Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Does that GPL disk contain source code corresponding to
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
including all future Verizon firmware upgrades as well?
I don't have the disk, but I imagine that it comes with
a website address from which one obtains
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Does that GPL disk contain source code corresponding to
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
including all future Verizon firmware upgrades as well?
I don't have the disk, but I imagine that it comes with
a website address from which one obtains
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Does that GPL disk contain source code corresponding to
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
including all future Verizon firmware upgrades as well?
I don't have the disk, but I imagine that it comes with
a website address from which one obtains
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 09:17:47 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
The point is that you've not demonstrated that the files are stored on
a verizon server yet proceed as if you have.
They are accessed via the Verizon webserver. What difference would it
make if they were somehow linked behind the
Rjack wrote:
We can conclude with confidence that Verizon told the SFLC to
kiss their royal purple ass.
Verizon supplies FiOS routers complete with a Verizon-branded
manual which mentions the GPL and a disk which includes the
GPLed source code. The upgrade site is for upgrades; people
who are
Hey Hyman, the manual refers to GPL.exe. Google yields this about
GPL.exe:
-
GPL.EXE Application/Process Description
Below is a description of GPL.EXE. This application may not be safe to
have on your computer. If this application is running on your computer,
it is advised that you scan your
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Google yields this about GPL.exe
Google yields this about Alexander Terekhov:
http://www.fashionwindows.com/gallery/terexov/default.asp
Terexov by Alexander Terekhov: Soft, Fluid Silhouettes
...
Proposing 30 looks that are mainly knee-length and floor
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Google yields this about GPL.exe
Google yields this about Alexander Terekhov:
http://www.fashionwindows.com/gallery/terexov/default.asp
Terexov by Alexander Terekhov: Soft, Fluid Silhouettes ...
Proposing 30 looks that are mainly knee-length and
amicus_curious wrote:
With a URL of download.Verizon.net?
Which contains actiontec gateway?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Also there is no evasion of an interpretation of the GPL since
the GPL is not even under dispute. It would only be under
dispute if the defendants claimed compliance
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
I think Rjack has a valid point that a court might well treat the GPL
as a contract in such a case.
Huh? You can't be held to a contract you did not sign.
Does every contract require a signature?
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The settlement agreement will, of course, be an agreement to
pay Cisco's attorney fees and require the SFLC to voluntarily
dismiss their silly propaganda suit -- same as always.
What evidence do you have that the SFLC has ever payed the
attorney's fees for
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
[...]
I will go with the CAFC's analysis over yours.
The CAFC ruled:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Under California contract law, provided that typically denotes a
condition. See, e.g., Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911)
The Diepenbrock v. Luiz
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:haeql.53381$ci2.43...@newsfe09.iad...
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:41:17 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
None of the above demonstrate that the file(s) are stored on Verizon
servers, the files could be hosted on Actiontek servers.
With a URL
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:khmql.51855$2o4.35...@newsfe03.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
With a URL of download.Verizon.net?
Which contains actiontec gateway?
No. the link from Verizon.com has that directory name which resolves to
download.Verizon.net which is a
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
I think Rjack has a valid point that a court might well treat the GPL as
a contract in such a case.
Huh? You can't be held to a contract you did not sign.
Spitting coffee all over my two monitors. Dak, dak, dak, you
#%#%$#%$#.
Verträge können schriftlich,
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
[...]
didn't see, how that applies to a clear written license that repeatedly
says provided that.
http://web.lexis-nexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=9d061ea7856d1e028cc0a06fdcdecfb5docnum=1_fmtstr=FULL_startdoc=1wchp=dGLzVtz-zSkAb_md5=c4b44e6c4c2abb82fad4247554a9f7fa
It is
Rjack wrote:
The law firms hired by the defendants continue in business in
beautiful, spacious office buildings a fact that may easily be
publicly observed.
Lawyers always get paid. And money is fungible. So as I thought,
this is merely wishful thinking on your part.
As part of a settlement
amicus_curious wrote:
What difference would it make if they were somehow linked
behind the scenes to some server owned by another company.
Verizon must honor the terms of the GPL only if it takes
actions permitted by the GPL but otherwise forbidden by
copyright law. I believe that the details
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The CAFC opinion is utter idiocy, Rahul.
No drunkenness this time? Isn't it awful how those actual judges
just don't have the wisdom, intelligence, and perspicacity that
you do?
As discussed by The Supreme Court of California, the term
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
1. http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936
He doesn't like the CAFC decision either. Too bad for him.
He doesn't like that violating the conditions of a license
is copyright infringement. Too bad for him.
All open source licenses will need to be modified
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
1. http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936
He doesn't like the CAFC decision either. Too bad for him.
He doesn't like that violating the conditions of a license
is copyright infringement. Too bad for him.
All open source
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
It is a reasonable explanation of why the SFLC dismissed its
case against Verizon, made more plausible by the actiontec
gateway part of the URL.
Man oh man. That gateway word is just the name of the box, idiot.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
I think Rjack has a valid point that a court might well treat the GPL as
a contract in such a case.
Huh? You can't be held to a contract you did not sign.
Spitting coffee all over my two monitors. Dak, dak, dak, you
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
That gateway word is just the name of the box
What do you mean? If you're saying that Verizon and
Actiontec are the same company, then we're done, since
Actiontec complies with the GPL.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
In contrast, the GPL does not meet the preconditions for AGB, ...
Go tell it to judges in Munich and Frankfurt.
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
That gateway word is just the name of the box
What do you mean?
I mean that your silly theory of behind the scene linkage and
retransmission is fantastically implausible.
Would you make your silly claims if Verizon would call the download
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:jxsql.24840$zp.11...@newsfe21.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
What difference would it make if they were somehow linked
behind the scenes to some server owned by another company.
Verizon must honor the terms of the GPL only if it takes
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:sssql.24839$zp@newsfe21.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
No. the link from Verizon.com has that directory name which resolves to
download.Verizon.net which is a URL owned by Verizon. Have you been
paying attention?
Just because the file
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The CAFC opinion is utter idiocy, Rahul.
No drunkenness this time? Isn't it awful how those actual judges
just don't have the wisdom, intelligence, and perspicacity that
you do?
You have to be either drunk or stupid to believe the CAFC was
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Would you make your silly claims if Verizon would call the download
directory actiontec box? Face it: gateway is how they call the box.
The label on the download URL says Router Model MI424WR FiOS Router.
Why doesn't the label on the box show up as the label on the
amicus_curious wrote:
Because that is part of what I do for a living and I am very familiar
with how corporations structure backend storage. What on earth would
qualify you to come up with such a half-wit theory as you have done?
Hymen is a fully qualified half-wit -- it's his occupational
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The law firms hired by the defendants continue in business in
beautiful, spacious office buildings a fact that may easily be
publicly observed.
Lawyers always get paid. And money is fungible. So as I thought,
this is merely wishful thinking on your part.
As
Rjack wrote:
except Verizon
Here is the manual for the Actiontec router:
http://www.actiontec.com/support_cms/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._E_User_Manual_20.8.0_v3.pdf
The manual is entitled Verizon FiOS Router and features
the Verizon check mark and long z logo. The very last page
contains a section
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
except Verizon
Here is the manual for the Actiontec router:
http://www.actiontec.com/support_cms/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._E_User_Manual_20.8.0_v3.pdf
The manual is entitled Verizon FiOS Router and features the
Verizon check mark and long z logo. The very
Rjack wrote:
Since when is a User Manual on an
A-c-t-i-o-n-t-e-c site source code from V-e-r-i-z-o-n?
When the front page says V-e-r-i-z-o-n and has V-e-r-i-z-o-n's
corporate logo. It's a PDF of the user manual that ships with
the router. The manual also makes clear that the router ships
with
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message
news:wbudnvfln-ndrzhunz2dnuvz_r-wn...@giganews.com...
amicus_curious wrote:
Because that is part of what I do for a living and I am very familiar
with how corporations structure backend storage. What on earth would
qualify you to come up with such a
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Since when is a User Manual on an A-c-t-i-o-n-t-e-c site
source code from V-e-r-i-z-o-n?
When the front page says V-e-r-i-z-o-n and has V-e-r-i-z-o-n's
corporate logo. It's a PDF of the user manual that ships with the
router. The manual also makes clear that
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message
news:wbudnvfln-ndrzhunz2dnuvz_r-wn...@giganews.com...
amicus_curious wrote:
Because that is part of what I do for a living and I am very
familiar with how corporations structure backend storage. What on
earth would
Rjack wrote:
The Verizon headquarters has V-e-r-i-z-o-n on the building. Does
that make all that brick and mortor source code too?
A Verizon-branded manual for a Verizon-branded router has a section
on the GPL and the router comes with a GPL disk. This is no longer
an issue of having to
David Kastrup wrote:
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message
news:wbudnvfln-ndrzhunz2dnuvz_r-wn...@giganews.com...
amicus_curious wrote:
Because that is part of what I do for a living and I am very
familiar with how corporations structure backend storage.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The Verizon headquarters has V-e-r-i-z-o-n on the building.
Does that make all that brick and mortor source code too?
A Verizon-branded manual for a Verizon-branded router has a
section on the GPL and the router comes with a GPL disk. This is
no longer an
Rjack wrote:
Stuff the rhetoric and just show the us code that V-e-r-i-z-o-n is
d-i-s-t-r-i-b-u-t-i-n-g (other than in firmware in the routers).
http://support.actiontec.com/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._E_User_Manual_20.8.0_v3.pdf
For details, see the GPL Code and LGPL Code for this product and
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:h8yql.49364$az3.44...@newsfe01.iad...
Rjack wrote:
The Verizon headquarters has V-e-r-i-z-o-n on the building. Does
that make all that brick and mortor source code too?
A Verizon-branded manual for a Verizon-branded router has a section
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Does that GPL disk contain source code corresponding to
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
including all future Verizon firmware upgrades as well?
I don't have the disk, but I imagine that it comes with
a website address from which one obtains
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:nkzql.20936$ff1.19...@newsfe20.iad...
[...]
What say you now?
Verzion is unaware of, ignores or willfully violates the GPL by distributing
GPL'd binary code from
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
but failing to
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Now we see a Verzion-branded router with a product manual
festooned with Verizon name and logo which has a section on the
GPL and comes with a GPL disk. What say you now?
I've already answered you Hyman:
If we do find Verizon distributing some
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Verzion is unaware of, ignores or willfully violates the GPL by
distributing GPL'd binary code from
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
but failing to ensure that downloaders can easily find the source code
(offer) at the time they download the
Rjack wrote:
If we do find Verizon distributing some GPL source code (which we
haven't)
Of course we have - the Verizon-branded manual says so:
http://support.actiontec.com/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._E_User_Manual_20.8.0_v3.pdf
For details, see the GPL Code and LGPL Code for this product and
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:85vdqrmxww@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message
news:wbudnvfln-ndrzhunz2dnuvz_r-wn...@giganews.com...
amicus_curious wrote:
Because that is part of what I do for a living and
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:nkzql.20936$ff1.19...@newsfe20.iad... [...]
What say you now?
Verzion is unaware of, ignores or willfully violates the GPL by
distributing GPL'd binary code from
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Here's a nice link from Australia (which follows English
common law same as in the US) that explains the difference:
http://law.anu.edu.au/COLIN/Lectures/frust.htm
...
Here's a nice citation from the Second Circuit that
demonstrates that a
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:uxmql.16489$l71.15...@newsfe23.iad...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:05:35 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:1blpl.46156$ci2.13...@newsfe09.iad...
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:26:56 -0500,
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Here's my citation:
...abandonment of a contract can be accomplished only through mutual
assent of the parties, as demonstrated by positive and unequivocal
conduct inconsistent with an intent to be bound
[ no public link ]
That citation will not help you.
You
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Here's my citation:
...abandonment of a contract can be accomplished only through
mutual assent of the parties, as demonstrated by positive and
unequivocal conduct inconsistent with an intent to be bound
[ no public link ]
That
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
I think you're confusing conditions qualifying performance of a
contract with rescission of a contract but I can't be sure.
You can be sure. I'm not, you are.
You are ignoring the plain language of the GPL where is says provided
that several times, and will
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
I think you're confusing conditions qualifying performance of a
contract with rescission of a contract but I can't be sure.
You can be sure. I'm not, you are.
You are ignoring the plain language of the GPL where is says
provided that
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Unfortunately, if you wish to refute my cited authority of Graham v
James you'll have to do it on your own dime. The case *clearly* refutes
automatic termination due to breach so either you haven't read it or
are incapable of understanding it. Alexander Terekhov
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:41:17 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
None of the above demonstrate that the file(s) are stored on Verizon
servers, the files could be hosted on Actiontek servers.
With a URL of download.Verizon.net? Perhaps their servers could be
linked behind the scenes, but that would
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 10:55:35 -0500, Rjack wrote:
Any copying beyond that point is copyright infringement -- the GPL
itself says so.
The court will ignore what the GPL says and instead rely on what The
Copyright Act of 1976 (As Amended) says in light of prevailing federal
and state law.
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Unfortunately, if you wish to refute my cited authority of
Graham v James you'll have to do it on your own dime. The case
*clearly* refutes automatic termination due to breach so
either you haven't read it or are incapable of understanding
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 10:55:35 -0500, Rjack wrote:
Any copying beyond that point is copyright infringement --
the GPL itself says so.
The court will ignore what the GPL says and instead rely on
what The Copyright Act of 1976 (As Amended) says in light of
prevailing federal
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
The opinion that you so triumphantly cite states: Graham and
James orally agreed to the licensing agreement and did not
clearly delineate its conditions and covenants.
A case about an unclear oral agreement -- that's all you can come
up with?
But the
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
As I asked before: Is this the best you can do?
As I previously stated , it was all I needed to do -- correctly cite
the applicable law. I can't force you to learn or comprehend.
You
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
As I asked before: Is this the best you can do?
As I previously stated , it was all I needed to do -- correctly cite
the applicable law. I can't force you to learn or comprehend.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
-- You can lead a horse to water but you
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
As I asked before: Is this the best you can do?
As I previously stated , it was all I needed to do -- correctly cite
the applicable law. I can't force you to learn or comprehend.
You haven't cited law that
Rjack wrote:
The settlement agreement will, of course, be an agreement to pay
Cisco's attorney fees and require the SFLC to voluntarily dismiss
their silly propaganda suit -- same as always.
What evidence do you have that the SFLC has ever payed the attorney's
fees for the other side? I'm sure
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Also there is no evasion of an interpretation of the GPL since
the GPL is not even under dispute. It would only be under
dispute if the defendants claimed compliance as a defense. The
cases up to now have been cutdry sufficiently for
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Also there is no evasion of an interpretation of the GPL since
the GPL is not even under dispute. It would only be under
dispute if the defendants claimed compliance as a defense
...
Would the GPL be construed as a
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Also there is no evasion of an interpretation of the GPL
since the GPL is not even under dispute. It would only be
under dispute if the defendants claimed compliance as a
defense
...
Would the GPL
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
That's not even wrong -- the SFLC raises the existence of the GPL
license in their Complaint. The defendant need not claim compliance
or for that matter need plead *anything*:
Copyright disputes involving only the scope of the alleged infringer's
license present
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
There is no automatic termination in the Second Circuit:
. . rescission of the contract only occurs upon affirmative acts
by the licensor, and a breach by one party does not automatically
result in rescission of a contract
You
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
There is no automatic termination in the Second Circuit: .
. rescission of the contract only occurs upon affirmative
acts by the licensor, and a breach by one party does not
automatically result in rescission of a
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Here's a nice link from Australia (which follows English common
law same as in the US) that explains the difference:
http://law.anu.edu.au/COLIN/Lectures/frust.htm
...
Here's a nice citation from the Second Circuit that demonstrates
that a termination of the
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:56:54 -0500, Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Copyright_Directive
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML
(27) The mere provision of physical facilities for enabling or
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:05:35 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:1blpl.46156$ci2.13...@newsfe09.iad...
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:26:56 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
Does the binary file which is being distributed reside on the verizon
server?
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:41:47 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:axvpl.58231$6r1.31...@newsfe19.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
Well, the link resolves to downloads.verizon.net and that is most
certainly a Verizon site.
You cannot know from the
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:go7vgf$4p...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I don't know that they are afraid of Verizon, I think that they do
understand the meaning of dismissed with predjudice though and have no
way
to complain
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:1blpl.46156$ci2.13...@newsfe09.iad...
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:26:56 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
Does the binary file which is being distributed reside on the verizon
server? If so, then Verizon would be required to make the source
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
No, copyright law grants a monopoly on what may be done (e.g., copying,
public performance, ...), not where it may be done (who owns the server).
Copyright law contains exceptions and distinctions for digital
copying over networks. And when a user initiates an action from
a
Rjack wrote:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/99-1551P.ZO
The above ruling is *binding* on every federal court in the land.
The above ruling is was about a court dismissing a case
upon the merits, not a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiffs.
Not only that, the Supreme Court concluded
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
copying over networks. And when a user initiates an action from
a browser that goes to a webserver which obtains a file from
Hugh? In the case of
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
the initiator of an action relevant to the copyright laws is
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Copyright_Directive
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML
(27) The mere provision of physical facilities for enabling
or making a communication does not in itself amount to
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Copyright_Directive
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML
(27) The mere provision of physical facilities for enabling
or making a communication does not in
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Copyright_Directive
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML
(27) The mere provision of physical facilities for enabling
or making a communication does not in itself
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message
news:axvpl.58231$6r1.31...@newsfe19.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
Well, the link resolves to downloads.verizon.net and that is most
certainly a Verizon site.
You cannot know from the outside what the Verizon webserver
is doing when it processes
Rjack wrote:
Yeh. . . especially since it ain't got no friggin' choice.
Why do you believe they had no choice?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
A dismissal with prejudice just means you can't refile for a
violation that has already occurred. You can always refile for
violations occuring after that.
Rjack, how come you don't cite cases when amicus_curious gets the
law wrong?
OK Rahul. Here's your
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
A dismissal with prejudice just means you can't refile for a
violation that has already occurred. You can always refile for
violations occuring after that.
Rjack, how come you don't cite cases when amicus_curious gets the
law wrong?
OK
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
To clarify, suppose somebody hits you, and you sue him, and he
succeeds in persuading you to dismiss with prejudice. Does this
now give that person a lifetime license to hit you any time he
wishes? Citations would be great!
To clarify, suppose somebody lies about you
Rjack wrote:
The BusyBox suits are over. Get over spinning the
hypothetical settlements.
After each case was settled, the defendants or their agents
made the source code properly available under the GPL.
Move on to creating explanations to justify the SFLC's evasion of an
interpretation of
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Rjack wrote:
The BusyBox suits are over. Get over spinning the
hypothetical settlements.
After each case was settled, the defendants or their agents
made the source code properly available under the GPL.
Move on to creating explanations to justify the
David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Rjack wrote:
The BusyBox suits are over. Get over spinning the
hypothetical settlements.
After each case was settled, the defendants or their agents
made the source code properly available under the GPL.
Move on to creating
Rjack wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Rjack wrote:
The BusyBox suits are over. Get over spinning the
hypothetical settlements.
After each case was settled, the defendants or their agents
made the source code properly available under the GPL.
Move on to
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Rjack wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Rjack wrote:
The BusyBox suits are over. Get over spinning the
hypothetical settlements.
After each case was settled, the defendants or their agents
made the source code properly available under
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message
news:xo-dnwfrqlit8jxunz2dnuvz_t3in...@giganews.com...
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Rjack wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Rjack wrote:
The BusyBox suits are over. Get over spinning the hypothetical
settlements.
After each
Rjack wrote:
I would never brag about being so insignificant that no one even
notices me.
The purpose of the FSF and the GPL is not be famous. It is to insure,
as best they can, that users of software have the right to read, run,
modify, and share it. This is exactly the case for the software
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
I would never brag about being so insignificant that no one even
notices me.
The purpose of the FSF and the GPL is not be famous. It is to insure,
as best they can, that users of software have the right ...
And how do the visitors/users of downloaded
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And how do the visitors/users of downloaded software from
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
suppose to know that they have the all the rights reserved to the
copyright owners?
I assume those people already have the routers for which they
are
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
I would never brag about being so insignificant that no one even
notices me.
The purpose of the FSF and the GPL is not be famous. It is to insure,
as best they can, that users of software have the right to read, run,
modify, and share it. This is exactly the
1 - 100 of 480 matches
Mail list logo
