JEDIDIAH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2008-07-22, Rahul Dhesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess that the plaintiffs decided that having the manufacturer of
the routers comply with the GPL was good enough for them, because
it would be difficult to explain in
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
rjack wrote:
The trouble is you can't write a copyright license that controls
all third parties as long as they follow the GPL. Congress
specifically forbid this situation with 17 USC sec. 301.
That's the federal preemption clause. What does that
have
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the
buyer of the router, the right to get source code from somewhere.
It does, unless the chain of GPL licensing is somehow broken,
perhaps through the use of the First
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
You don't need to become the owner.
It is enough if you become _responsible_.
Enough for what? I just don't understand what you're
saying. Remember, the GPL is just a copyright license.
It has no notion of responsibility.
But the
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:01:14 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
No. Whomever distributes the software is on the hook for providing the
source.
You can force people to walk the chain all the way back to the
manufacturer, but they are still ultimately on the hook for using
someone elses work without
On Jul 22, 7:21 pm, Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Kanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
C doesn't have any support for decimal arithmetic, nor any means
of adding it comfortably.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/open/n4060.pdf
Yes, I'd heard about this. But I wasn't too sure of its
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Uh no. Third parties are not involved. Only recipients. In GPLv2,
there was a clause that you could replace source code with a written
offer to source code, and this offer had to be valid for any third party
(namely, any
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The courts should simply not enforce invalid contracts. LAW 101. To
date, the courts did NOT enforce the GPL. And violations flourish.
What a strange notion! The courts vigorously enforce copyright
on songs and movies. And violations
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I just wonder how long will it take until some GPL defendant decides
that enough is enough and initiates disbarrment of the entire SFLC
gang including Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337).
Under what grounds?
Fraud, deceit, malpractice, and gross unprofessional
I just wonder how long will it take until some GPL defendant decides
that enough is enough and initiates disbarrment of the entire SFLC
gang including Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337).
Under what grounds?
Fraud, deceit, malpractice, and gross unprofessional conduct.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:
http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx
So when did this page appear? And do they actually honor
So once again you want me to prove something?
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I just wonder how long will it take until some GPL defendant decides that
enough is enough and initiates disbarrment of the entire SFLC gang
including Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337).
Under what grounds?
Fraud, deceit, malpractice, and gross unprofessional conduct.
David Kastrup wrote:
But the courts have.
What the courts have done is to uphold first sale,
despite the vehement objections of the software
developers who argued that EULAs disallowed it.
This was recently decided in Softman v. Adobe.
See http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5628.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
That PDF is dated May 14, 2008.
Interestingly enough it predates June 25, 2008:
Legal time is the very opposite of internet time.
Delays and postponements of months at a time are
routine. It should come as no surprise that actions
by plaintiffs and defendants can
rjack wrote:
The S.F.L.C. lawyers are filing repetitive, frivolous,
cookie-cutter complaints in the S.D.N.Y. where they would
never meet the requirements for federal jurisdiction.
Subsequently they voluntarily dismiss the suits prior to
the court ever reviewing the complaint.
In every case
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
What does that have to do with the GPL Hyman?
You seemed to claim that violations of the GPL
flourish because courts have not enforced it.
I pointed out that violations of copyright in
songs and movies flourish even though courts do
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I see you have [...]
What I've done is I've applied Richard Feynman's simple rule about theories:
if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.
You proposed a controversial, completely unproven idea of copyright law that
would have
On 2008-07-23 03:42:29 -0400, James Kanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Jul 22, 7:21 pm, Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Kanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
C doesn't have any support for decimal arithmetic, nor any means
of adding it comfortably.
thufir wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:01:14 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
No. Whomever distributes the software is on the hook for providing the
source.
You can force people to walk the chain all the way back to the
manufacturer, but they are still ultimately on the hook for using
someone elses work
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
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
That PDF is dated May 14, 2008.
Interestingly enough it predates June 25, 2008:
Legal time is the very opposite of internet time.
I could certainly use time running backward for a few years. . .
Delays and postponements of months at a time
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And I pointed out that at least in Germany of late violations of
copyright in songs and movies by sharers are on decline without any
court enforcement.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Or go to court and lose even more.
Umm, right.
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
rjack wrote:
First you dis Microsoft
You must be thinking of someone else.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
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
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:11:33 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Yes, but it is not a right of the buyer, but a right of the copyright
owner that this happens. So the buyer can't sue, he can just notify the
copyright owner. If the copyright owner can't be bothered, the buyer is
pretty much out of
blockquote
what=official UNIGROUP announcement
edits=some material removed to shorten long announcement
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:46:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Unigroup_of_NY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Reminder: UNIGROUP Meeting 24-JUL-2008 (Thu): Server Performance:
Deploying and Scaling (Ruby
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is controversial or unproven about 17 USC sec. 301 of the Copyright
Act?
Exactly. It exists, and no one in a position to act is claiming that it
makes the GPL invalid or not work like FSF claims it works.
The SFLC is in a
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
rjack wrote:
all they have to to do is refrain from voluntarily dismissing
one of their silly lawsuits and let a judge review their claims
on the merits.
Judges are not in the business of reviewing claims.
If the parties to a dispute have agreed on a settlement
then there is no case to
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
After each of these voluntary dismissals, the source code
for the GPLed product is available from the distributor.
That's verifiably not true.
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
That's verifiably not true.
It's certainly verifiable. Go to each SFLC filing, find
the website of the company they sued, and see if there
is a place from which to obtain sources (substituting
ActionTec for Verizon, before you say anything).
I don't have a burning
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Not only that, it is appropriate that distributors
who have been distributing illegally should be forced
to pay some monetary damages, even if only legal costs
of the other side.
I couldn't agree more about distributing illegally and
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... substituting ...]
a = pi*r^2
let's substitute pi with c
a = c*r^2
now
e = m*c^2
let's subsitute c for m and r for c
e = c*r^2
it follows
a = e
it follows
pi = c
it follows
3.14159 = 299792458
Hyman science.
regards,
alexander.
--
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... substituting ...]
3.14159 = 299792458
Hyman science.
For most of 2007, Actiontec FIOS routers were being shipped
with GPLed software and without complying with the GPL.
After the lawsuit ended, Actiontec FIOS routers are being
shipped with
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... substituting ...]
3.14159 = 299792458
Hyman science.
For most of 2007, Actiontec FIOS routers were being shipped
Verizon's FiOS router firmware download page says (in BOLD red text):
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It occurs to me that in the U.S. there is a relatively easy
way to circumvent the requirement of giving away source code
for GPLed software.
Not just the US. Pretty much every place with copyright law has an
equivalent
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the
point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you
unable to do copies yourself?
That way Company A gets to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In order to be a first sale under the intent of the law. First sale
clearly contemplates a transaction such as walking into a bookstore,
grabbing a book, plunking down $20, and walking out. You propose a
A sale is not
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Company A prepares a work derived from GPL-licensed code.
Company B purchases copies of this work from Company A.
For each copy purchased, Company A sends Company B two disks,
one with the binaries and one with the sources.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Now imagine that Actiontec ships Verizon's FiOS router
boxes to Verizon and only Verizon (fully fulfilling the GPL obligations
by providing the source code to its customer Verizon)... not end users.
Who is supposed to provide the source code to you?
No one. This is
Tim Smith wrote:
[... first sale ...]
I'm glad to see people are finally taking some interest in this area.
I've been expecting it to show up since at least as far back as 2005:
2005?
http://groups.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Here's the ruling)
2004!
:-)
regards,
alexander.
--
http://warmcat.com/_wp/2008/05/23/exhaustion-and-the-gpl/
-
Exhaustion and the GPL
Some years ago I came across a guy Alexander Terekhov who worked then
for IBM and had outspoken views about the viability of the GPL.
If I understood it, his opinion was that the license terms of the GPL
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:45:15 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't see why their participation is required, it's between the buyer
and the manufacturer.
No. The buyer has no rights derived from copyright law since he is not
the copyright owner.
The buyer is the guy who walks in off the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://warmcat.com/_wp/2008/05/23/exhaustion-and-the-gpl/
-
Exhaustion and the GPL
That reminds me of a question my professor asked us in copyright law
class when I was in law school, when we were discussing the
Tim Smith wrote:
(I believe I read somewhere...Larry Rosen's book, perhaps...that many
jurisdictions do not recognize bare licenses, and GPL *would* be seen as a
contract on those jurisdictions. Maybe that provides a saving throw--if
someone tries to blatantly circumvent by making copies
thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To my understanding, the buyer does have the right, under the GPL, to
the source. After, the GPL is targeted, you could say, at buyers to
protect copyright owners.
If no buyer has rights to the source, then that would make the GPL
pointless, which, I suppose is
I do not quite well understand the AGPL text, but Im willing to make
available a messaging server (something similar to, say, a SMTP server)
and I want to provide it with the best license for the users.
Is AGPL appropriate for this kind of program, or is it only relevant
when there is direct user
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To my understanding, the buyer does have the right, under the GPL, to the
source. After, the GPL is targeted, you could say, at buyers to protect
copyright owners.
If no buyer has rights to the source, then that would make the
50 matches
Mail list logo
