and that there are other, subsequent versions of BusyBox such as v.1.2.1, which Mr. Kuhn claims he knew about in November, 2009, seven months before moving for the default judgment. (See supra at 2-3; Dkt. No. 166 at ¶ 9.)" You would think PJ would update and correct her one-sided bloviating concerning "Free Software" and the GPL. Unfortunately PJ is nothing more than an old, washed up Spin Bag attempting to masquerade as a journalist. Too bad she only continues to sully the reputation of real professional journalists such as Maureen O'Gara. 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
On 3/10/2011 8:14 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On pacer: 03/09/2011 185 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 172 MOTION Finding of Contempt re: 171 MOTION Finding of Contempt... Document filed by Westinghouse Digital, LLC. (Kazan, Barry) (Entered: 03/09/2011) - I. Background II. Westinghouse Digital Is Not In Contempt Of The Court’s Injunction Because The Accused Conduct Is Not Copyright Infringement And Because The Injunction Against Mora Does Not Apply To Westinghouse Digital A. The posting of Mora’s DTV firmware on the web is not copyright infringement because it is required under federal law and an Order of the Federal Communications Commission B. The injunction against Mora does not apply to non-party Westinghouse Digital because Westinghouse Digital has neither abetted nor is legally identified with Mora C. Westinghouse Digital is not the successor to Mora for purposes of the injunction under federal common law III. Conclusion - http://www.terekhov.de/185.pdf Oh mighty, mighty GPL... In the Default Ruling against Westinghouse, the court found a rate $550 per hour was reasonable for Dan Ravicher and noted, "All three attorneys have legal and technical expertise in the area of software related copyright law". These same attorneys have filed multiple Federal lawsuits against more than twenty defendants for fraudulent plaintiffs Erik Andersen and The Software Freedom Conservancy. Both plaintiffs had absolutely no legal standing to file a copyright infringement suit over Busybox... Kinda' destroys your faith in the U.S. legal system and makes you want to puke, doesn't it? Sincerely, RJack :) 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
On 3/8/2011 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. How much is that in attoney's fees and costs? We should remember, there are *four* lawsuits and defendants remaining plus the (most likely) reversal of the default judgment. All defendants have requested their attorney's fees and discovery costs. Discovery costs are often the most expensive part of a lawsuit. 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
On 3/7/2011 5:49 PM, RJack wrote: On 3/7/2011 4:08 PM, 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! H... Overreach ? From the Best Buy Inc. Memorandum in Opposition: Blowhard Erik Andersen and his fraud: "...However, the evidence regarding Mr. Andersen’s preexisting work on BusyBox, prior to the registration, consists of his own email that reveals that he was affixing copyright marks on BusyBox code for his employer. (Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. H.) A copyright in that preexisting BusyBox code vested in his employer, Lineo, as a work for hire. 17 U.S.C. § 101. Mr. Andersen simply did not retain copyright ownership in his preexisting work on BusyBox, and his statements to the contrary are not consistent with the facts. [n.10]... If all the authors of a collective work are not named, the registration only reaches individual work that was written by the identified author. Id. at 94-95. In this case, Mr. Andersen’s Certificate of Registration identifies the registered work as “Title of Work: BusyBox, v.0.60.3” (Dkt. No. 165, Ex. 1.) But, Mr. Andersen also admitted that 25 other authors contributed to v.0.60.3. (Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. D.) Referring to those 25 people, Mr. Andersen admitted that “every one of these people has some contribution to some extent, small or large, that is incorporated into BusyBox 0.60.3.” "[n.10] Plaintiffs made the same misstatements when moving for a default judgment against Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC. See Dkt. 113 at 6, n 4, (“. . . since Mr. Anderson ‘is the owner of the copyright of both the derivative and pre-existing work, the registration certificate relating to the derivative work in this circumstance will suffice to permit it to maintain an action for infringement based on defendants’ infringement of pre-existing work.”)” and Dkt. No. 115 at 1-2 (referring to work beginning in 1999 and saying “I . . . retained all ownership of the copyrights therein.”) Plaintiffs sought and obtained an injunction and turnover order for “all articles containing BusyBox.” (Dkt. No. 113 at 9; and Dkt. No. 131 at 9, 15.) In doing so, they did not advise that Mr. Andersen’s former employer, Lineo, had copyrights in Mr. Andersen’s earlier work on BusyBox, that 25 other “authors” contributed to v.0.60.3 and that there are other, subsequent versions of BusyBox such as v.1.2.1, which Mr. Kuhn claims he knew about in November, 2009, seven months before moving for the default judgment." *** The fraudulent copyright application may subject Erik Andersen to liability in a criminal prosecution for three offenses. See: 17 USC Sec. 506. Criminal offenses-- ... (c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.-- Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. (d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice.-- Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500. (e) False Representation.-- Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500. 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
On 3/7/2011 4:08 PM, 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! H... Overreach ? From the Best Buy Inc. Memorandum in Opposition: "... It does not stop there. Plaintiffs used their pretended enforcement rights in the entire BusyBox code, as well as other open source software, to attempt to extract prior review and veto rights over future models of Insignia Blu-ray players and firmware releases. (McGinnis Decl. at ¶ 15; Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. I (demanding that Best Buy not distribute firmware for the accused products until the Conservancy has “approved the complete and corresponding source code therefor,” and not limiting that demand solely to BusyBox code).) Best Buy is not inclined to give veto power over its products to third parties who increasingly demand more than they are entitled to recover at trial..." "... For example, this past September, Plaintiffs complimented the source code submitted by Best Buy and Broadcom, remarking that the “new instructions are very well written; they are probably among the best C&CS instructions I’ve seen in years.” (Khan Decl. at ¶ 12; Ex. A.) Yet, later that same day, Plaintiffs continued to demand source code for other open source software, and proprietary code, that has nothing to do with BusyBox.6 (Id. at ¶¶ 9-13; Ex. B.) Consistent with Conservancy’s opposition to proprietary rights in software, Conservancy demanded that Broadcom include proprietary source code with the code that would be offered under Paragraph 3 of GPLv2. Conservancy argued that the particular file in question was a derivative work of an open source Linux kernel. (Id. at ¶ 12.) But Conservancy does not have rights to Linux, nor does it have rights to Broadcom’s proprietary source code. Whether that code was proprietary to Broadcom, or derivative of Linux open source code, it is completely unrelated to BusyBox. (Id. at ¶ 12; Ex. B.) Thus, while Plaintiffs feign the need to avoid irreparable injury, the facts establish that Plaintiffs would prefer to put the BusyBox issue with Best Buy on hold in order to require Broadcom to publish source code that has nothing to do with this case..." "... Moreover, Plaintiffs’ two declarations in support of the Motion do not, and cannot, even attempt to demonstrate any irreparable harm that they will incur in the absence of an injunction. Indeed, during the course of this case, the two Plaintiffs entered into a contract setting forth details on how they would share monetary recoveries. They are actually in the business of filing and monetizing “copyright enforcement actions.” They also delayed bringing this Motion for almost 14 months, while making demands for concessions outside the scope of the case, such as prior review and veto power over source code other than BusyBox in certain Best Buy products. This is hardly the conduct of parties that desperately need a quick resolution of the issues in the case..." "... The settlement discussions indicate that Plaintiffs, not Best Buy, caused the delay by trying to muscle unbridled veto power over Best Buy products based upon their ever-shifting, self-serving views of other open source code irrelevant to this case..." 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
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! 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
GNUtian's ancestors discovered: * Journal of Cosmology, 2011, Vol 13, JournalofCosmology.com March, 2011 Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites Richard B. Hoover, Ph.D. NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center Synopsis Dr. Hoover has discovered evidence of microfossils similar to Cyanobacteria, in freshly fractured slices of the interior surfaces of the Alais, Ivuna, and Orgueil CI1 carbonaceous meteorites. Based on Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) and other measures, Dr. Hoover has concluded they are indigenous to these meteors and are similar to trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as filamentous sulfur bacteria. He concludes these fossilized bacteria are not Earthly contaminants but are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies. The implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets. Members of the Scientific community were invited to analyze the results and to write critical commentaries or to speculate about the implications. These commentaries will be published on March 7 through March 10, 2011. Official Statement from Dr. Rudy Schild, Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Cosmology. We believe Dr. Hoover's careful analysis provides definitive evidence of ancient microbial life on astral bodies some of which may predate the origin of Earth and this solar system. Dr. Richard Hoover is a highly respected scientist and astrobiologist with a prestigious record of accomplishment at NASA. Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis. Our intention is to publish the commentaries, both pro and con, alongside Dr. Hoover's paper. In this way, the paper will have received a thorough vetting, and all points of view can be presented. No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough analysis, and no other scientific journal in the history of science has made such a profoundly important paper available to the scientific community, for comment, before it is published. We believe the best way to advance science, is to promote debate and discussion. http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html 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
** ROFL Here are the first ten lines of the source code file "init.c" included in the source tarball for busybox-1.2.1 which Erik Andersen asserts is infringed in his Best Buy Inc. claims: _ /* vi: set sw=4 ts=4: */ /* * Mini init implementation for busybox * * Copyright (C) 1995, 1996 by Bruce Perens . * Copyright (C) 1999-2004 by Erik Andersen * Adjusted by so many folks, it's impossible to keep track. * * Licensed under GPLv2 or later, see file LICENSE in this tarball for details. */ _ Yeah... An original work of authorship, "Adjusted by so many folks, it's impossible to keep track." Best Buy's attorneys have got to be rolling on the floor laughing. 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
On 2/3/2011 10:59 AM, David Kastrup wrote: RJack writes: On 2/2/2011 9:47 AM, RJack wrote: Uh... buh bye SFC and Erik Andersen: ---Filed 02/01/11--- ANSWER OF PHOEBE MICRO, INC. Uh, that's the reply of the defendant, not a court order. Let's see how much of it remains after being filtered through the judge before starting to party... Oh Yea of little faith! That defendant reply agrees with all of my prior assertions in posts concerning the Best Buy Inc. debacle. Since my reasoning is infallible, the end surely draws nigh. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernorscandalous ruling)
On 2/3/2011 11:24 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: RJack wrote: [...] All this ruling really says, is that Hoops as a counter-claimant has the status of a plaintiff (not defendant) and carries the burden of proof and must plead facts to establish ownership of the copies in order to defeat a Motion to Dismiss. I disagree. The court ruled: "Hoops avers that it resold Adobe products it “purchased from third party intermediary distributors,” Hoops Countercl. ¶ 8, but offers no facts regarding under what terms these distributors obtained the copies." Some time ago I bought a BMW car from a nearby dealer. The car includes tons of software and I even patched some of it (navigation computer software originating from http://www.navteq.com/ GPS stuff). Patching aside, I have no idea regarding "what terms these distributors obtained the copies" of the software in my BMW car. And now I'm being told that I can not sell my BMW car without permission from bmw.com if I live in California... Luckily I don't live in the Ninth Circuit... regards, alexander. Caveat Emptor. You should'a bought a Cadillac. When you buy a car from a company whose chief shareholder is the federal government, you don't have to worry about those lawsuits. He. He. 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
On 2/3/2011 10:54 AM, RJack wrote: On 2/2/2011 9:47 AM, RJack wrote: Uh... buh bye SFC and Erik Andersen: ---Filed 02/01/11--- ANSWER OF PHOEBE MICRO, INC. ... [snip] AFFIRMATIVE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES Phoebe Micro, as and for affirmative and additional defenses, alleges as follows: 1. The Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 2. The GNU General Public License, Version 2, as alleged by Plaintiffs, is not enforceable. 3. On information and belief, Plaintiffs are not proper parties. 4. Plaintiffs are not entitled to assert a claim for statutory damages against Phoebe Micro under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). The attorney for PHOEBE MICRO is Andrew M. Kaver a single attorney firm. http://www.kaverlaw.com/ It is glaringly obvious that Mr. Kaver has been in communication with Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP http://www.rkmc.com/David-Leichtman.htm The era of the GPL license and "Free as in Freedom" software" and its attempted subversion of the principles of open source coding is about to end. 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
On 2/2/2011 9:47 AM, RJack wrote: Uh... buh bye SFC and Erik Andersen: ---Filed 02/01/11--- ANSWER OF PHOEBE MICRO, INC. ... [snip] AFFIRMATIVE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES Phoebe Micro, as and for affirmative and additional defenses, alleges as follows: 1. The Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 2. The GNU General Public License, Version 2, as alleged by Plaintiffs, is not enforceable. 3. On information and belief, Plaintiffs are not proper parties. 4. Plaintiffs are not entitled to assert a claim for statutory damages against Phoebe Micro under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling)
ailing. It is not a misuse of copyright to dismantle a market of allegedly infringing copies of software. Thus, Hoops fails to allege any facts to suggest Adobe or SIIA engaged in copyright misuse. For this reason and those stated above, Hoops’s copyright misuse claims for declaratory relief are dismissed with leave to amend." All this ruling really says, is that Hoops as a counter-claimant has the status of a plaintiff (not defendant) and carries the burden of proof and must plead facts to establish ownership of the copies in order to defeat a Motion to Dismiss. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/4:2010cv02769/233708/47/0.pdf 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
On 2/2/2011 9:47 AM, RJack wrote: Erik Andersen's application for injunction claims: Plaintiff Erik Andersen “is the owner of the copyright of both the derivative and pre-existing work, the registration certificate relating to the derivative work in this circumstance will suffice to permit it to maintain an action for infringement based on defendants'infringement of the preexisting work.” Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. Vandam, Inc., 159 F.3D 739, 747 (2d Cir. 1998). See Melville Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 7.16[B][2] (1997) (copyright owners of derivative work that own pre-existing work should be able to pursue copyright infringement action against individuals infringing the pre-existing work, even when only derivative work registered). Andersen's original registration claim asserts: * Title of Work: BusyBox, v.0.60.3 ... Limitation of copyright claim _ Material excluded from this claim: Previous version of the program and computer program from other sources. New material included in claim: New and revised computer source by Erik Andersen * Erik Andersen did NOT own the pre-existing work material EXCLUDED from the original registration claim for "BusyBox, v.0.60.3" which was entered as "Previous version of the program and computer program from other sources". See http://perens.com/blog/d/2009/12/15/23/ "The version 0.60.3 of BusyBox upon which Mr. Andersen claims copyright registration in the lawsuits is to a great extent my own work and that of other developers. I am not party to the registration. It is not at all clear that Mr. Andersen holds a majority interest in that work." -- Bruce Perens Therefore Streetwise Maps (supra) does not apply to the original registration of "BusyBox, v.0.60.3". See: http://openjurist.org/283/f3d/502/morris-v-business-concepts-inc-j-h 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
On 1/4/2011 11:58 AM, RJack wrote: SFLC filed a dismissal for VERSA TECHNOLOGY INC pursuant to Rule 41(a)1 (after an Vera's ANSWER was filed) but there is no record of Versa's involvement or agreement to the dismissal: * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), plaintiffs Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Andersen hereby dismiss defendant VERSA TECHNOLOGY INC. from this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and without costs to any party. Plaintiffs maintain this action against all other defendants. *** http://ia700409.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.355978/gov.uscourts.nysd.355978.162.0.pdf Rule 41(a)1 requires a stipulation signed by all parties after an ANSWER by the defendant is filed: * Rule 41. Dismissal of Actions (a) Voluntary Dismissal. (1) By the Plaintiff. (A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2 and 66 and any applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. (B) Effect. Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. But if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits. * Sure is strange procedure in the District court. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license v license v /license/
On 1/12/2011 4:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Apple, for example, went proprietary with the freedom provided by BSD contributions in XNU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU Look at Apple now: A niche player in computers, and highly successful with iPods, iPhones and the like. We tend to minimize that with which we disagree. "iOS is derived from Mac OS X, with which it shares the Darwin foundation, and is therefore a Unix-like operating system by nature." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_%28Apple%29 And. . . Boom: Apple Worth More Than Microsoft. http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100526/apple-worth-more-than->microsoft/ Sincerely, RJack :) Capitalism Triumphs! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license v license v /license/
On 1/11/2011 5:41 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Why do you think it is that BSD Unix has not held its own in competition with GNU/Linux? One acronym: IBM. IBM could not successfully compete with Windows NT with their AIX line running on the WinTel PC. Microsoft had screwed over IBM and their OS/2. IBM jumped on the Linux bandwagon big time during the SCO debacle with RCU, JFS, NUMA etc... This stimulated peripheral driver development for PC hardware. The GPL was good at suppressing new commercial competition which pleased both IBM and Microsoft. Apple, for example, went proprietary with the freedom provided by BSD contributions in XNU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU Look at Apple now: And. . . Boom: Apple Worth More Than Microsoft. http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100526/apple-worth-more-than-microsoft/ Sincerely, RJack :) Capitalism Always Wins ! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license v license v /license/
On 1/11/2011 3:24 PM, Kari Laine wrote: Ok alexander, But without FSF we probably wouldn't have Linux. At least it won't be as functional as it is today. There are billions of dollars worth of GPLed software available to every one of us. Uhhh... "...probably wouldn't have Linux" ? When Linus decided to license Linux under the GPL in 1991, ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/v0.99/linux-0.99.tar.Z 386BSD was already written along with complete standard C libraries and a compiler. "Although not released until 1992, development of 386BSD predated that of Linux. Linus Torvalds has said that if 386BSD had been available at the time, he probably would not have created Linux.[see n.7]" http://gondwanaland.com/meta/history/interview.html 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
On 1/4/2011 11:58 AM, RJack wrote: Just a scheduling reminder for the Best Buy litigation. "... SHRIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, U.S.D.J.: WHEREAS, the Court issued a Scheduling Order on Feb~22,2010 (the "Scheduling Order"); and WHEREAS, certain parties now seek a two month eXtension of certain dates in the Scheduling Order and no party has objected to such an extension NOW, TH£REFORE, the Coutt revises the Scheduling Order as follows: (1) Initial expert reportS due April 11, 2011 (2) Rebuttal expert reports due May 11, 2011 (3) Each expert's deposition will be com.pleted by June 15, 2011 (4) Fact discovery is to be completed by February 18, 2011 (5) Expert discovery is to be completed by June 15, 2011 ... No further extensions will be granted." 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
On 1/4/2011 6:34 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hilarious!!! http://www.terekhov.de/159.pdf "Plaintiffs' motion to join respondents is denied as to CMA. Plaintiffs' motion to join WD is denied, without prejudice subject to Plaintiff's decision to refile following an evidentiary hearing on the issues of whether the asset sale amounted to merger between WDE and WD and whether WD substantially continued WDE's business. A hearing is scheduled for February 2, 2010 at 4:30 P.M. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion (Docket No. 133)." http://www.terekhov.de/161.pdf You can bet this is what the appeal is ultimately about: "17 USC § 505. Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees. In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs." SFLC should never have attempted to drag CMA into this action. CMA was adamant that they would attempt to recover attorney fees and costs. The District court's dismissal of CMA as a defendant left both SFC and Erik Andersen liable for CMA's attorney fees. Now, SFLC is going to add CMA's appellate fees to the costs of litigation. Bad, bad move. Appellate practice is very expensive. I predicted Erik Andersen's bankruptcy from this litigation. With four of six defendants still heading to jury trial, the litigation costs will be in the seven figures range. Ouch. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourtof Appeals
On 12/21/2010 12:06 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: On 12/21/2010 11:59 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: An act of providing the source code is part of the act of copying? It's part of the act of copying and distributing. You must either convey the source code with the binary, or convey an offer of the source code. Failing to do either infringes on the copyright; failing to honor the offer infringes on a contract. Hyman, Will you NEVER, EVER be able to understand the difference between a *scope of use* restriction on one of the 17 USC sec. 106 exclusive rights: ... "An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Accordingly, if an unlicensed use of a copyrighted work does not conflict with an "exclusive" right conferred by the statute, it is no infringement of the holder's rights. No license is required by the Copyright Act, for example, to sing a copyrighted lyric in the shower.;Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151,154 (1975). "Consistent with this approach, we have held that the potential for infringement exists only where the licensee’s action (1) exceeds the license’s scope (2) in a manner that implicates one of the licensor’s exclusive statutory rights."; MDY INDUSTRIES v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT (9th Cir 2010). ... and a contract *condition precedent*: .. "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."; MDY INDUSTRIES v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT (9th Cir 2010). .. Alexander and I attempted to explain multiple times that the Federal Circuit was wrong in Jacobsen v. Katzer. You should really find an easier topic than law to comment about. I'm afraid the subtleties of the law are too difficult for you. The GPL license is D.O.A. in a federal court under both federal copyright and state contract law for more reasons than you will ever be able to grasp. Hyman, give up reading the law and try reading something that you can understand. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL and groupthink
On 12/13/2010 4:22 AM, bbgruff wrote: On Monday 13 December 2010 01:01 Lusotec wrote: How very ridiculous, equalling GPL to communism. Do you even know what communism is? He's an American, posting via Thunderbird on Windows, and talking about BSD being Free while the GPL is "communist"! Does that answer your question? :-) The article's author makes it perfectly clear what he means by "communist". Read the article instead of the NNTP header GPL moron. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
The GPL and groupthink
Here's a lucid article on the GPL groupthink attitude. http://linux.dracony.org/2010/12/11/stop-linux-communism/ ... 1) You can take a code of the BSD licensed software and make it your own. 2) You cannot appropriate the GPL licensed software (if so, you are punished). Here you see two different conceptions of what freedom is. The GPL license is the same thing as the communist Socialist Property Ownership Act, because you get equally punished in both cases (braking the GPL or the communist law). The BSD license is in compliance with the philosophy of FSF – you can run, copy, distribute, study, change, and improve the software (see my above note about groupthink – philosophy of BSD is in harmony with FSF, but not in total harmony) ... How very true! Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Justice draws nigh
amicus_curious wrote: "File for show, settle for dough" is unlikely to work here. It is instructive to examine what the plaintiffs filed in their "contemplated motion for summary judgment": "Plaintiffs own valid copyrights in BusyBox. Plaintiff Erik Andersen is a computer programmer and beginning in 2002 he wrote and then submitted code for inclusion into the BusyBox project. Mr. Andersen is the copyright owner in his contributions to BusyBox and he registered his copyright in 2008. See, "BusyBox,v.0.60.3.", Copyright Reg. No. TX0006869051 (10/2/2008)." *** 1) "Plaintiffs own valid copyrights in BusyBox". The plaintiffs are "SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY, INC." and Erik Andersen". Unless the SFLC can demonstrate that the SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY, INC. owns code in the BusyBox project, the claim is a FALSE statement. Please note Second Circuit law: "[T]he Copyright Law is quite specific in stating that only the "owner of an exclusive right under a copyright" may bring suit"; Eden Toys Inc v. Florelee Undergarment Co Inc, 697 F.2d 27 (2nd Cir 1983). *** 2) "Plaintiff Erik Andersen is a computer programmer and beginning in 2002 he wrote and then submitted code for inclusion into the BusyBox project. Mr. Andersen is the copyright owner in his contributions to BusyBox and he registered his copyright in 2008." A derivative work has a *unique* owner if and only if the preexisting author and the contributing author are the same legal entity because of 17 USC § 103(b): "§ 103 · Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works. (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material." A derivative work that is authorized by a *preexisting* author and a distinct "modifying author" has no unique *owner* unless a transfer of ownership by contract of the distinct parts to a unique entity has been effected (absent a work for hire relationship). Mr. Andersen clearly does not own BusyBox by his own admission. He owns exclusive rights in *his* modifying code but unless he can show ownership of BusyBox as a derivative work, he cannot claim any exclusive right in the derivative work identified as "BusyBox v.0.60.3". Mr. Andersen has no legal right to REGISTER a work in which he holds no exclusive rights. "When an original author and an author of a derivative work are different, their respective rights are generally addressed by a contract between them.[24] In these situations, it is clear that two works have been created, requiring separate copyright registrations to preserve those rights in court." http://www.oblon.com/media/index.php?id=41#_ednref24 Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: Don't worry. The GPL license and the "Free Software" religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. Bullshit. Linux and GPL is only growing. The BSDs are dying. Its a shame because BSD is a GREAT system. Or Shut up and Hack. Come to this list when PCC is good enough to be on OpenBSD by default. PCC doesn't need more hackers. PCC and the BSD's need more donations and support from commercial vendors for drivers. BSD and PCC needs friendly people and hackers, not useless whiners pieces of shit like you. I think I misunderstood what you're trying to say. Please remove the dick from your mouth. That'll improve your enunciation dramatically. Have a nice Victor! _ _ |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: Significance of the GP licence.
John Hasler wrote: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO writes: BSD and PCC needs friendly people and hackers, I don't think these trolls qualify on either count. In the good old days we were trolled by the likes of John Dyson and Jay Maynard: jerks, but competent hackers. Now we just get dorks. Ahhh... Johnny. Since you've been fucked by the best you certainly pass the test! You've seriously earned your bragging rights! Have a nice day Johnny Boy! _ _ |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: Significance of the GP licence.
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 5/5/2010 4:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz Sayeth Hyman Rosen: "Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link." Sayeth Hyman Rosen: "Commonly in an argument from ignorance or argument from personal incredulity, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of his or her choice." Sayeth RJack: ROFL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Justice draws nigh
RJack wrote: All this bantering about prior cases is moot. The SFLC has just filed a request for a pre-conference motion for summary judgment against Westinghouse. The near future now holds all the answers about GPL enforcement. I'm sure Judge Scheindlin will suffers no fools in this action. Seems Westinghouse has undergone an assignment for the benefit of creditors in California. http://bankruptcy.cooley.com/2008/03/articles/the-financially-troubled-compa/assignments-for-the-benefit-of-creditors-simple-as-abc/ Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Justice draws nigh
All this bantering about prior cases is moot. The SFLC has just filed a request for a pre-conference motion for summary judgment against Westinghouse. The near future now holds all the answers about GPL enforcement. I'm sure Judge Scheindlin will suffers no fools in this action. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored
That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank
universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge who
does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored.
The judge never interpreted the terms of the GPL. She merely
acknowledged the existence of a contract which some GNUtians
hope to deny is a contract.
I gave him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be
ignored ("I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ... source
code ... didn't cure the breach.") None of your twisting and spinning
can change the simple and obvious fact that here is a judge who does
not believe that the terms of the GPL can be ignored.
You're playing semantic games. "[A} judge who does not believe the terms
of the GPL can be ignored" means a judge who interprets the GPL terms to
be enforceable. No federal judge has ever construed the terms of the GPL
at all. Moove the goalposts Hyman -- it won't help --
but mooove them anyway if it makes you feel better.
This is an identical situation to those who claim nonexistent GPL
settlement victories.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 5/5/2010 10:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
the case was about alleged contract breach
It doesn't matter what the case was about. Your fellow crank asked
for links to "US federal judges who *do not* believe the terms of the
GPL can be ignored", and I provided a link to a US judge who shows in
her order that she does not believe that the terms of the GPL can be
ignored.
"With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MYSQL has not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or
irreparable harm. . . but the matter is one of fair dispute."
Even Glenn Beck couldn't spin this to mean an affirmation of the
validity of GPL terms. ROFL.
Of course you and your fellow cranks will disregard evidence which
contradicts your cherished but incorrect beliefs even when this
evidence is exactly what you asked for. That's what makes you cranks
after all.
ROFL. This, from a GNUtian moron who claims a copyright license is not a
contract.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
David Kastrup wrote: RJack writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack writes: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: OK I'm so fucking tired of this. I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux. BSD is free. GPL is free. Don't worry. The GPL license and the "Free Software" religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. A few people told RMS when he started. Now it is a whole hissing and yelling bunch. That they bother is the best proof that they are wrong. And they know it. There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe the GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that copyright permissions be licensed at "no charge to all third parties". More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its permissions. Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* "believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored." I await with 'bated breath for your documentation. And that's what counts, regardless of where you think your nut-jobs may be hanging out. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
David Kastrup wrote: RJack writes: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: OK I'm so fucking tired of this. I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux. BSD is free. GPL is free. Don't worry. The GPL license and the "Free Software" religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. A few people told RMS when he started. Now it is a whole hissing and yelling bunch. That they bother is the best proof that they are wrong. And they know it. There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe the GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that copyright permissions be licensed at "no charge to all third parties". The United States Supreme Court held in the famous Sony Betamax case: "[A]" use that has no demonstrable effect upon the potential market for, or the value of, the copyrighted work need not be prohibited in order to protect the author's incentive to create. The prohibition of such noncommercial uses would merely inhibit access to ideas without any countervailing benefit." Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 US 417. When Stallman worshipers like DAK read this citation, their eyelids slam shut and they retreat into their tidy world of denial and make-believe. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Significance of the GP licence.
VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: OK I'm so fucking tired of this. I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux. BSD is free. GPL is free. Don't worry. The GPL license and the "Free Software" religion will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends. Alexander, please stop drinking de Raadt's Kool Aid. De Raadt's "Kool Aid" resides in the World of Reality. His philosophical "Kool Aid" consists of "Use it for anything you want, just be honest about where it came from". Or Shut up and Hack. Come to this list when PCC is good enough to be on OpenBSD by default. PCC doesn't need more hackers. PCC and the BSD's need more donations and support from commercial vendors for drivers. I put my money where my mouth is and proudly donate. http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html http://bsdfund.org/projects/pcc/ Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/20/2010 10:41 PM, RJack wrote: And the rights holders are excluded as beneficiaries of the GPL contract. The distribution is to other "all third parties". What in the world are you talking about? "23. Under the License, Mr. Andersen grants certain permissions to other parties to copy, modify and redistribute BusyBox so long as those parties satisfy certain conditions. In particular, Section 2(b) of the License, addressing each Licensee, states: 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..." Where do you see any distribution to "all third parties"? You are just amazingly confused. "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..." If your reading comprehension is that limited, I'm afraid I can't help you Hyman. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, in Florida
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/20/2010 4:55 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract [1] Elements and Case Citations (1) Defendant and a third-party entered a valid contract; (2) Plaintiff is not a party to the contract; (3) The parties to the contract intended that the contract primarily or directly benefit plaintiff or a class of parties of which plaintiff is a member; (4) The contract is breached; (5) Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach. Why are you describing this? In the U.S., there have been no such suits with respect to the GPL or other open licenses. The GPL itself is not such a license, but even if it were, the only lawsuits have been brought by rights holders. And the rights holders are excluded as beneficiaries of the GPL contract. The distribution is to other "all third parties". "23. Under the License, Mr. Andersen grants certain permissions to other parties to copy, modify and redistribute BusyBox so long as those parties satisfy certain conditions. In particular, Section 2(b) of the License, addressing each Licensee, states: 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..." ROFL: "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" "to all third parties" Every complaint filed by the SFLC is about making source code available to "all third parties". People who distribute GPL code are *parties* to the GPL contract and are specifically *excluded* from the class of beneficiaries designated as "all third parties". Only members of the class "all third parties" may suffer loss of benefits (injury) from non-compliance with the GPL terms. That's why *no* person distributing code under the GPL has Article III standing to enforce the GPL. The very *first* thing a contract lawyer is trained to look for in a contract dispute is "who benefits"? If no benefit is directed to a party then that party can suffer no injury from a contract breach. Samsung Answer: FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Standing) 50. As a further, separate and distinct Fifteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue Defendant for copyright infringement. Best Answer: SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 37. Plaintiffs lack standing. Humax Answer: SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack Of Standing) 37. Either or both Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the claims alleged in the Complaint. JVC Answer: As And For A Second Defense 37. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs lack standing to assert them. Western Digital Answer: TENTH DEFENSE (STANDING) 46. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs lack standing. There certainly are a lot of GPL crank lawyers who don't think the plaintiffs have standing. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/20/2010 3:03 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Open licenses authorize actions otherwise prohibited by copyright law provided that persons using this authorization comply with provisions specified by the license. The licenses are open in the Do you really think that proprietary licenses authorize actions prohibited by copyright law provided that persons using this authorization NOT comply with provisions specified by the license The licenses are open in the sense that they are generally offered to anyone who has a copy of the covered work, they require no communication from the person using the authorization to the rights holder, and they allow for further recipients to avail themselves of the same permissions. They differ in obvious ways from normal copyright licenses which are two-party agreements where the rights holder authorizes copying and distribution in exchange for some consideration and both parties sign off on the deal. At least that's your crackpot, make believe theory. You obviously are too ignorant of common contract law to recognize a bilateral. third party beneficiary contract when you see one. Keep makin' it up as you go Hyman. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/20/2010 1:25 PM, RJack wrote: There is *no* legal definition of what an "open" license is Open licenses authorize actions otherwise prohibited by copyright law provided that persons using this authorization comply with provisions specified by the license. At least that's your imagined theory. The licenses are open in the sense that they are generally offered to anyone who has a copy of the covered work, they require no communication from the person using the authorization to the rights holder, and they allow for further recipients to avail themselves of the same permissions. They differ in obvious ways from normal copyright licenses which are two-party agreements where the rights holder authorizes copying and distribution in exchange for some consideration and both parties sign off on the deal. I have witnessed children in kindergarten make up stories more believable than your fantasies. Open your eyes. Your dream is over. What you fail to realize, in your hatred of the principles for which the GPL stands, is that courts will find, and have found, that open licenses make sense, and are a legitimate expression of the exclusive rights granted by copyright law. You can bring out your law dictionary definitions all you like, but when something makes powerful sense, it will be accepted. It's not unlike the Supreme Court allowing recording of broadcast television for time-shifting. It appeared to many to be a slam-dunk case of infringement, and indeed, four of the justices thought so, and yet it was declared legal. The CAFC decision points the way. Let me know when the GPL becomes "legislative expression". ROFL. Until that occurs, current Supreme Court rulings are still the precedential law. Your Marxist dreams of the courts upending Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution and the will of Congress is wishful socialist musing. Sometimes reality bites, but then you're just going to have to adjust to it. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/20/2010 1:10 PM, RJack wrote: This finding directly contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling that to infringe, an action must violate one of the "specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute". No, it's consistent with it - the violation was of the exclusive right to copy and distribute a work. Publishing "copyright notices" and "tracking of modifications" do not require use of the rights in 17 USC sec. 106 and therefore no sec. 106 rights are violated by not doing so. And you sidestep the actual question, which was about how many court decisions have supported the crank point of view while addressing open licenses. How many times must I explain to you that there are no legal distinctions concerning so called "open" licenses. The answer seems to be none, since the only decisions you quote are old ones that are not specifically addressing open licenses. A CAFC decision will NEVER overrule a Supreme Court decision, no matter how old the Supreme Court decision is, no matter how many times you falsely claim the CAFC is empowered to do so. "[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be."; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982). Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/20/2010 9:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: With one court And how many court decisions have supported the crank point of view while addressing open licenses? Absolutely none. Nada. Zip. Nicht. There is *no* legal definition of what an "open" license is, other than the legal certainty that *all* copyright licenses are contracts to be interpreted under the state law of contracts. There is absolutely no legal difference between "open" and "proprietary" copyright licenses. The same rules of contract construction apply uniformly to both. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/20/2010 9:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: With one court And how many court decisions have supported the crank point of view while addressing open licenses? In 1984 the Supreme Court held: "An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). The Federal Circuit found: "It is outside the scope of the Artistic License to modify and distribute the copyrighted materials without copyright notices and a tracking of modifications from the original computer files." This finding directly contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling that to infringe, an action must violate one of the "specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute". "[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be."; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982). Which court's ruling do you think is binding precedent? "ARTICLE 224 Condition Defined: A condition is an event, not certain to occur, which must occur, unless its non-occurrence is excused, before performance under a contract becomes due."; Restatement (Second) of Contracts. http://openjurist.org/661/f2d/479/fantastic-fakes-inc-v-pickwick-international-inc precendent -- adj. (pr-sdnt, prs-dnt) Preceding. [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin praecdns, praecdent-, present participle of praecdere, to go before; see precede.] "As a general rule, it must clearly appear from the agreement itself that the parties intended a provision to operate as a condition precedent (see, 22 N.Y. Jur 2d, Contracts 234; Lui v Park Ridge at Terryville Assn., 196 A.D.2d 579, 601 N.Y.S.2d 496). If the language is in any way ambiguous, the law does not favor a construction which creates a condition precedent (see, Lui v Park Ridge at Terryville Assn., supra, at 582; Manning v Michaels 9 A.D.2d 897, 540 N.Y.S.2d 583)."; KASS V KASS, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT Cause No. 19970908_0054.NY "Plaintiffs bring claims for "Contract Failure of Condition" against each defendent. The Court is not familiar with this term. I assume "Contract Failure of Condition" is a claim for breach of a condition precedent." Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., et al., 1:2008cv07508, SDNY, (2008). Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, Diasrict Court judge presiding over Best Buy et. al. http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/AbuDhabi.pd Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/17/2010 4:58 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The US Court of Appeals, the US Court of Appeals... c'mon Hyman, face the truth: the silly opinion that you so much love is a product of a district court level judge from New Jersey who managed to deliberately misread and misapply California contract law (Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911). BTW, she is a well known unreasonable bitch: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. You don't. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. You don't. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." Is is your hand sore yet Hyman? How sad for you, when bitter and hateful name-calling is all you have left. The erroneous non-precedential Jacobsen decision is strictly limited to the one past defendant in a nation of 310 million people. So... what's your point? That legal errors propagate like rabbits? "In Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 903, at 909 (Fed.Cir.1984), this court said: Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters in the light of the problems faced by the district court from which each count originated, including the law there applicable. In this manner, we desire to avoid exacerbating the problem of intercircuit conflicts in non-patent areas. A district court judge should not be expected to look over his shoulder to the law in this circuit, save as to those claims over which our subject matter jurisdiction is exclusive. The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions and in this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc). As the Supreme Court reiterated: "[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be."; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak? I should think a lot more comfortably than you make friends. I should think that you are jobless, right? I'd think you're friendless, too, eh? I'm not friendless and I'm pretty sure that dak is jobless. Better than Hyman who is hopeless. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: Compliance detection tool
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 2:50 PM, RJack wrote: The erroneous It will be "erroneous" when another court says it is. Right now, it's a valid decision of a court. The Supreme Court has already said it's erroneous. "In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992), we held that, to satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an "injury in fact" that is (a concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." "[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be."; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982). strictly limited to the one past defendant in a nation of 310 million people And how many decided cases are there that reflect your erroneous view of open licenses? My views are always correct and error free, therefore a case reflecting my "erroneous view" is a logical impossibility. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 2:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize the value of moral rights. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html "Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a "work of visual art." For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing in a single copy or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer. In order to be protected, a photograph must have been taken for exhibition purposes only. VARA only protects works of "recognized stature;" posters, maps, globes, motion pictures, electronic publications, and applied art are among the categories of visual works explicitly excluded from VARA protection. The language of the Copyright Act excludes works-for-hire from the definition of "works of visual art," thereby excluding such works from VARA protection. " Thank you for providing a confirming link that US law does recognize the value of moral rights. Computer programs are not works of visual art. What is exactly your goal? To deflect attention from the fact that the SFLC BusyBox lawsuits are abject failures? That a copyright license is a contract? To confuse folks concerning the fact that the GPL is unenforceable dure to lack of article III standing? Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 2:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: An invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL) is always an invalid/void/unenforceable contract (the GPL). The GPL is not a contract but a copyright license, and it is copyright infringement to copy and distribute GPL-covered works without complying with the GPL. -- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) -- -- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101- 1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) -- Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 2:36 PM, RJack wrote: Virtually all open source licenses are unenforceable due to lack of Article III standing. Open source licenses in general are only useful for defenses against copyright infringement suits. That's false, as we can see from this court decision: <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License are enforceable copyright conditions, we remand to enable the District Court to determine whether Jacobsen has demonstrated (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and either a presumption of irreparable harm or a demonstration of irreparable harm; or (2) a fair chance of success on the merits and a clear disparity in the relative hardships and tipping in his favor. The erroneous non-precedental Jacobsen decision is strictly limited to the one past defendant in a nation of 310 million people. So... what's your point? That legal errors propagate like rabbits? "In Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 903, at 909 (Fed.Cir.1984), this court said: Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters in the light of the problems faced by the district court from which each count originated, including the law there applicable. In this manner, we desire to avoid exacerbating the problem of intercircuit conflicts in non-patent areas. A district court judge should not be expected to look over his shoulder to the law in this circuit, save as to those claims over which our subject matter jurisdiction is exclusive. The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions and in this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc). "[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be."; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982). Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 1:40 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr-rev-e_fw-20-9-0.tgz Sometimes a broken link is just a broken link. Sometimes a GNUtian is a moron. Other times he is just a fool. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 1:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards. Since they have so far gained compliance from every defendant whose case has ended, one can only imagine how much more good for the GPL could be accomplished by competent lawyers of average intelligence. Perhaps you should count your blessings. One can only imagine that if it is found that a frog has wings then the frog won't bump his ass when he jumps. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] These are lawyers. SFLC's 'lawyers' are incompetent retards. I'll second that motion. All in favor say aye. aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye The ayes have it the motion is approved. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 1:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: And what would such hallucination-motion say to the court to > justify the request to amend the complaint silly Hyman? Well, they could say "we forgot". <http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/77imono.phtml> Or they could say that because the infringers are distributing a binary version of BusyBox, it's difficult to determine the exact version being infringed. Or they could say that they feel it's enough to register one version, but since the court doesn't agree, they'll register all of them. These are lawyers. As we know from the defendants' responses you've posted, they can be endlessly creative when coming up with supporting reasons. And if it is found that a frog has wings then the frog won't bump his ass when he jumps. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 12:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.oblon.com/files/news/514.pdf "under the “Registration Approach,” only after the Register of Copyrights actually approves the application and issues a registration, or notifies the copyright applicant that the application is rejected, is the prerequisite for a federal copyright infringement action satisfied. The courts of the Second,15 Tenth16 and Eleventh17 Circuits follow this approach." If the court requires that each specific version of a work be registered, then it is possible that this suit will be found defective and be dismissed. The plaintiffs can then register the specific version involved and refile the suit. The court may also give them the option of registering and then amending the complaint. And if it is found that a frog has wings then the frog won't bump his ass when he jumps. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
Hyman Rosen wrote: <http://arstechnica.com/open-source/2010/04/tool-sniffs-oss-binaries-for-sweet-smell-of-license-compliance.ars> Software development company Loohuis Consulting and process management consultancy OpenDawn have released a new binary analysis tool that is designed to detect Linux and BusyBox in binary firmware. The program, which is freely available for download, is intended to aid open source license compliance efforts. Virtually all open source licenses are unenforceable due to lack of Article III standing. Open source licenses in general are only useful for defenses against copyright infringement suits. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 10:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective and subject to dismissal."; Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195, 1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). If the court requires that each specific version of a work be registered, then it is possible that this suit will be found defective and be dismissed. The plaintiffs can then register the specific version involved and refile the suit. The court may also give them the option of registering and then amending the complaint And if it is found that a frog has wings then the frog won't bump his ass when he jumps. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 6:34 PM, RJack wrote: The value of a nonexclusive copyright license like the GPL > is called its "contractual interest". Something like this: <http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/sun-to-acquire-mysql.html> SANTA CLARA, CA January 16, 2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: JAVA) today announced it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire MySQL AB, an open source icon and developer of one of the world's fastest growing open source databases for approximately $1 billion in total consideration. > What US law does not recognize is the value of "moral rights". You have apparently failed to notice 17 USC 106A. <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_0106---A000-.html> § 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity ... (a bunch of stuff) ... (b) Scope and Exercise of Rights.— Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. Yup. "Only the author of a work of visual art...". ROFL Sincerely, RJack :) of a work of visual art ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
peterwn wrote: On Apr 16, 2:36 am, Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote: The statement ". . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . . ." automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is "conjectural and hypothetical". The SFLC lawyers have pleaded their clients right out of Court. Unfortunately for you, the court does not agree with you: <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief. This is also in line with the fundamental philosophy of copyright. A purely monetarist attitude would cause great difficulty in the case of something like the Mona Lisa where assessing a monetary value would be elusive. One need only offer it on the open market at auction. Verifiable legal appraisals of property occur thousands of time each day. The value of a nonexclusive copyright license like the GPL is called its "contractual interest". What US law does not recognize is the value of "moral rights". In any case the GPL would apparently be less open to this form of attack than the licence at issue in the case. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 3:57 PM, RJack wrote: Undisputed fact 1) There has never been a link to "BusyBox v. 0.60.3" published by any BusyBox defendant in an SFLC suit -- ever. No one is obligated to distribute the source to BusyBox v. 0.60.3 unless they are distributing that version of the binary. They are obligated to distribute the source used to build the binary version of BusyBox which they are copying and distributing. After each case brought by the SFLC has ended, they have in fact done this. That is a straw man argument. We are discussing the Best Buy et al case filed in the SDNY. To institute the Best Buy et al suit, the plaintiff was required by statute to identify the allegedly infringed work's registration: "§ 411 · Registration and civil infringement actions (a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), no civil 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." The plaintiffs identified the registered work in the Best Buy et al complaint: "31. Mr. Andersen is, and at all relevant times has been, a copyright owner under United States copyright law in the FOSS software program known as BusyBox. See, e.g., “BusyBox, v.0.60.3.”, Copyright Reg. No. TX0006869051 (10/2/2008)." To claim even a *hypothetical* compliance due to the SFLC filed lawsuit, you must demonstrate a working link to the source code to the GPL covered work that was registered and allegedly infringed. Since you can demonstrate no such link to the allegedly infringed code, you lose. Your only hope is to move the goalpost and fraudulently claim the lawsuit caused "compliance" with some other unregistered source code work. You lose. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 1:30 PM, RJack wrote: Why believe your lyin' eyes when you've got Hyman Rosen and his powerful cognitive abilities at your service? Hyman can, through sheer mental concentration, turn fantasy into reality. Upward points downward and white magically becomes black. It's like having your own personal Fantasy Island. After each case brought by the SFLC concluded, the defendants have made the GPL-covered sources properly available under the GPL. Undisputed fact 1) There has never been a link to "BusyBox v. 0.60.3" published by any BusyBox defendant in an SFLC suit -- ever. Undisputed fact 2) No court has ever granted *any* relief requested by any BusyBox plaintiff -- ever. Undisputed fact 3) No settlement agreement concerning a BusyBox suit has been published -- ever. Who are we to believe? A Marxist GPL crackpot who claims a copyright license is not a contract or our own lyin' eyes? Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] The web page says ... Referring to www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf you said that http://www.sapnakumar.org/IMG_2030.JPG/IMG_2030-full;init_.JPG is 'he'. But http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/print.asp?PID=4715 and http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/kumar/ says that 'he' is actually 'she'. Whom am I going to believe? Why believe your lyin' eyes when you've got Hyman Rosen and his powerful cognitive abilities at your service? Hyman can, through sheer mental concentration, turn fantasy into reality. Upward points downward and white magically becomes black. It's like having your own personal Fantasy Island. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 12:00 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: <http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf> "The GPL is Not a Contract" -- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) -- -- "Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written." Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 584 N.W.2d 218, 226 (Wis. App. 1998). 187 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 1999) -- -- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101- 1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) -- <http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf> The author is a Faculty Fellow at Duke University School of Law and a 2003 graduate of the University of Chicago Law School. Perhaps you should contact him and explain to him why he's wrong. The authors of the decisions I cited are comprised of six Federal Circuit Appellate Court judges and a sitting Federal District Court judge. All have had their qualifications vetted and approved by the full body of the United States Senate. Perhaps you should contact your non-tenured junior research assistant (three years out of law school) and explain to him the legal authority hierarchy of the United States Judicial Branch of government. No federal court in the last 83 years has ruled a copyright license to be anything other than a contract interpreted under state law. For your Faculty Fellow to publish his ludicrous claims without even acknowledging the precedents of the federal courts set the past 83 years renders him unfit and unqualified for a research position at *any* U.S. law school. Pee Jay over at Groklaw can blather some really stupid statements but today you have outdone Her Highness at all levels. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 11:12 AM, me wrote: Tell it to the United States Supreme Court and Justice Scalia. Fortunately, nothing the Supreme Court has said is inconsistent with the CAFC JMRI decision. Also... up is down and black is white. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 11:06 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> "Under California contract law..." http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936 <http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf> "The GPL is Not a Contract" -- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) -- -- "Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written." Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 584 N.W.2d 218, 226 (Wis. App. 1998). 187 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 1999) -- -- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101- 1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) -- Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote: The statement ". . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . . ." automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is "conjectural and hypothetical". The SFLC lawyers have pleaded their clients right out of Court. Unfortunately for you, the court does not agree with you: <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief. "In Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 903, at 909 (Fed.Cir.1984), this court said: Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters in the light of the problems faced by the district court from which each count originated, including the law there applicable. In this manner, we desire to avoid exacerbating the problem of intercircuit conflicts in non-patent areas. A district court judge should not be expected to look over his shoulder to the law in this circuit, save as to those claims over which our subject matter jurisdiction is exclusive. The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions and in this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc) ROFL "[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be."; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982). ROFL Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 5:45 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: See http://www.terekhov.de/Samsung-Answer.pdf for TWENTY (20) reasons why it is perfectly fine to 'steal' GPL'd work. Several additional reasons to the ones listed by Samsung can be found here: http://www.terekhov.de/Versa-Answer.pdf Katzer had long lists of reasons why he should be able to steal JMRI's code too: <http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/290.pdf>. Long lists of reasons don't help unless they're long lists of correct reasons. These aren't. "In Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 903, at 909 (Fed.Cir.1984), this court said: Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters in the light of the problems faced by the district court from which each count originated, including the law there applicable. In this manner, we desire to avoid exacerbating the problem of intercircuit conflicts in non-patent areas. A district court judge should not be expected to look over his shoulder to the law in this circuit, save as to those claims over which our subject matter jurisdiction is exclusive. The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions and in this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc) ROFL "[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be."; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982). ROFL Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Now for my prediction for the resolution of Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et. al. I predict that Judge Scheindlin will grant a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1). She will dismiss the lawsuit because the plaintiffs lack Article III standing. The definitive case concerning Article III "case or controversy" standing is Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). In Lujan the Supreme Court held: "Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements: First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" — an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972); [n.1] and (b) "actual or imminent, not `conjectural' or `hypothetical,' "Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983)). Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of — the injury has to be "fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court." Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976). Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision." Id., at 38, 43.". We see three requirements 1) injury in fact ; 2) causal connection 3) redressibility. What is the alleged injury in fact to the plaintiffs that is "concrete and particularized" and not "conjectural or hypothetical" in the current controversy? The Complaint claims: "34. Plaintiffs are also entitled to permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502 and to an order impounding any and all infringing materials pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 503. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for each Defendant's wrongful conduct because, among other things, (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, thus causing irreparable harm, (b) each Defendant’s infringement harms Plaintiffs such that Plaintiffs could not be made whole by any monetary award, and (c) each Defendant's wrongful conduct, and the resulting damage to Plaintiffs, is continuing." The statement ". . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . . ." automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is "conjectural and hypothetical". The SFLC lawyers have pleaded their clients right out of Court. Note: Article III standing is distinct from legislatively conferred statutory standing. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 5:45 PM, RJack wrote: The GPL license *willfully* misleads people. Anti-GPL cranks claim to be misled by the GPL, because they want to steal the work of other people without compensating those people in the way they have chosen. Sorry Sweetheart. Sometimes you just don't get to pick and choose like you wish. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 5:30 PM, RJack wrote: Sounds like a Marxist dream-come-true to me. 1) Dangle promises of copyright permissions. 2) Steal the rights of those who accept the offer. The GPL explicitly and in great detail spells out the obligations which must be assumed for being permitted to copy and distribute covered works. The only way to be "misled" is willfully. OK. You win. The GPL license *willfully* misleads people. Happy now? Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 3:51 PM, RJack wrote: Ah! I know what! Let's just deny everything and mooove the goalposts! The GPL is a perfectly straightforward copyright license, trivially easy to comply with. It is only the people who want to avoid the obligations of the GPL while still copying and distributing GPL-covered works who claim to have any difficulty "understanding" it. No one is forced to accept the GPL, but there is no other way to get to copy and distribute GPL-covered works. Sounds like a Marxist dream-come-true to me. 1) Dangle promises of copyright permissions. 2) Steal the rights of those who accept the offer. Maybe in the Marxist land of GNU, that fraud is morally and legally acceptable but under U.S. law it is an illegal misuse of copyright that is strictly against public policy. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 2:46 PM, RJack wrote: contract obligations that are to be performed after partial performance by the other party are not treated as conditions The obligation by the licensor is not to sue for infringement. The performance by the licensee is to copy and distribute in compliance with the GPL. There is no partial performance. Ah! I know what! Let's just deny everything and mooove the goalposts! Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 2:35 PM, RJack wrote: ". . . provided that you also meet *all* of these conditions:. . ." Condition 2(b) adds the qualification "work that you distribute or publish". The phrasing might be a bit awkward, but the meaning is clear. Language cleanup was one of the reasons for GPLv3, of course. How do you cause the event ". . . the modified files to carry prominent notices" when it is a precondition to permission to "You may modify your copies. . ."? The condition is a limitation on what the altered files may look like. It is nonsensical to assume that copyright infringement occurs due to the intermediate steps involved in producing a permitted alteration. Do you have the slightest idea what you are blathering about? I don't. For example, no publisher's contract with an author explicitly authorizes the publisher to create intermediate copies for the process of producing a book, such as printing plates or digital copies. But an author suing for infringement on those grounds would get laughed out of court, not least for your favorite "promissory estoppel". Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 10:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Compliance with (enforceable) obligations stated in the GPL requires copyright permission (i.e. the copyright holder's promise not to sue under copyright) as a *precondition* to compliance/licensee's performance. No, that is false. The conditions of the GPL do not require the precondition on unrestricted copy permission. They are conditions which are applied as the copy is made and distributed. No Hyman, that is *true* in the Second Circuit: "Further, it is important that James turned over the C version for use before any royalties were paid, and that the first version of PDSI-004-1 was published with the proper notice of authorship, because contract obligations that are to be performed after partial performance by the other party are not treated as conditions. 22 N.Y. Jur. 2d Contracts § 265 (1996); see also Jacob Maxwell, Inc. , 110 F.3d at 754 (holding that payment of royalties and crediting of author were covenants because "[the composer] expressly granted [the licensee] permission to play the song before payment was tendered or recognition received"); I.A.E., Inc. , 74 F.3d at 778 (holding that full payment was not a condition precedent when the licensee received the copyrighted drawings after tendering only half the required payment)."; Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 1998). Hyman, the obession with your non-precedental CAFC ruling is going to cause you no end of grief in the Second Circuit. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 10:20 AM, RJack wrote: Now, how do you cause a derivate work *that you have not yet* received permission to create to be licensed to all third parties? Remember the "event" must occur BEFORE permission to modify, copy and distribute is granted. This is known as an "impossible condition" and is void. The consequences of a void condition are construed against the drafter, hence "promissory estoppel". You are wrong, because you are misreading the license. GPLv2 says <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html> 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. 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. Permission to create a derivative work requires compliance only with section 2(a). It is the copying and distribution of the derivative work that must also meet the conditions of 2(b). Huh? ". . . provided that you also meet *all* of these conditions:. . ." How do you cause the event ". . . the modified files to carry prominent notices" when it is a precondition to permission to "You may modify your copies. . ."? The "event" requires "performance" before the conditioned performance is due. What do you suggest? Moooving the goalposts into the the past with a time travel machine? ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Time to put up or shut up!
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/14/2010 8:05 AM, RJack wrote: Supporters of the GPL license as well as the SFLC claim that section 2(b) is a "condition" to the license: "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." Now, the definition of a "condition" is: "ARTICLE 224 Condition Defined: A condition is an event, not certain to occur, which must occur, unless its non-occurrence is excused, before performance under a contract becomes due."; ALR, Restatement (Second) of Contracts. The whole World awaits with 'bated breath for GPL supporters to either put up or shut up by identifying the two critical elements: 1) the event; and 2) the performance. Section 2 of GPLv2 begins <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html> 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: A straightforward application of the Article 224 definition would then consider the uncertain event to be modifying, copying and/or distributing the covered work, and the performance would be the "cause to be licensed" and the other requirements of the GPL. The extent to which it is meaningful to apply contract law to the GPL, which is a license and not a contract, and how that interacts with copyright infringement is, of course, the subject of our endless argument. The contract "performance" is based on the promise that "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work...". In other words the the performance of the promise (consideration) is the copyright permissions (grant) to modify, copy and distribute the offered source code. In the definition of a "condition" (see above) the "event" must must occur BEFORE the performance of the permissions becomes effective. It is a logical impossibility for the "event" to depend upon the contract "performance" and that is why the conditions in a copyright license are called "conditions precedent". The "event" must PRECEDE the "performance" (permissions) which are granted. The "event" in section 2 which must occur is "provided that... 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." Now, how do you cause a derivate work *that you have not yet* received permission to create to be licensed to all third parties? Remember the "event" must occur BEFORE permission to modify, copy and distribute is granted. This is known as an "impossible condition" and is void. The consequences of a void condition are construed against the drafter, hence "promissory estoppel". Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Time to put up or shut up!
Supporters of the GPL license as well as the SFLC claim that section 2(b) is a "condition" to the license: "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." Now, the definition of a "condition" is: "ARTICLE 224 Condition Defined: A condition is an event, not certain to occur, which must occur, unless its non-occurrence is excused, before performance under a contract becomes due."; ALR, Restatement (Second) of Contracts. The whole World awaits with 'bated breath for GPL supporters to either put up or shut up by identifying the two critical elements: 1) the event; and 2) the performance. GPL supporters need only identify the purported "event" which must occur before "performance" becomes due under the GPL contract. This would demonstrate that section 2(b) is actually a license condition. Hyman or DAK can't do this. Could it be that section 2(b) isn't a license "condition" at all? You betcha'. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) Hyman Rosen: "I never lose I just moove the goalposts." DAK: "Me too!" ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 4:23 PM, RJack wrote: Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. It is you who are incapable of understanding it, as demonstrated by the fact that a court sees things our way: <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and distribute the computer programs and files included in the downloadable software package. I had no idea that "GPL" was an acronym for "Artistic License". Moving the goalposts again Hyman? ROFL. Not only are DAK and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, they are utterly confused about the difference between "Article III" standing and "statutory" standing. GPL sec. 2(b) is not a condition precedent and an author who releases source code under the GPL has no Article III standing to enforce it. The GPL is a purported copyright license that is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301(a) and is unenforceable under the common law of contracts and provides no Article III standing for users. Sincerely, RJack :) Hyman Rosen: "I never lose I just moove the goalposts." ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 3:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) The copies made and distributed by the defendants in this case are not first-sale copies, and therefore the first-sale doctrine does not give them permission to do so in violation of the GPL. Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 3:50 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) The copies made and distributed by the defendants in this case are not first-sale copies, and therefore the first-sale doctrine does not give them permission to do so in violation of the GPL. Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 2:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) The copies made and distributed by the defendants in this case are not first-sale copies, and therefore the first-sale doctrine does not give them permission to do so in violation of the GPL. Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
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 of the contract that the offeror has dispensed with the requirement of communication of acceptance ... acceptance may be inferred from conduct" If someone copies and distributes GPL-covered code, it may be assumed that he accepts the GPL since he has no other permission to do so. If he wishes to claim that he did not accept the GPL, that's fine. He has then infringed on the copyrights of the covered work. 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) The defendants are not distributing first-sale copies. They are copying and distributing GPL-covered works without complying with the GPL, and are therefore infringing on the copyright of the covered works. Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
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://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf> Thus, once each Defendant made a distribution that did not comply with the License, that Defendant lost any and all right to copy, modify, or distribute BusyBox. Any copying, modification, or distribution of BusyBox after that time by each Defendant was and is without Plaintiffs' permission. Since you and DAK are incapable of understanding the meaning and operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
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 ongoing infringement, so it does not matter if it would be more beneficial for the infringers to continue infringing. They will be prevented from doing so. <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_0502000-.html> § 502. Remedies for infringement: Injunctions (a) Any court having jurisdiction of a civil action arising under this title may, subject to the provisions of section 1498 of title 28, grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright. Provided infringement occurs. This is not the case with the GPL. Since you and DAK are incapable of understanding the meaning and operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts, you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
