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: Compliance detection tool
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. ___ 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: Compliance detection tool
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. 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? ___ 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: Compliance detection tool
On 4/16/2010 3:34 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: 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. Unfortunately for you, a Supreme Court decision of 1992 does not overrule a US Court of Appeals decision of 2008. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
On 4/16/2010 3:40 PM, amicus_curious wrote: Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message Unfortunately for you, a Supreme Court decision of 1992 does not overrule a US Court of Appeals decision of 2008. Does too. Not until a higher court than the US Court of Appeals says so. Be sure to get back to me when that happens. ___ 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 3:40 PM, amicus_curious wrote: Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message Unfortunately for you, a Supreme Court decision of 1992 does not overrule a US Court of Appeals decision of 2008. Does too. Not until a higher court than the US Court of Appeals 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: http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=661 Worst judge I have yet encountered. Decides the case beforehand and her opinions are excerpts from her predetermined winner's briefs. Ignores the facts and pleadings. When you lose, you want to at least feel the judge listened and considered what you had to say -- not so with this judge. She blows you off and makes it clear she's blowing you off. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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
RJack wrote: 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. New Jersey district judge HOCHBERG shall be impeached for producing nonsense such as Thus, ... below. The heart of the argument on appeal concerns whether the terms of the Artistic License are conditions of, or merely covenants to, the copyright license. Generally, a copyright owner who grants a nonexclusive license to use his copyrighted material waives his right to sue the licensee for copyright infringement and can sue only for breach of contract. Sun Microsystems, Inc., v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 1999); Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229, 236 (2d Cir. 1998). If, however, a license is limited in scope and the licensee acts outside the scope, the licensor can bring an action for copyright infringement. See S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir.1989); Nimmer on Copyright, ' 1015[A] (1999). Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the scope of the license and are governed by copyright law. She is deliberately mixing three different contract law concepts of conditions, covenants, and scope limitations which have nothing to do with being governed by copyright law. (She probably copy pasted it from moronic Jacobsen's brief). http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=661 Worst judge I have yet encountered. Decides the case beforehand and her opinions are excerpts from her predetermined winner's briefs. Ignores the facts and pleadings. When you lose, you want to at least feel the judge listened and considered what you had to say -- not so with this judge. She blows you off and makes it clear she's blowing you off. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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
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. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table. How sad for you, when bitter and hateful name-calling is all you have left. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
On 4/17/2010 6:03 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: shall be impeached Be sure to get back to me when that happens. Meanwhile, it's instructive to see you spewing your hateful bile. ___ 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: Compliance detection tool
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/17/2010 6:03 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: shall be impeached Be sure to get back to me when that happens. Meanwhile, it's instructive to see you spewing your hateful bile. It is instructive to see you failing to grasp that Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the scope of the license and are governed by copyright law. is utter nonsense. Or does the GNUtian version of copyright law has a section or two governing scope limitations which are both covenants and conditions in a copyright license under California contract law, LOL? regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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
On 4/18/2010 9:23 AM, RJack wrote: 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 since the CAFC JMRI decision is correct and correctly reasoned, other courts in like circumstances will adopt the same reasoning and reach the same conclusions. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
On 4/19/2010 5:19 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: is utter nonsense. In the battle of crank vs. court, court wins. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
RJack wrote: 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? While it is not a binding precedent it is still a precedent which can and will be cited. Non-binding precedents are routinely cited in US courts. It is not erroneous unless a higher court says so. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ 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 hyro...@mail.com writes: On 4/17/2010 6:03 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: shall be impeached Be sure to get back to me when that happens. Meanwhile, it's instructive to see you spewing your hateful bile. Just curious, in what sense is it instructive? -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org http://www.ghoti.net/~kst Nokia We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this. -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, Yes Minister ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
On 4/19/2010 5:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: Just curious, in what sense is it instructive? One might otherwise believe that the anti-GPL crank position is simply a different interpretation of law and circumstance in an agree to disagree sort of way. ___ 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 4/19/2010 5:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: Just curious, in what sense is it instructive? One might otherwise believe that the anti-GPL crank position is simply a different interpretation of law and circumstance in an agree to disagree sort of way. Only silly freetards would tolerate utter nonsense such as Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the scope of the license and are governed by copyright law. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/19/2010 5:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: Just curious, in what sense is it instructive? One might otherwise believe that the anti-GPL crank position is simply a different interpretation of law and circumstance in an agree to disagree sort of way. Only silly freetards would tolerate utter nonsense such as Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the scope of the license and are governed by copyright law. That would make the defendants of this case silly freetards since they heeded the verdict. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/19/2010 5:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: Just curious, in what sense is it instructive? One might otherwise believe that the anti-GPL crank position is simply a different interpretation of law and circumstance in an agree to disagree sort of way. Only silly freetards would tolerate utter nonsense such as Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the scope of the license and are governed by copyright law. That would make the defendants of this case silly freetards since they heeded the verdict. The district court was mandated to treat the contract breach as copyright infringement. Even so the district court refused to grant the injunction and Plaintiffs appealed the second time you idiot. The second appeal was dropped due to *settlement* which included *contractually* stipulated injunction ... expressly forbidding Katzer from further misuse of the software that JMRI has created, and forbidding him to register any domain names that should rightly belong to us. http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/Recent.shtml#2010-02-17 The actual text of *contractually* stipulated injunction is here: http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/403.pdf And it says nothing about copyright law, silly dak. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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
On 4/20/2010 5:37 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Only silly freetards would tolerate utter nonsense And courts. Don't forget courts. When it's court vs. crank, court wins. ___ 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 5:37 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Only silly freetards would tolerate utter nonsense And courts. Don't forget courts. With one court being in a freetard blackout and spouting Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the scope of the license and are governed by copyright law. nonsense doesn't make it courts silly Hyman. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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
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? ___ 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? The district court in that same case you retard and MySQL court in http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf (alleged breach of the GPL is just a contract breach/not copyright infringement). In Wallace v. FSF the court also established that open licenses such as the GPL are contracts. Is that enough courts for you silly Hyman? regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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
On 4/20/2010 10:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: And how many court decisions have supported the crank point of view while addressing open licenses? The district court in that same case Which was overruled. and MySQL court in http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf (alleged breach of the GPL is just a contract breach/not copyright infringement). http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf Affidavits submitted by the parties’ experts raise a factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini program is a derivative or an independent and separate work under GPL ¶ 2. After hearing, MySQL seems to have the better argument here, but the matter is one of fair dispute. Moreover, I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the Gemini source code in July 2001 didn’t cure the breach. As usual, your references undermine your case. This order shows that the judge understands the GPL and believes that it is a valid copyright license which operates as it says it does. Notice the reference to release of source code curing the breach. In Wallace v. FSF the court also established that open licenses such as the GPL are contracts. But has any court found that open licenses, contract or no, do not function as their authors intended? CAFC thinks that they do, and so does the MA District Court. ___ 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 hyro...@mail.com writes: On 4/20/2010 10:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: And how many court decisions have supported the crank point of view while addressing open licenses? The district court in that same case Which was overruled. Let's be fair. An overruled court decision (even if it does not change the consequences, namely the necessity to comply) is better than nothing. The usual crank theories here are so wacky that no court would dare sanctify them even once in an angle irrelevant to the outcome of the case. -- David Kastrup ___ 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: [... progress%20software.pdf ...] As usual, your references undermine your case. This order You're simply too stupid to grasp the fact that the judge in MySQL case is applying the contract breach standard of review against which she evaluates the GPL claim, NOT copyright infringement, you retard. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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
David Kastrup wrote: Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 4/20/2010 10:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: And how many court decisions have supported the crank point of view while addressing open licenses? The district court in that same case Which was overruled. Let's be fair. You should simply stop being utter morons. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 4/20/2010 10:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: And how many court decisions have supported the crank point of view while addressing open licenses? The district court in that same case Which was overruled. Let's be fair. You should simply stop being utter morons. Rest assured that nobody is taking your place here. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
David Kastrup writes: Let's be fair. An overruled court decision (even if it does not change the consequences, namely the necessity to comply) is better than nothing. No, it's worse than nothing. With nothing you are only arguing against your opponent. With a overruled decision you are arguing against an appellate court. The latter is far more authoritative even if the precedent is not binding. I think that you would find that most lawyers would never cite an overruled decision. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
John Hasler wrote: [...] I think that you would find that most lawyers would never cite an overruled decision. Except in the case of the appellate court being the CAFC and the subject matter being NOT patents and NOT something claimed against the United States government you retard... especially regarding utterly silly opinion produced by a District Court Judge sitting by designation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Federal_Circuit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Claims See also: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/about.html The Federal Circuit is unique among the thirteen Circuit Courts of Appeals. It has nationwide jurisdiction in a variety of subject areas, including international trade, government contracts, patents, trademarks, certain money claims against the United States government, federal personnel, veterans' benefits, and public safety officers' benefits claims. See also: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/04/12/an-on-the-record-interview-with-cafc-judge-randall-rader/id=10115 Rader: Yes. The job of an appellate Judge is to review a record for reversible error; to correct errors. In order to correct errors based on a record you need to understand the challenges of making a record, you need to understand the challenges of administering a trial and narrowing issues. As an example, I see very often in appellate practice where the losing case will seize on some minor issue and try and elevate that to an issue of great importance before the Court of Appeals when in fact all of the parties had dismissed it as of marginal significance when before the trial court. So the Appellate Court ends up considering and making decisions on something which was only marginally considered by the court below. It strikes me that we ought to be reviewing the decisions that were made below. We should not allow parties to present to us as if they were major decisions, things that were part of the narrowing exercise, which a trial court must necessarily do. The value of sitting as a trial judge is you can recognize this. When you have done it yourself you know what a challenge it is to narrow issues and have developed a record that reflects your accurate decisions. Quinn: I know in the CAFC and I think in other courts as well it also works in reverse, where some District Court Judges sit by designation. Has that been beneficial to you and for the Court as a whole? Rader: I think there have been two benefits to that. I think the District Judges themselves have seen the Federal Circuit in action and have become more acquainted with us and have gained more confidence in the work we do. I think it has worked in reverse as well. The Federal Circuit Judges have seen the District Judges and their marvelous preparation to work with us and have gained more confidence in them and their work. So it has been a wonderful institution strengthening exercise for both the District Courts and the Federal Circuit. LOL! http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The Honorable Faith S. Hochberg, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation. [...] Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the scope of the license and are governed by copyright law. [...] Under California contract law, provided that typically denotes a condition. LOL! regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 4/20/2010 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
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. And you sidestep the actual question, which was about how many court decisions have supported the crank point of view while addressing open licenses. The answer seems to be none, since the only decisions you quote are old ones that are not specifically addressing open licenses. ___ 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 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
On 4/20/2010 1:37 PM, RJack wrote: 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. Copying and distributing a work without adhering to the requirements in the grant of permission is infringement. A CAFC decision will NEVER overrule a Supreme Court decision You will first have to wait for the CAFC decision to be actually overruled, not just blather on about your crank theories that the CAFC decision contradicts a Supreme Court ruling, which it does not. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
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. 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. 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. ___ 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. 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, you idiot Hyman? What was your next assertion, you retard? regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 4/20/2010 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
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. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Compliance detection tool
On 4/20/2010 3:27 PM, RJack wrote: Open your eyes. Your dream is over. When a court tells me so, then I'll worry. When a crank does, not so much. So far, courts seem to like open licenses just fine. ___ 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: [... open ...] sense that they are generally offered to anyone who has a copy of the covered work, . . . Given that many proprietary licenses are offered to anyone with or without a copy of the covered work, the proprietary licenses are actually more open, right you idiot? What was your next assertion, you retard? regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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
On 4/20/2010 3:46 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Given that many proprietary licenses are offered to anyone with or without a copy of the covered work, the proprietary licenses are actually more open What is a proprietary license? ___ 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 3:46 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Given that many proprietary licenses are offered to anyone with or without a copy of the covered work, the proprietary licenses are actually more open What is a proprietary license? Think of not free, you retard. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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
On 4/20/2010 4:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Think of not free As in beer, or as in speech? If the former, there must be communication between the licensee and licensor, in order for money to be paid. Open licenses do not require contact. ___ 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 4:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Think of not free As in beer, or as in speech? As in third-party beneficiary contract, you retard. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com writes: On 4/20/2010 3:27 PM, RJack wrote: Open your eyes. Your dream is over. When a court tells me so, then I'll worry. When a crank does, not so much. So far, courts seem to like open licenses just fine. It is not a matter of liking them or not liking them. They deal with them, generally in the manner that the creator of the license would have thought. At least for licenses with significant adoption rates. There may be a lot of one-shot open licenses by individuals where the legal consequences are not quite as the creator would have wished. Probably fewer than proprietary licenses of that kind, though. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
