Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/01/section-411a-bites-plaintiff-twice.html
An opinion issued ... shows some courts may take
the requirement too seriously.
I think that awarding attorneys fees against plaintiff and forcing
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I think that awarding attorneys fees against plaintiff and forcing
plaintiff pay another case filing fee (IF and when plaintiff receives a
registration or a rejection thereof and decides to go to court once
again) is the right remedy.
Sounds good to me.
Attorney
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
In every case they file, the defendants have been illegally
distributing GPLed software. After each of these cases has
Contract breach (let's assume a valid contract)/not fulfilling
contractual obligations is not illegal.
The contract laws recognize a concept called
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Contract breach (let's assume a valid contract)/not fulfilling
contractual obligations is not illegal.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related
Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Contract breach (let's assume a valid contract)/not fulfilling
contractual obligations is not illegal.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
You confuse IP license breach with IP infringement.
Whether this [act of authorization]
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[I]mplicit in a nonexclusive license
These court decisions about nonexclusive licenses have been
about implied licenses, not written ones, except for the
recent Jacobsen v. Katzer case. (Which is therefore being
appealed and criticized, but I will take my own advice
Jacobsen v. Katzer is about the Artistic License which lacks a termination
clause and is so poorly drafted as to be nearly incomprehensible. I don't
think it's relevant to the GPL.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Hyman Rosen wrote:
rjack wrote:
The S.F.L.C. attorneys are *consistent* and we may *always*
count on them. They have filed six consecutive incompetent
pleadings in the Southern District of New York.
In any of these cases, is there an instance where the
source code of the GPLed
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
None of those mirrors of out-dated busybox and other GPL'd source code
that nobody really cares about comply with the FSF/SFLC view on
complete corresponding source code regarding Infringing Products
being made available by defendants.
It is false that nobody really
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
requires that the source for those versions be made available.
Read the complaint you idiot. The claimed unresolved issue is
18. On June 25, 2008, after a series of communications between the
parties regarding other of Plaintiffs requirements for settlement,
10 matches
Mail list logo
