Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org writes: Note that even as you continue to bombard GNU with continually repeated insults (yes, insults), there is no call to censor you, and I can guarantee to you that Richard Stallman would not countenance any such censoring, were he to express a view. Well, he would, he has expressed such views for other mailing lists and considered removing one or two members appropriate. It would be only censorship if specific posts got through, not if all posts by some members were to be deleted automaatically. I don't think you'd even get RMS to join this absurd definition. Shutting a particular person out is censorship. When this person is posting excessive nonsense, usually crossposted to inflammatory groups with different content, under pseudonyms because he would not want to be associated with the sort of drivel he puts forth, then this censorship may simply be a necessary evil. You can't argue with people who _want_ to pick a fight. I'm somewhat ambivalent about putting Rjack off list distribution, but then he'll be sure to come back with a new pseudonym and more spite. Not much use in that. Terekhov is different. He actually puts his name on the line. And he apparently believes in his own drivel and weird mental jumps. Yes, he is out to deride the GNU project and the GPL, but at least he is serious about it. Ruling him off the list would not just be censoring provocation, but also hidden in all his provocation and however misguided, content. He has something to say, however wrong he may turn out all the time. Rjack hasn't. Shutting either of them off would certainly be censorship. But the cases are different. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org writes: On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:27:34AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote: You know, There's only so much skill fine tuning you can do when you fight dolls. Rjack, Therekov, amicus something, and all those trolls will NEVER see this or that. Their sole purpose is to make people loose time answering them and to polute mailing lists. I'm not quite convinced of that - I suspect that one of them in particular got caught out by the GPL in the past, and hasn't stopped bawling like a 7 year old how he's really right. Another stated some while back that being disparaging about GNU was his hobby. They're paid for it. Any particular reason you say that? I just can't believe a crazy person would be able to so relentelessly bother people in such elaborate ways for such a long time. You've never been to school? In pretty much every larger social group, some people derive a sense of power and self-esteem from pettishly picking on others. Just because you are mostly confronted with civil people does not mean that they are the only kind around. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:27:34AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote: ok, how do you propose to protect legitimate users from the constant harassing of either crazy or paid people? I'd like to know. That's what the folks over at OpenBSD-Misc think about a self-righteous, hypocritical little prick polluting their mailing list named Rui Miguel. If you know him you should send him a copy of your brilliant lecture on protecting legitimate users from harassing posts. I'm sure he'd appreciate it. BEGIN POST: *** To: OpenBSD-Misc m...@... Subject: Richard Stallman... Date: Friday, January 4, 2008 - 10:05 am Hello, We're all tired of explaining to Richard Stallman about how he's wrong. It somehow isn't registering with him, that, or he's not willing to accept his position of being wrong. Either ways, by replying to his emails we are creating more noise than required and giving him more importance than is due. Could we all please stop responding to his emails as well as emails from trollers like Rui Seabra? . . . END POST. http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2008/1/6/541772/thread Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 01:15:36PM -0400, Rjack wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:27:34AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote: ok, how do you propose to protect legitimate users from the constant harassing of either crazy or paid people? I'd like to know. That's what the folks over at OpenBSD-Misc think about a self-righteous, hypocritical little prick polluting their mailing list named Rui Miguel. If you know him you should send him a copy of your brilliant lecture on protecting legitimate users from harassing posts. I'm sure he'd appreciate it. BEGIN POST: *** To: OpenBSD-Misc m...@... Subject: Richard Stallman... Date: Friday, January 4, 2008 - 10:05 am Hello, We're all tired of explaining to Richard Stallman about how he's wrong. It somehow isn't registering with him, that, or he's not willing to accept his position of being wrong. Either ways, by replying to his emails we are creating more noise than required and giving him more importance than is due. Could we all please stop responding to his emails as well as emails from trollers like Rui Seabra? . . . END POST. http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2008/1/6/541772/thread How funny, I (who am a fan of OpenBSD) merely pointed out a couple of errors and false statements, and was attacked by vicious vocal people way, way beyond anything reasonable. It is funny that you have it so at hand, when Therekov joined that thread just to further entice the foul humours of some vocal morons. More proof that you're just fabricated characters full of references at hand to use professionally on mailing lists in order to harass legitimate users? Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 16th day of Discord in the YOLD 3175 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 04:29:29PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: Any particular reason you say that? I just can't believe a crazy person would be able to so relentelessly bother people in such elaborate ways for such a long time. You've never been to school? In pretty much every larger social group, some people derive a sense of power and self-esteem from pettishly picking on others. Just because you are mostly confronted with civil people does not mean that they are the only kind around. I think it is quite innapropriate to compare with children. Petty children are normal. Petty humans are normal. Rjack, Therekov and their other aliases would redefine the meaning of petty, if it wasn't intentional (and most assuredly paid) behaviour. Rui -- Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 16th day of Discord in the YOLD 3175 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Good Morning, RJack! Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Please also get out a bit, socialise with people other than RMS and go for a reality check on what GNU is. I just can't seem to tear myself away from him. Pant. Pant. And that is the plain truth. You're obsessed by him. If you look closely at photographs of him, you'll see he doesn't really have horns or a barbed tail. Now you that have repeatedly inferred that I'm a dick while lecturing me on insulting people, why not go have a nice cup of coffee and contemplate the meaning of don't be a hypocritical, self-righteous prick? No, you've misunderstood me yet again. I have imputed that you HAVE BEEN BEHAVING like a dick, on the assumption you're quite able to behave congenially too. That's one of the lamest rhetorical distinction without a difference excuses I've ever heard. Not at all. Everybody behaves like a dick from time to time, it's part of being human. Nearly everybody recognises this in themselves, and backs off, apologises, or resolves not to do it again, as appropriate. I have commented on what you have done, not what you are, with the request that you change your behaviour. So... I'm not *really* a dick -- I just act like a dick huh? Better phrased, you have been acting like a dick, but there's nothing compelling you to carry on doing so. The way I see it, your complaints may be may easily addressed: 1) Get permission to moderate the Free Software Foundation's servers or; 2) Use a killfile (quick and efficient) or; 3) Continue to engage in a pissing contest with me (i.e. feed the troll), as I have a substantial amount of free time available or; 4) Stop playing big brother protector to those you perceive I've insulted since it is demeaning to them to imply they can't defend themselves or; 5) Just shut the fuck up since you are obviously a hypocritical, self-righteous prick. You just don't get it, probably you don't want to. Trolls have extremely poor cognitive skills. Not always. I don't think you're a troll, though. I think you've been quite sincere in what you've been writing. A troll in a hole would have stopped digging by now. Most people around Usenet, mailing lists and the like, recognise that basic courtesy is a prerequisite for the group/list/forum to work properly. Ahh...courtesy. I've thoroughly reviewed the history of this group's messages and found myself to be the lone poster to insult anyone. Look further - lots of posters other than yourself have insulted people. When that courtesy is lacking, the group becomes dysfunctional, as gnu.misc.discuss has clearly become. Maybe that's what you want. If it's a dysfunctional group why are *you* posting here? In the hope that it will start working again. Are you capable of backing off? Uhhh... you just chose alternative #3 above: 3) Continue to engage in a pissing contest with me (i.e. feed the troll), as I have a substantial amount of free time available. What else do you do in your free time? ALAN MACKENZIE IS A SELF-RIGHTEOUS HYPOCRITE !!! Well thank you! ;-) Of recognising that other people also have rights? Like the God given right to choose to use a killfile when desired? Me or any other individual poster using a killfile won't solve the core problem in this mailing list, namely that the massive number of obsessive postings on one tiny topic is disuading people from posting on the list. I sincerely suggest you ask a good friend, assuming you have one, to tell you what he/she REALLY thinks of you, and to listen to what gets said. I don't have any good friends. I pissed them all off when I insulted them. I hope you're being sarcastic there. But think of this. Your entire voluminous output here is based on hate, hate for a GNU which is some dark cult whose sole purpose is to destroy whatever it is you hold dear and turn the world communist. Yet this GNU doesn't exist, it's a product of your fantasy; the real GNU is a body of software. Now some people around here, but not me, might find it quite funny that you hate so intensely something that doesn't exist. I earnestly recommend you to redirect your energies to something that you love - whether that's fostering proprietary software, singing tenor in a local operatic society, restoring junk cars, exploring South America, whatever. If there isn't anything you love, then get something. It makes for a much better life. Anyhow, I'll be busy with other things for the rest of the day, so I wish you a good one. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:27:34AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote: You know, There's only so much skill fine tuning you can do when you fight dolls. Rjack, Therekov, amicus something, and all those trolls will NEVER see this or that. Their sole purpose is to make people loose time answering them and to polute mailing lists. I'm not quite convinced of that - I suspect that one of them in particular got caught out by the GPL in the past, and hasn't stopped bawling like a 7 year old how he's really right. Another stated some while back that being disparaging about GNU was his hobby. They're paid for it. Any particular reason you say that? I just can't believe a crazy person would be able to so relentelessly bother people in such elaborate ways for such a long time. I'm seriously tempted to just give this list away, but I'm still (naively?) hoping the list admins would do anything, but I suspect even they are long gone. Oh no, we're still here. :-) Glad to know! :) I do moderation on some other GNU mailing lists, but not this one. The moderation is purely to exclude advertising and, occasionally, excessive swearing. Once you get into censorship, no matter how good the reasons, you are on a slippery slope to being no better than the people you're shutting out. Paul Graham http://www.paulgraham.com/ discussed this with regard to blocking lists for filtering mail; people set up a new clean blocking list because of the corruption in the one they left, and in their turn become corrupt themselves - the power goes to their head. ok, how do you propose to protect legitimate users from the constant harassing of either crazy or paid people? I'd like to know. Best, Rui -- This statement is false. Today is Pungenday, the 15th day of Discord in the YOLD 3175 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:27:34AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote: ok, how do you propose to protect legitimate users from the constant harassing of either crazy or paid people? I'd like to know. Yeh. . . legitimate users are laughing their asses off while contemplating the thought of you supercilious Freetard morons protecting them. Do you wear your Spiderman costume while on protection patrol? Get over it dotCommies! The open source lion has caught the bleating GNU. Your free software is rapidly being supplanted with real open BSD, Apache and other permissive licensed software. http://dotcommie.net/feed/index.php?id=160 The so called trolls Rjack, Therekov, amicus something are only a few of many who are willing to call you GNUtian Freetards on your illegal GPL license scam. You will continue to be called out till your pretentious socialist scheme is finally buried. Stop whining. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote: You know, There's only so much skill fine tuning you can do when you fight dolls. Rjack, Therekov, amicus something, and all those trolls will NEVER see this or that. Their sole purpose is to make people loose time answering them and to polute mailing lists. I'm not quite convinced of that - I suspect that one of them in particular got caught out by the GPL in the past, and hasn't stopped bawling like a 7 year old how he's really right. Another stated some while back that being disparaging about GNU was his hobby. They're paid for it. Any particular reason you say that? It's just that even the sort of people who don't like this list working properly must have some sort of standards, a level beneath which they just won't sink. There are in this world, sadly, frustrated ineffectual people who get their only sense of significance by mithering others, yet don't achieve anything in their own right. You can sometimes see people like this on local club committees, and so on. Trouble is, Usenet allows them to gather, a bit like mosquitoes over a swamp. Once they get there, erradicating them is the Devil's own job. There's only one solution for this kind of people: 1. ignore 2. zero tolerance It's not a contradiction, the solution requires both. In 1, you just have to gain a little more shielding, you're getting affected by the line noise. Instead of increasing the strength don't add up to the interference. In 2, you can do lots of things: flag them as astroturfers, trolls, whatever, or outright shut them up. I go for the flag as soon as the typical signals are caught: either direct evidence, or a defiance of logic that can only be explained with the arduous intentionality of someone who's paid to do that. As for me, I haven't read a single thread of interest in gnu misc discuss for many years. Even those that could be interesting are quickly polluted by the trolls. Yes. Depressingly common on Usenet. I'm seriously tempted to just give this list away, but I'm still (naively?) hoping the list admins would do anything, but I suspect even they are long gone. Oh no, we're still here. :-) I do moderation on some other GNU mailing lists, but not this one. The moderation is purely to exclude advertising and, occasionally, excessive swearing. Once you get into censorship, no matter how good the reasons, you are on a slippery slope to being no better than the people you're shutting out. Paul Graham http://www.paulgraham.com/ discussed this with regard to blocking lists for filtering mail; people set up a new clean blocking list because of the corruption in the one they left, and in their turn become corrupt themselves - the power goes to their head. The other thing, I think these people are posting on Usenet rather than the mailing list, and if they're not they could easily do so. The newsgroup isn't a moderated one. It would be nice to just use a kill file; trouble is, that just fixes the unimportant part of the problem. The only practicable thing to do, as you suggest, is for everybody (hi, Hyman!) to agree that the topic of the legal validity of the GPL under USA jurisdictions has been talked out, and not to rise to the baiting of these people who keep raising the topic (and who, I admit, are masters at it). Rui -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:15:32 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote: The GPL isn't a contract. It's a license which lays out the conditions under which someone has permission to copy and distribute a covered work. If someone copies and distributes a covered work without adhering to the conditions, he is liable for copyright infringement. Rjacks argument is that because the GPL is unenforceable there is no liability, although I've not seen a clear explanation for the premise. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Alan Mackenzie wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack, Therekov, amicus something, and all those trolls will NEVER see this or that. Their sole purpose is to make people loose time answering them and to polute mailing lists. Oh no, we're still here. :-) I do moderation on some other GNU mailing lists, but not this one. The moderation is purely to exclude advertising and, occasionally, excessive swearing. Once you get into censorship, no matter how good the reasons, you are on a slippery slope to being no better than the people you're shutting out. The posts by the above mentioned trolls are, in general, constrained to the topic of intellectual property and copyright licensing. When ad hominen attacks are launched against thoughtful individuals posting to this newsgroup, there is, of course, going to be a return in kind. What do you think the g-n-u in gnu.misc.discuss stands for? It's a recursive acronym standing for Gnu's Not Unix. It's the informal trademark of a fervent socialist named Richard Stallman who has endeavored to abolish the foundations of intellectual property in society. So is this public newsgroup your/his personal propaganda forum? Are posters limited to chanting glowing praise for Free Software in this public newsgroup? I suspect Stallman worshipers such as yourself wish it so. Anything anyone posts that you don't agree with is quickly labeled trolling. Unfortunately one man's troll is another man's savior. Believe it or not, some folks don't automatically swoon and roll over when the great anointed GNU leader speaks. The Free Software Foundation's representatives have a long history of propounding crackpot legal theories in support of their push to eliminate intellectual property. They make specious, expansive claims about intellectual property licensing, with the goal in mind of intimidating non-believers. Obviously you wish this newsgroup to be one more FSF propaganda organ, grinding out the anti-intellectual property religion of Stallman and his acolytes. Well... it isn't. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack, Therekov, amicus something, and all those trolls will NEVER see this or that. Their sole purpose is to make people loose time answering them and to polute mailing lists. Oh no, we're still here. :-) I do moderation on some other GNU mailing lists, but not this one. The moderation is purely to exclude advertising and, occasionally, excessive swearing. Once you get into censorship, no matter how good the reasons, you are on a slippery slope to being no better than the people you're shutting out. The posts by the above mentioned trolls are, in general, constrained to the topic of intellectual property and copyright licensing. Yes. There's much more to GNU than licensing and intellectual property. Your (plural) posts on one small (if significant) aspect of the GPL are so repetitive that they are spam. Their effect is to drive out all meaningful discussion on other topics. That is Rui's complaint. Consider whether or not you want this newsgroup/mailing list to work as it was intended. Consider also whether you've been getting a kick out of all this obsessive posting, and whether it's consistent with the sort of person you want to be. When ad hominen attacks are launched against thoughtful individuals posting to this newsgroup, there is, of course, going to be a return in kind. Oh, you've noticed, have you? Just another thing: this mailing list and newsgroup was set up by the FSF to promote its purposes. Seeing as how you're using FSF infrastructure (in particular, its mailing list servers) to spread your views, perhaps some respect for that organization on your part is called for. Note that even as you continue to bombard GNU with continually repeated insults (yes, insults), there is no call to censor you, and I can guarantee to you that Richard Stallman would not countenance any such censoring, were he to express a view. Note, I'm not saying that the legitimacy of the GPL isn't a valid topic here; it clearly is. I'm saying that hundreds of posts on the topic, sometimes that many in a single week, is an abuse of this forum. If you want to continue attacking GNU and the FSF, and you've any sense of decency in you, you'll go and do it somewhere where you won't be abusing the FSF's resources. On the other hand, if you want intelligently to discuss a variety of topics relevant to GNU, I'd be more than happy to engage you in debate. [ Snip more attacks on GNU, GPL, and personal abuse of RMS. ] Sincerely, Rjack :) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] If you want to continue attacking GNU and the FSF, and you've any sense of decency in you, you'll go and do it somewhere where you won't be abusing the FSF's resources. Alan, I couldn't care less about the GNU/FSF's resource. As far as I'm concerned, the FSF/GNU could easily block terek...@web.de for the entire gnu/fsf dot org domains. I'm using resources of news.motzarella.org. Nice service. For free. Highly recommended. -- 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: More FSF hypocrisy
Note that even as you continue to bombard GNU with continually repeated insults (yes, insults), there is no call to censor you, and I can guarantee to you that Richard Stallman would not countenance any such censoring, were he to express a view. Well, he would, he has expressed such views for other mailing lists and considered removing one or two members appropriate. It would be only censorship if specific posts got through, not if all posts by some members were to be deleted automaatically. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: Note that even as you continue to bombard GNU with continually repeated insults (yes, insults), there is no call to censor you, and I can guarantee to you that Richard Stallman would not countenance any such censoring, were he to express a view. Well, he would, he has expressed such views for other mailing lists and considered removing one or two members appropriate. It would be only censorship if specific posts got through, not if all posts by some members were to be deleted automaatically. Wow. RMS while shooting Alfred in the head: Alan, after all, I've not censored him. regards, alexander. -- 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: More FSF hypocrisy
Alan Mackenzie wrote: Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack, Therekov, amicus something, and all those trolls will NEVER see this or that. Their sole purpose is to make people loose time answering them and to polute mailing lists. Oh no, we're still here. :-) I do moderation on some other GNU mailing lists, but not this one. The moderation is purely to exclude advertising and, occasionally, excessive swearing. Once you get into censorship, no matter how good the reasons, you are on a slippery slope to being no better than the people you're shutting out. The posts by the above mentioned trolls are, in general, constrained to the topic of intellectual property and copyright licensing. Yes. There's much more to GNU than licensing and intellectual property. There isn't anything to GNU except advancing the core belief that intellectual property and those who practice its principles are evil. The GPL is *THE* holy grail of the GNU World. Expose the GPL licensing scheme for what it is and the GNU World is relegated to the dustbin of failed socialist history. Your (plural) posts on one small (if significant) aspect of the GPL are so repetitive that they are spam. Their effect is to drive out all meaningful discussion on other topics. That is Rui's complaint. Consider whether or not you want this newsgroup/mailing list to work as it was intended. Consider also whether you've been getting a kick out of all this obsessive posting, and whether it's consistent with the sort of person you want to be. When ad hominen attacks are launched against thoughtful individuals posting to this newsgroup, there is, of course, going to be a return in kind. Oh, you've noticed, have you? Just another thing: this mailing list and newsgroup was set up by the FSF to promote its purposes. Seeing as how you're using FSF infrastructure (in particular, its mailing list servers) to spread your views, perhaps some respect for that organization on your part is called for. Although you may think that the Free Software Foundation owns Usenet it doesn't. If you don't want to read criticism posted to Usenet then unlink the FSF servers from Usenet or moderate (censor) them. I post to servers owned by Giganews. Note that even as you continue to bombard GNU with continually repeated insults (yes, insults), there is no call to censor you, and I can guarantee to you that Richard Stallman would not countenance any such censoring, were he to express a view. One man's perceived insult is another man's ode to truth. Note, I'm not saying that the legitimacy of the GPL isn't a valid topic here; it clearly is. I'm saying that hundreds of posts on the topic, sometimes that many in a single week, is an abuse of this forum. If you want to continue attacking GNU and the FSF, and you've any sense of decency in you, you'll go and do it somewhere where you won't be abusing the FSF's resources. I've never considered truthful and accurate legal analysis as abuse. On the other hand, if you want intelligently to discuss a variety of topics relevant to GNU, I'd be more than happy to engage you in debate. The GNU core belief is the socialist's dream of the destruction of intellectual property. Its leaders love to spout vitriol concerning people who hold contrary beliefs. Before you launch into a long-winded denial why not read Richard Stallman: That's unethical, they shouldn't be making any money. I hope to see all proprietary software wiped out. That's what I aim for. That would be a World in which our freedom is respected. A proprietary program is a program that is not free. That is to say, a program that does respect the user's essential rights. That's evil. A proprietary program is part of a predatory scheme where people who don't value their freedom are drawn into giving it up in order to gain some kind of practical convenience. And then once they're there, it's harder and harder to get out. Our goal is to rescue people from this. http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/bangalore-rms-transcript How about Eben Moglen: http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/ Freeing the Mind: Free Software and the Death of Proprietary Culture The dotCommunist Manifesto The DotCommunist Manifesto: How Culture Became Property and What We're Going to Do About It Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of Copyright When you represent an organization dedicated to churning out propaganda supporting such provocative GNU ideals then you should expect return fire. Stop whining! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra r...@1407.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack, Therekov, amicus something, and all those trolls will NEVER see this or that. Their sole purpose is to make people loose time answering them and to polute mailing lists. Oh no, we're still here. :-) I do moderation on some other GNU mailing lists, but not this one. The moderation is purely to exclude advertising and, occasionally, excessive swearing. Once you get into censorship, no matter how good the reasons, you are on a slippery slope to being no better than the people you're shutting out. The posts by the above mentioned trolls are, in general, constrained to the topic of intellectual property and copyright licensing. Yes. There's much more to GNU than licensing and intellectual property. There isn't anything to GNU except advancing the core belief that intellectual property and those who practice its principles are evil. Don't be silly. GNU is primarily a collection of high quality software which is almost (but not quite) a complete operating system. The bit about intellectual property being evil is a fairly minor facet of GNU, and apart from 1 or 2 people, I don't know anybody who takes it seriously. The GPL is *THE* holy grail of the GNU World. Expose the GPL licensing scheme for what it is and the GNU World is relegated to the dustbin of failed socialist history. Ah, so you're a knight in shining armour, bravely standing up those helpless people oppressed by the wicked GPL. Where do you get all these prolix phrases like relegated to the dustbin of failed socialist history from? Have you been watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail? How many people do you think see things the way you do? Tell me, what harm has GNU or the GPL ever done to you personally? What drives you to attacking it obsessively in this mailing list/newsgroup? Do you not have some more interesting hobby to fill your time up with? Your (plural) posts on one small (if significant) aspect of the GPL are so repetitive that they are spam. Their effect is to drive out all meaningful discussion on other topics. That is Rui's complaint. Consider whether or not you want this newsgroup/mailing list to work as it was intended. Consider also whether you've been getting a kick out of all this obsessive posting, and whether it's consistent with the sort of person you want to be. Just another thing: this mailing list and newsgroup was set up by the FSF to promote its purposes. Seeing as how you're using FSF infrastructure (in particular, its mailing list servers) to spread your views, perhaps some respect for that organization on your part is called for. Although you may think that the Free Software Foundation owns Usenet it doesn't. If you don't want to read criticism posted to Usenet then unlink the FSF servers from Usenet or moderate (censor) them. I post to servers owned by Giganews. sigh. The FSF doesn't own Usenet, and I'm quite aware of that. But there's a golden principle behind all the detailed netiquette, a single overriding principle, and that is don't be a dick. You've been violating that principle on this mailing list for a long time. What you post isn't criticism - it might be, if you posted it once or twice, discussed it, then moved on. What you post is spam. Note that even as you continue to bombard GNU with continually repeated insults (yes, insults), there is no call to censor you, and I can guarantee to you that Richard Stallman would not countenance any such censoring, were he to express a view. One man's perceived insult is another man's ode to truth. There's nothing perceived about your insults - they're not to do with the other person's interpretation, they're crude insults however you look at them, regardless of whether they might be true. Note, I'm not saying that the legitimacy of the GPL isn't a valid topic here; it clearly is. I'm saying that hundreds of posts on the topic, sometimes that many in a single week, is an abuse of this forum. If you want to continue attacking GNU and the FSF, and you've any sense of decency in you, you'll go and do it somewhere where you won't be abusing the FSF's resources. I've never considered truthful and accurate legal analysis as abuse. Join the ranks of the Jehovah's Witnesses and others who have the truth and feel this entitles them to bludgeon it into others. The truthfulness and accuracy of your legal analysis, which are anything but uncontroversial, don't excuse abusiveness. But your abusiveness will certainly ensure that nobody who matters will take you seriously. On the other hand, if you want intelligently to discuss a variety of topics relevant to GNU, I'd be more than happy to engage you in debate. The GNU core belief is the
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: sigh Please think about the dictum don't be a dick. Please also get out a bit, socialise with people other than RMS and go for a reality check on what GNU is. Sigh... Now you that have repeatedly inferred that I'm a dick while lecturing me on insulting people, why not go have a nice cup of coffee and contemplate the meaning of don't be a hypocritical, self-righteous prick? No, you've misunderstood me yet again. I have imputed that you HAVE BEEN BEHAVING like a dick, on the assumption you're quite able to behave congenially too. I have commented on what you have done, not what you are, with the request that you change your behaviour. The way I see it, your complaints may be may easily addressed: 1) Get permission to moderate the Free Software Foundation's servers or; 2) Use a killfile (quick and efficient) or; 3) Continue to engage in a pissing contest with me (i.e. feed the troll), as I have a substantial amount of free time available or; 4) Stop playing big brother protector to those you perceive I've insulted since it is demeaning to them to imply they can't defend themselves or; 5) Just shut the fuck up since you are obviously a hypocritical, self-righteous prick. You just don't get it, probably you don't want to. Most people around Usenet, mailing lists and the like, recognise that basic courtesy is a prerequisite for the group/list/forum to work properly. When that courtesy is lacking, the group becomes dysfunctional, as gnu.misc.discuss has clearly become. Maybe that's what you want. Are you capable of backing off? Of recognising that other people also have rights? The world doesn't revolve around you. I sincerely suggest you ask a good friend, assuming you have one, to tell you what he/she REALLY thinks of you, and to listen to what gets said. Good night. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Alan Mackenzie wrote: Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie wrote: sigh Please think about the dictum don't be a dick. Big dick or little dick? I like the big ones myself. Please also get out a bit, socialise with people other than RMS and go for a reality check on what GNU is. I just can't seem to tear myself away from him. Pant. Pant. Sigh... Now you that have repeatedly inferred that I'm a dick while lecturing me on insulting people, why not go have a nice cup of coffee and contemplate the meaning of don't be a hypocritical, self-righteous prick? No, you've misunderstood me yet again. I have imputed that you HAVE BEEN BEHAVING like a dick, on the assumption you're quite able to behave congenially too. That's one of the lamest rhetorical distinction without a difference excuses I've ever heard. I have commented on what you have done, not what you are, with the request that you change your behaviour. So... I'm not *really* a dick -- I just act like a dick huh? Well, I have just been imputing that you HAVE BEEN BEHAVING like a hypocritical, self-righteous prick. I have commented on what you have done, not what you are. Is everything better now? The way I see it, your complaints may be may easily addressed: 1) Get permission to moderate the Free Software Foundation's servers or; 2) Use a killfile (quick and efficient) or; 3) Continue to engage in a pissing contest with me (i.e. feed the troll), as I have a substantial amount of free time available or; 4) Stop playing big brother protector to those you perceive I've insulted since it is demeaning to them to imply they can't defend themselves or; 5) Just shut the fuck up since you are obviously a hypocritical, self-righteous prick. You just don't get it, probably you don't want to. Trolls have extremely poor cognitive skills. Most people around Usenet, mailing lists and the like, recognise that basic courtesy is a prerequisite for the group/list/forum to work properly. Ahh...courtesy. I've thoroughly reviewed the history of this group's messages and found myself to be the lone poster to insult anyone. When that courtesy is lacking, the group becomes dysfunctional, as gnu.misc.discuss has clearly become. Maybe that's what you want. If it's a dysfunctional group why are *you* posting here? Are you capable of backing off? Uhhh... you just chose alternative #3 above: 3) Continue to engage in a pissing contest with me (i.e. feed the troll), as I have a substantial amount of free time available. ALAN MACKENZIE IS A SELF-RIGHTEOUS HYPOCRITE !!! Of recognising that other people also have rights? Like the God given right to choose to use a killfile when desired? The world doesn't revolve around you. If it doesn't then it probably should. I sincerely suggest you ask a good friend, assuming you have one, to tell you what he/she REALLY thinks of you, and to listen to what gets said. I don't have any good friends. I pissed them all off when I insulted them. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Given, in the context of the GPL: (a) permissions (b) requirements Question: How can one possibly fulfill (b) without first taking advantage of (a)? Your answer: One of the GPL's requirements for copying and distributing a covered work is that it must be accompanied by a copy of the GPL. Thus, when you distribute the work which you have created properly, the receiver can compel you to honor the GPL. If you make and distribute copies without including the GPL, you are violating copyright and the rights holder can compel you to stop infringing and pay penalties. (a) and (b) are simultaneous. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: Uhm. No 17 USC 103(b)? 17 USC 103(b) is irrelevant to the GPL. That section of the law refers to the copyrights that the creator of a combined work gets on the part of the work that is his alone, and that this added copyright does not affect the duration of the copyright of the existing material. The ORIGINAL and MODIFYING authors BOTH waive their exclusive copyrights in the work as a whole in order to distribute. It's a bilateral contract. It's not a bilateral contract, and no one (in the case of the GPL) is waiving their exclusive rights. Each author, independently acting under 17 USC 106, authorizes the making and distribution of copies of the work he owns provided certain conditions are met. When the author of the combined work licenses it as a whole under the GPL, he can do this because the license of each piece, created by the author of that piece, permits him to do so. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
amicus_curious wrote: If Verizon was deficient and unable to properly convey the license, the GPL assigns it to the end user automatically anyway. The end user has a license regardless. That is not true. How can the GPL assign anything to anyone who has not received software under its auspices? Perhaps you are misreading GPLv2? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. This refers to people who have received the program accompanied by the license. That is not possible since the GPL gives anyone who possesses the binary a license to use it. Now we are first of all just talking about end users. Don't confuse the issue with considerations for distributors. Again, how can the GPL give anything to anyone? The GPL only applies when a work is distributed under it. The GPL imposes requirements upon people who make and distribute copies, and when conveyed to a recipient, gives the recipient the ability to make certain demands from the distributor. It does not apply out of thin air when it has not been used. As a simple counterexample, someone may create a program and distribute the same copy under two separate licenses, one GPL and one proprietary. How can the holder of a bare binary know which license should apply? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
amicus_curious wrote: Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote And I pointed out that in fact, how an end user gets his copy can matter. Not if the copy is under the GPL. But the copy is only under the GPL if the end user was given the copy under the GPL! A random binary without a license can't be copied or distributed by the end user. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: Thank God Hyman finally admitted there are rights holders -- that's *PLURAL* (see the 's' in 'holders'?) as in bilateral parties. Maybe there's hope for Hyman after all. I was actually referring to the many people who release under the GPL, but of course combined works have many rights holders, the individual authors who have contributed to the work. Each of those authors individually, not bilaterally, under 17 USC 106, authorizes the making and distribution of (possibly modified) copies of the piece he himself controls provided certain conditions are met. When the author of a combined work distributes the work as a whole under the GPL, he may do this because he has the authorizations from each author. That authorization comes from each author having licensed his piece under the GPL or under a different license that permits distribution under the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: The goalposts have mrely moved. No. The goals are and have always been the same - that software users should have the right to run, read, modify, and share the programs that they receive. You are being distracted by your dislike of the GPL and by the failure of your attempts to show that there is anything wrong with it, but the goals have never changed at all. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Given, in the context of the GPL: (a) permissions (b) requirements Question: How can one possibly fulfill (b) without first taking advantage of (a)? Your answer: One of the GPL's requirements for copying and distributing a covered work is that it must be accompanied by a copy of the GPL. The GPL is not embedded in the copyrighted source code file therefore that requirement is a contractual covenant and not a scope-of-use restriction or a condition precedent. I know that you don't understand the difference between covenants, scope-of-use and conditions precedent. That doesn't change the fact that all three mechanisms are used in copyright contracts and that not only contract language but also context many times determine which mechanism is at play. It is childish to read a single, isolated decision which fails to differentiate between the language of the three mechanisms and call everything you see in any copyright license a condition. The enforcement of a copyright license raises issues that lie at the intersection of copyright and contract law, an area of law that is not yet well developed. We must decide an issue of first impression: whether, where two sophisticated parties have negotiated a copyright license and dispute its scope, the copyright holder who has demonstrated likely success on the merits is entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm. We hold that it is, but only after the copyright holder has established that the disputed terms are limitations on the scope of the license rather than independent contractual covenants. In other words, before Sun can gain the benefits of copyright enforcement, it must definitively establish that the rights it claims were violated are copyright, not contractual, rights.; Sun Microsystems, Inc., v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115 (1999). Hyman you are like a child who is first shown a picture of a dog and then calls anything with four legs (i.e. a cat or a deer) a dog. Thus, when you distribute the work which you have created properly, the receiver can compel you to honor the GPL. If you make and distribute copies without including the GPL, you are violating copyright and the rights holder can compel you to stop infringing and pay penalties. (a) and (b) are simultaneous. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: The GPL is not embedded in the copyrighted source code file therefore that requirement is a contractual covenant and not a scope-of-use restriction or a condition precedent. What nonsense. Accompanying the copy of the covered code with the GPL is a condition of being permitted to make the copy. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: Uhm. No 17 USC 103(b)? 17 USC 103(b) is irrelevant to the GPL. That section of the law refers to the copyrights that the creator of a combined work gets on the part of the work that is his alone, and that this added copyright does not affect the duration of the copyright of the existing material. The ORIGINAL and MODIFYING authors BOTH waive their exclusive copyrights in the work as a whole in order to distribute. It's a bilateral contract. It's not a bilateral contract, and no one (in the case of the GPL) is . Each author, independently acting under 17 USC 106, authorizes the making and distribution of copies of the work he owns provided certain conditions are met. When the author of the combined work licenses it as a whole under the GPL, he can do this because the license of each piece, created by the author of that piece, permits him to do so. ROFL. What do you think authorizes the making and distribution of copies is called in legal terms? It is called waiving their exclusive rights. ROFL. Try thinking before you push the keys. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: What do you think authorizes the making and distribution of copies is called in legal terms? It is called waiving their exclusive rights. If you mean in exactly the same sense that an author waives his exclusive rights when he allows a publisher to print and sell his books, fine. Words have connotations. You are using waive to imply that the copyright holders are relinquishing rights to their work. I am using authorize to emphasize that they are doing no such thing. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: What do you think authorizes the making and distribution of copies is called in legal terms? It is called waiving their exclusive rights. If you mean in exactly the same sense that an author waives his exclusive rights when he allows a publisher to print and sell his books, fine. Words have connotations. You are using waive to imply that the copyright holders are relinquishing rights to their work. He is using waive as in implicit in a copyright license is the promise not to sue for copyright infringement. See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673, 677 (9th Cir. 1996), citing De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, 242(1927) (finding that a nonexclusive license is, in essence, a mere waiver of the right to sue the licensee for infringement); see also Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that the granting of a nonexclusive license may be oral or by conduct and a such a license creates a waiver of the right to sue in copyright, but not the right to sue for breach of contract). regards, alexander. -- 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: More FSF hypocrisy
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Mah oh man, you're really dense. Before a copy can be made, it (i.e. future copy) must first be accompanied by a copy of the GPL? Do you have a Time Machine, Hyman? What in the world are you talking about? In order to make and distribute copies of GPLed works, you must include the GPL with the copies you make and distribute. What's a future copy? Are you trying to say that because the physical process of making a copy may involve multiple steps, or that the final copy consists of more than one file, this somehow invalidates the requirement? Here's a sample book contract: http://www.stonedragonpress.com/sub_contract.html 8 EDITING RIGHTS 1. The Publisher and its agents and employees will not change, add to, delete, abridge, or condense the text of the work or change its title without the express, itemized, and specific written consent of the author. Do you believe that, since books are not printed in their entirety all at once but rather in parts, the publishers are violating this section of the contract while they are printing the books? This is taking your wrongness to a whole new level! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Alexander Terekhov wrote: He is using waive as in implicit in a copyright license is the promise not to sue for copyright infringement. And that happens when the author grants his nonexclusive license to the copier. That grant happens as long as the copier complies with the conditions of the GPL. If the copier does not follow the conditions of the GPL, the author has not granted him any license and is in his rights to sue for copyright infringement. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message news:uf4zl.173520$xk6.65...@newsfe12.iad... amicus_curious wrote: If Verizon was deficient and unable to properly convey the license, the GPL assigns it to the end user automatically anyway. The end user has a license regardless. That is not true. How can the GPL assign anything to anyone who has not received software under its auspices? Perhaps you are misreading GPLv2? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. This refers to people who have received the program accompanied by the license. That is not what it says, silly. It says that parties who have received copies from you. It makes no distinction about whether or not the copy is given properly, according to their definitions, at least. Indeed, the whole section has its purpose as ensuring that the downstream user has a valid license, i.e. The act of running the Program is not restricted That is not possible since the GPL gives anyone who possesses the binary a license to use it. Now we are first of all just talking about end users. Don't confuse the issue with considerations for distributors. Again, how can the GPL give anything to anyone? The GPL only applies when a work is distributed under it. The GPL imposes requirements upon people who make and distribute copies, and when conveyed to a recipient, gives the recipient the ability to make certain demands from the distributor. It does not apply out of thin air when it has not been used. As a simple counterexample, someone may create a program and distribute the same copy under two separate licenses, one GPL and one proprietary. How can the holder of a bare binary know which license should apply? He doesn't need to know at all. The license issue being discussed is for using the software and the GPL plainly conveys that right to everyone who has a copy. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Mah oh man, you're really dense. Before a copy can be made, it (i.e. future copy) must first be accompanied by a copy of the GPL? Do you have a Time Machine, Hyman? What in the world are you talking about? In order to make and distribute copies of GPLed works, you must include the GPL with the copies you make and distribute. What's a future copy? Forget about and distribute for a moment. A copy lawfully made (e.g. made under authorization) falls under 17 USC 109. So thank you for your permission to distribute but it is redundant and not needed. Now think of a copy being made not containing the text of the GPL in a GPL'd work (a copy of which is being made). A copy of the GPL is another separate copy of the copyright work. Think of a CD accompanied by a copy of the GPL printed on a sheet of paper. What are the condition precedents that must be fulfilled before a CD can be made? See the light now, Hyman? Are you trying to say that because the physical process of making a copy may involve multiple steps, or that the final copy consists of more than one file, this somehow invalidates the requirement? Here's a sample book contract: http://www.stonedragonpress.com/sub_contract.html 8 EDITING RIGHTS 1. The Publisher and its agents and employees will not change, add to, delete, abridge, or condense the text of the work or change its title without the express, itemized, and specific written consent of the author. Do you believe that, since books are not printed in their entirety all Do you believe that 8.1 term above is a CONDITION PRECEDENT? Go to doctor, Hyman. regards, alexander. -- 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: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: He is using waive as in implicit in a copyright license is the promise not to sue for copyright infringement. And that happens when the author grants his nonexclusive license to the copier. That grant happens as long as the copier complies with the conditions of the GPL. If the copier does not follow the conditions of the GPL, the author has not granted him any license and is in his rights to sue for copyright infringement. There aren't any conditions precedent in the GPL, silly. regards, alexander. -- 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: More FSF hypocrisy
amicus_curious wrote: Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote news:uf4zl.173520$xk6.65...@newsfe12.iad... http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. This refers to people who have received the program accompanied by the license. That is not what it says, silly. It says that parties who have received copies from you. It makes no distinction about whether or not the copy is given properly, according to their definitions, at least. Indeed, the whole section has its purpose as ensuring that the downstream user has a valid license, i.e. The act of running the Program is not restricted It says received copies under this license. A recipient has received something under the GPL if the distributor has given it to him under the GPL, and that can only be done by giving a copy of the GPL along with the covered work. Otherwise, if the distributor had no other legal right to make and distribute copies, the recipient simply has an illegal copy of the work. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: What do you think authorizes the making and distribution of copies is called in legal terms? It is called waiving their exclusive rights. If you mean in exactly the same sense that an author waives his exclusive rights when he allows a publisher to print and sell his books, fine. Words have connotations. You are using waive to imply that the copyright holders are relinquishing rights to their work. I am using authorize to emphasize that they are doing no such thing. The authors are relenquishing their rights within contractual privity a concept which I know totally evades your understanding. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Mah oh man, you're really dense. Before a copy can be made, it (i.e. future copy) must first be accompanied by a copy of the GPL? Do you have a Time Machine, Hyman? What in the world are you talking about? In order to make and distribute copies of GPLed works, you must include the GPL with the copies you make and distribute. What's a future copy? Are you trying to say that because the physical process of making a copy may involve multiple steps, or that the final copy consists of more than one file, this somehow invalidates the requirement? Alexander is trying to explain to you that a requirement qualifies as a condition precedent to a copyright grant if and only if the requirement *must* occur *before* the grant of rights becomes effective (contract performance). Obviously, the requirement cannot depend on the grant of rights it claims to condition. 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 I know you can't understand this concept (linear ordering of events in time) so just deny it and call every thing you see in a copyright license a condition. You'll be legally incorrect in most cases but it'll make you feel better. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: 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 I know you can't understand this concept (linear ordering of events in time) so just deny it and call every thing you see in a copyright license a condition. You'll be legally incorrect in most cases but it'll make you feel better. The GPL isn't a contract. It's a license which lays out the conditions under which someone has permission to copy and distribute a covered work. If someone copies and distributes a covered work without adhering to the conditions, he is liable for copyright infringement. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The Artistic License states on its face that the document creates conditions... The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of conditions... The conditions set forth in the Artistic License... ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: [...] Hyman you are like a child who is first shown a picture of a dog and then calls anything with four legs (i.e. a cat or a deer) a dog. (From the test to become GNUtian) Given: One dog (Doggy) and one cat (Catty). Question: How many dogs do we have if you call Doggy a cat? Answer: [PASS] Zero. [FAIL] One. Calling Doggy a cat doesn't make it a cat. regards, alexander. -- 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: More FSF hypocrisy
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Forget about and distribute for a moment. No, I can't do that. The GPL tells you what you need to do in order to be authorized to make copies for distribution. Simply because the process of making and distributing those copies may have a manufacturing step in which the conditions are not met does not free you from carrying out the condition when you distribute. You do not acquire a first-sale free copy because of the vagaries of production. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack u...@example.net writes: Alexander is trying to explain to you that a requirement qualifies as a condition precedent to a copyright grant if and only if the requirement *must* occur *before* the grant of rights becomes effective (contract performance). Obviously, the requirement cannot depend on the grant of rights it claims to condition. I don't see the problem. While the CAFC interpreted the Artistic License as imposing a scope of use, I don't see why it or the GPL could not also impose a condition precedent. Before you satisfy the redistribution conditions in the GPL for a specific copy that you have made, you are not authorized to distribute that copy, although you were authorized to make the copy and keep and use it privately. If this still bothers you, consider the condition as a condition concurrent and not a condition precedent. Look it up. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: The authors are relenquishing their rights within contractual privity a concept which I know totally evades your understanding. Wikipedia to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity The doctrine of privity in contract law provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to it. OK, so? What does this have to do with relinquishing rights? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following See? A rights holder has the exclusive right to do and to authorize. Exercising the right to authorize is in no way a relinquishing of any right. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] The GPL isn't a contract. Hyman, please go to http://www.ibm.com/ibm/sjp/, click on Send e-mail, and let Sam know that his lawyers are a bunch of retards failing to grok that the GPL isn't a contract. http://groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-881.pdf -- SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is well settled that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp., 612 N.E.2d 289, 292 (N.Y. 1993) Nominal damages are always available in breach of contract action.). -- regards, alexander. -- 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: More FSF hypocrisy
Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-881.pdf Oh, goody! I love when your postings militate against your own thesis. Read the footnote on page 24: a fair and equitable result will be preferred over a harsh and unreasonable one, and an interpretation that will produce an inequitable result will be adopted only when the contract so expressly and unequivocally so provides that there is no other reasonable interpretation to be given it. Peirce v. Peirce, 994 P.2d 193, 198 (Utah 2000) This reflects what I've said before. No matter how GPL-skeptics twist and spin, the plain language and clear intention of the GPL are going to inform court decisions, and courts will enforce the conditions of the GPL as written. We've already seen this with the CAFC with respect to the Artistic License, and we've seen that Sam's lawyers have no qualms about treating the GPL as valid. No bad-faith code grabber will prevail. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rahul Dhesi wrote: [...] If this still bothers you, consider the condition as a condition concurrent and not a condition precedent. Look it up. Example: Bryan promises to buy Stevie's guitar for $1000 and Stevie promises to give Bryan the guitar when Bryan gives Stevie $1000. What does this have to do with the GPL, Rahul? regards, alexander. -- 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: More FSF hypocrisy
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: Alexander is trying to explain to you that a requirement qualifies as a condition precedent to a copyright grant if and only if the requirement *must* occur *before* the grant of rights becomes effective (contract performance). Obviously, the requirement cannot depend on the grant of rights it claims to condition. I don't see the problem. While the CAFC interpreted the Artistic License as imposing a scope of use, I don't see why it or the GPL could not also impose a condition precedent. Before you satisfy the redistribution conditions in the GPL for a specific copy that you have made, you are not authorized to distribute that copy, although you were authorized to make the copy and keep and use it privately. GPL section 2(b) says: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Rahul, do you really believe that you can cause source code to to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License *before* you ever distribute a copy of the source code to be licensed to those third parties? If this still bothers you, consider the condition as a condition concurrent and not a condition precedent. Look it up. Looking up a condition concurrent won't make it a condition precedent any more than looking up the definition of a cat will turn it into a dog. That's simply mooving the goalpost. Concurrent Conditions Conditions that require a *simultaneous* performance by the parties. Conditions Precedent Requires the happening of an event *before* a party is obligated to perform. Failure of the event to occur will mean that performance will not be required The whole idea of a condition precedent is that something must occur *BEFORE* something else occurs: This is not a case where payment of JMI's costs and public recognition of authorship were made conditions precedent to the granted right to play. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 225 (1981). In such a case, absent performance of the conditions, the license would not have issued and the Miracle's public performances of the song would have violated JMI's copyright. See Fantastic Fakes, 661 F.2d at 483; 3 M. Nimmer D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 10.15[A], at 10-121 (1996). But Albion did not make payment and recognition conditions precedent to the permission he gave to play the song. 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 § 224 (1981). Conditions precedent are disfavored and will not be read into a contract unless required by plain, unambiguous language. Effects Associates, 908 F.2d at 559 n. 7.; Jacob Maxwell, Inc. v. Veeck, 110 F.3d 749 (11th Cir. 1997). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack u...@example.net writes: Rahul, do you really believe that you can cause source code to to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License *before* you ever distribute a copy of the source code to be licensed to those third parties? If you really think this is a point over which any court of appeal will even waste a second, well, all you need to do is post a license where it may be read before people download any other copyrighted files. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: [...] This is not a case where payment of JMI's costs and public recognition of authorship were made conditions precedent to the granted right to play. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 225 (1981). In such a case, absent performance of the conditions, the license would not have issued and the Miracle's public performances of the song would have violated JMI's copyright. See Fantastic Fakes, 661 F.2d at 483; 3 M. Nimmer D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 10.15[A], at 10-121 (1996). But Albion did not make payment and recognition conditions precedent to the permission he gave to play the song. 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 § 224 (1981). Conditions precedent are disfavored and will not be read into a contract unless required by plain, unambiguous language. Effects Associates, 908 F.2d at 559 n. 7.; Jacob Maxwell, Inc. v. Veeck, 110 F.3d 749 (11th Cir. 1997). Consider a copyright license that says: (Bryan is Licensor and Stevie is Licensee) Stevie may copy, make derivative works, and distribute those works that are based on the covered source code provided that the following condition concurrent is fulfilled: Bryan will give Stevie $1000 for the Stevie's gitar, Stevie will give Bryan the guitar for $1000. When Brian gives Stevie $1000, Stevie must give Bryan the guitar. When Stevie gives Bryan the guitar, Bryan must give Stevie $1000. Both are conditions precedent forming condition concurrent to the grant of rights under the copyright law. The party who wants to make the grant of copyright rights above effective must perform its condition precedent in order to establish the duty of performance by the other party: Stevie gives Bryan the guitar/Brian gives Stevie $1000. -- 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: More FSF hypocrisy
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: The authors are relenquishing their rights within contractual privity a concept which I know totally evades your understanding. Wikipedia to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity The doctrine of privity in contract law provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to it. OK, so? What does this have to do with relinquishing rights? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following See? A rights holder has the exclusive right to do and to authorize. Exercising the right to authorize is in no way a relinquishing of any right. You know, There's only so much skill fine tuning you can do when you fight dolls. Rjack, Therekov, amicus something, and all those trolls will NEVER see this or that. Their sole purpose is to make people loose time answering them and to polute mailing lists. They're paid for it. There's only one solution for this kind of people: 1. ignore 2. zero tolerance It's not a contradiction, the solution requires both. In 1, you just have to gain a little more shielding, you're getting affected by the line noise. Instead of increasing the strength don't add up to the interference. In 2, you can do lots of things: flag them as astroturfers, trolls, whatever, or outright shut them up. I go for the flag as soon as the typical signals are caught: either direct evidence, or a defiance of logic that can only be explained with the arduous intentionality of someone who's paid to do that. As for me, I haven't read a single thread of interest in gnu misc discuss for many years. Even those that could be interesting are quickly polluted by the trolls. I'm seriously tempted to just give this list away, but I'm still (naively?) hoping the list admins would do anything, but I suspect even they are long gone. Rui -- All Hail Discordia! Today is Sweetmorn, the 13th day of Discord in the YOLD 3175 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:46:40PM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: The authors are relenquishing their rights within contractual privity a concept which I know totally evades your understanding. Wikipedia to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity The doctrine of privity in contract law provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to it. OK, so? What does this have to do with relinquishing rights? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following See? A rights holder has the exclusive right to do and to authorize. Exercising the right to authorize is in no way a relinquishing of any right. You know, There's only so much skill fine tuning you can do when you fight dolls. Rjack, Therekov, amicus something, and all those trolls will NEVER see this or that. Their sole purpose is to make people loose time answering them and to polute mailing lists. They're paid for it. Rui, are you any relation to Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnssota? Like you, Michelle has a tenuous grasp on reality. Are there voices telling you these things? There's only one solution for this kind of people: 1. ignore 2. zero tolerance Where the fuck is your killfile? Did you lose it on your last trip to Mars? It's not a contradiction, the solution requires both. Use that killfile Rui. Chant plonk, plonk, plonk. It'll soothe your seething pysche. In 1, you just have to gain a little more shielding, you're getting affected by the line noise. Instead of increasing the strength don't add up to the interference. In 2, you can do lots of things: flag them as astroturfers, trolls, whatever, or outright shut them up. I go for the flag as soon as the typical signals are caught: either direct evidence, or a defiance of logic that can only be explained with the arduous intentionality of someone who's paid to do that. As for me, I haven't read a single thread of interest in gnu misc discuss for many years. Why not go have a nice cup of tea and read Hot Rod Magazine instead? Even those that could be interesting are quickly polluted by the trolls. Troll, troll, troll your boat gently down the stream. . . I'm seriously tempted to just give this list away, No-no Rui! Tuck it under your mattress and read it years from now to help you remember the good old days! but I'm still (naively?) hoping the list admins would do anything, but I suspect even they are long gone. Why not try J. Edgar Hoover ? He'd fix those ol' trolls but good. Have a nice day Rui ! _ _ |R| |R| |J| /^^^\ |J| _|a|_ (| o |) _|a|_ _| |c| | _(_---_)_ | |c| |_ | | |k| |' |_| |_| `| |k| | | | | / \ | | \/ / /(. .)\ \ \/ \/ / / | . | \ \ \/ \ \/ /||Y||\ \/ / \__/ || || \__/ () () || || ooO Ooo ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:04:54 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote: All EULA would be contracts, yes? Not complying with an EULA opens up a can of worms. Depends on whether the EULA is ultimately found by the courts to be enforceable or not. Do please generalize as to whether other EULA are, or are not, contracts in your view. All EULAs are contracts. So, when an EULA is ignored, the usual response is copyright infringement, right? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:32:52 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote: IF A COPYRIGHT LICENSE EXISTS, ITS LANGUAGE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS A CONTRACT IN DETERMINING ITS COVENANTS FOR PURPOSES OF BREACH AND THEN EXAMINED FOR LANGUAGE DETERMINING SCOPE FOR PURPOSES OF INFRINGEMENT. Assuming this is so, what's your point? The point of an original newsgroup post seems to evolvs with the number of posts to the thread. I think we were discussing legal enforcement of the GPL. If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in your view? The GPL contains unenforceable terms. When other EULA are ignored by the end users, the response is typically copyright infringement, right? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:55:46 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:bgwyl.50925$et1.40...@newsfe20.iad... On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:58 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in your view? It is not any different at all. Both are contracts. Now, what do you think happens when such a contract is breached? IANAL, are you? IANALs also have a right to think, y'know. The GNU land is hilarious brain-free zone: thinking will not be tolerated. The typical response when an EULA is ignored by an end user is that the company, it's usually a company, goes after the user on copyright infringement, so far as I know. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:41:15 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:bgwyl.50925$et1.40...@newsfe20.iad... On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:58 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in your view? It is not any different at all. Both are contracts. Now, what do you think happens when such a contract is breached? IANAL, are you? Do you think that it would matter much to you? Certainly there are many lawyers who disparage the GPL and there are at least a few who think it is a wonderful thing. Will you only listen to lawyers who agree with your emotional interests or would you change your mind if a lawyer told you that you were wrong? If a lawyer really isn't enough, would you believe a judge? The only problem there is that there are judges on both sides of the issue, too. If you ANAL, what are you ever to do? I would give your words more weight on these legalisms were you to claim to be a lawyer. So far as I can tell this thought process lumps the GPL in with all other EULA on the one hand, and then differentiates on the other, but only when convenient. In all of the postings I've seen no reason to treat the GPL differently from other EULA -- violation, ignoring it, whatever, results in being charged/sued/whatever with copyright infringement. Just like other EULA's, right? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Peter Köhlmann wrote: Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote: All EULA would be contracts, yes? Not complying with an EULA opens up a can of worms. Depends on whether the EULA is ultimately found by the courts to be enforceable or not. Do please generalize as to whether other EULA are, or are not, contracts in your view. All EULAs are contracts. All EULAs are meaningless when presented after buying the goods Kelsey Bjarnason is one of your lapdogs. You trained him well. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Peter Köhlmann wrote: Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote: All EULA would be contracts, yes? Not complying with an EULA opens up a can of worms. Depends on whether the EULA is ultimately found by the courts to be enforceable or not. Do please generalize as to whether other EULA are, or are not, contracts in your view. All EULAs are contracts. All EULAs are meaningless when presented after buying the goods Kelsey Bjarnason is one of your lapdogs. You trained that dog biscuit eating lunatic well. :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Keith Thompson wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: [...] Is the license: Open Source License *** You may copy, make derivative works, and distribute those works that are based on the covered source code provided that you first murder your mother. enforceable? Of course not. It contains an illegal condition. I am not a lawyer but I'm sure a license cannot require you to murder your mother. But one could interpret the above hypothetical license as simply saying that you may not, under any (legal) circumstances, copy, make derivative works, or distribute the specified works. Consider a license that says: You may copy, make derivative works, and distribute those works that are based on the covered source code provided that you first compute to the last decimal place the value of pi. The condition is not illegal, merely impossible. I'd say that the above is equivalent to: You may not copy, make derivative works, or distribute those works that are based on the covered source code. Wrong. Since the license is strictly construed against the drafter the license, because of promissory estoppel, would provide a defense to copyright infringement. If that were not the case, everybody and his brother would write a copyright license that contained illegal or impossible (actually unenforceable) terms and then sue everyone who relied on it. Just like the GPL contains an illegal condition. And what condition would that be? Violation of 17 USC 301. The GPL also violates contractual privity requirements for enforceability. Does the GPL require, as a precondition, that you commit some illegal act, or did you mean something else not covered by your analogy? Exactly what illegal condition does the GPL contain? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Thufir Hawat wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:04:54 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote: All EULA would be contracts, yes? Not complying with an EULA opens up a can of worms. Depends on whether the EULA is ultimately found by the courts to be enforceable or not. Do please generalize as to whether other EULA are, or are not, contracts in your view. All EULAs are contracts. So, when an EULA is ignored, the usual response is copyright infringement, right? If the EULA is legally enforceable it could constitute breach of contract or copyright infringement (or both) depending on the terms of the particular EULA under consideration. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Thufir Hawat wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:41:15 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:bgwyl.50925$et1.40...@newsfe20.iad... On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:58 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in your view? It is not any different at all. Both are contracts. Now, what do you think happens when such a contract is breached? IANAL, are you? Do you think that it would matter much to you? Certainly there are many lawyers who disparage the GPL and there are at least a few who think it is a wonderful thing. Will you only listen to lawyers who agree with your emotional interests or would you change your mind if a lawyer told you that you were wrong? If a lawyer really isn't enough, would you believe a judge? The only problem there is that there are judges on both sides of the issue, too. If you ANAL, what are you ever to do? I would give your words more weight on these legalisms were you to claim to be a lawyer. Lawyer or not, I would never claim to form a lawyer-client relationship over the internet. That would most likely constitute the unauthorized practice of law in most jurisdictions. So far as I can tell this thought process lumps the GPL in with all other EULA on the one hand, and then differentiates on the other, but only when convenient. Why? Every EULA (contract) is written differently and should be subject to somewhat uniform rules of contract interpretation depending upon what jurisdiction you reside. Jurisdiction is one BIG, BIG, BIG flaw in the GPL. Due to the dreams of a universal copyright license, a choice of law clause was not included in the GPL. That leaves the GPL open to the different common law contract interpretation rules of the fifty different states (plus Guam and Puerto Rico). In all of the postings I've seen no reason to treat the GPL differently from other EULA -- violation, ignoring it, whatever, results in being charged/sued/whatever with copyright infringement. If it were legally enforceable, which it is not. Just like other EULA's, right? Depends on *which* other EULA. The *illegal* ones or the *enforceable* ones? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:02gyl.80776$zp.25...@newsfe21.iad... On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:41:15 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:bgwyl.50925$et1.40...@newsfe20.iad... On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:58 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in your view? It is not any different at all. Both are contracts. Now, what do you think happens when such a contract is breached? IANAL, are you? Do you think that it would matter much to you? Certainly there are many lawyers who disparage the GPL and there are at least a few who think it is a wonderful thing. Will you only listen to lawyers who agree with your emotional interests or would you change your mind if a lawyer told you that you were wrong? If a lawyer really isn't enough, would you believe a judge? The only problem there is that there are judges on both sides of the issue, too. If you ANAL, what are you ever to do? I would give your words more weight on these legalisms were you to claim to be a lawyer. So far as I can tell this thought process lumps the GPL in with all other EULA on the one hand, and then differentiates on the other, but only when convenient. In all of the postings I've seen no reason to treat the GPL differently from other EULA -- violation, ignoring it, whatever, results in being charged/sued/whatever with copyright infringement. Just like other EULA's, right? It gets down to arguement in the end and the jury gets to decide. They are never lawyers, you know, and rarely even very familiar with technology at all. The question becomes Is the arguement persuasive? and at the end of the day that is all that matters. The GPL is just another EULA, I think, and you have to consider what it says. Just like the EULA for Windows or MS Office or Quicken or anything else, it first says that you, the end user, can use this thing. In the case of the GPL, it allows the end user to pretty much do anything that he pleases, that is their idea of freedom. That is fine with me and one would think that would never be very controversial. The language seems to say that the end user is free no matter how the software was obtained. The EULAs for other products tend to be more restrictive and revoke the end user's license to use the software when various conditions exist. Not so with the GPL. That creates an interesting kind of situation, i.e. where the end user obtains the software from an unauthorized source, for example one of the companies sued by the SFLC for improperly distributing BusyBox. I think all of these suits are now resolved, but at least for a period of time, there were end users who had obtained and were using the software before whatever the final agreements were took effect. The end users were not themselves illegal, since the GPL extends a license to use the software automatically. When an end user gets a copy of a commercial software program from a warez site or just by borrowing a DVD from the office or a friend, that is not true. That end user is not authorized to use the software and the copyright owner can take some sort of action to get compensation, if only to nag the user constantly via some means. That is what it says in the EULA. That is what is different about the GPL, I think, namely that the end user arrives at the same endpoint condition and the copyright owner is in the same condition regardless of the way that the software is conveyed. If there were a black box connecting the copyright owner to the end user, you could not ever say just what was in the box, only that some mechanism existed for conveying the software from the owner to the user. After conveying the license to use the software to the end user, the GPL goes on and on about what is allowed to be in the black box. I don't think that the courts really care. They can only assess what variance there may be in the condition of the copyright owner based on what happens in the black box and, if there is no measurable effect, there can be no corrective action taken or compensation awarded. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: So the CAFC found the Artistic License contains enforceable conditions. So what. 1) The CAFC case is meaningless to *any* other copyright infringement case *anywhere*: It is meaningful because it shows a straightforward line of thinking and approach to licenses of this sort that will be adopted elsewhere. Where the specific decision is binding elsewhere doesn't matter. It's the reasoning that counts. 2) How do you generalize applying the toothless CAFC decision to So open source licenses. . .? Are all open source licenses written like the Artistic License? Sure. Most of them have specific, enforceable conditions. The GPL certainly does. Just like the GPL contains an illegal condition. The conditions of the GPL are completely legal. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: The GPL contains unenforceable terms. No, the GPL terms are all enforceable. (Although the interpretation that termination requires non-automatic reinstatement is probably wrong.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: The CAFC sets no precedent in copyright cases. It applies a very reasonable and straightforward line of thinking that other courts faced with similar issues will adopt. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:7_fyl.80775$zp.76...@newsfe21.iad... On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:55:46 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:bgwyl.50925$et1.40...@newsfe20.iad... On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:58 -0400, amicus_curious wrote: If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in your view? It is not any different at all. Both are contracts. Now, what do you think happens when such a contract is breached? IANAL, are you? IANALs also have a right to think, y'know. The GNU land is hilarious brain-free zone: thinking will not be tolerated. The typical response when an EULA is ignored by an end user is that the company, it's usually a company, goes after the user on copyright infringement, so far as I know. That is rarely, if ever, done in the case of an individual user. Where the use is substantial and commercial, the BSA is commissioned to hunt down the perpetrators, certainly, but, unlike the RIAA, individuals are not being pursued for personal use. That may change, but it has not been the case so far. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:gxfyl.80774$zp.65...@newsfe21.iad... On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:32:52 -0400, Rjack wrote: Thufir Hawat wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote: IF A COPYRIGHT LICENSE EXISTS, ITS LANGUAGE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS A CONTRACT IN DETERMINING ITS COVENANTS FOR PURPOSES OF BREACH AND THEN EXAMINED FOR LANGUAGE DETERMINING SCOPE FOR PURPOSES OF INFRINGEMENT. Assuming this is so, what's your point? The point of an original newsgroup post seems to evolvs with the number of posts to the thread. I think we were discussing legal enforcement of the GPL. If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in your view? The GPL contains unenforceable terms. When other EULA are ignored by the end users, the response is typically copyright infringement, right? I don't think that is the case very often, if ever. A license term may be that the user is not permitted to rent out usage of the product. A company that sells computer systems with unlicensed software may be sued and/or prosecuted, but the people who bought the computers are not. Where pressure can be applied, such as the Genuine Software Advantage effort by Microsoft, the end user is given a series of offers to come clean, but they often result in a gratis license, or so it has been reported. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: So the CAFC found the Artistic License contains enforceable conditions. So what. 1) The CAFC case is meaningless to *any* other copyright infringement case *anywhere*: It is meaningful because it shows a straightforward line of thinking and approach to licenses of this sort that will be adopted elsewhere Where the specific decision is binding elsewhere doesn't matter. It's the reasoning that counts. 2) How do you generalize applying the toothless CAFC decision to So open source licenses. . .? Are all open source licenses written like the Artistic License? Sure. Most of them have specific, enforceable conditions. The GPL certainly does. Just like the GPL contains an illegal condition. The conditions of the GPL are completely legal. The CAFC case is meaningless to *any* other copyright infringement case *anywhere*: ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: The GPL contains unenforceable terms. No, the GPL terms are all enforceable. (Although the interpretation that termination requires non-automatic reinstatement is probably wrong.) The GPL contains unenforceable terms. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: How many times do you have to be told that the Copyright Act does not grant an *EXCLUSIVE RIGHT* to control the distribution of a derivative work as a whole? The copyright acts grants the exclusive right to authorize the copying and distribution of a specific work. Inherent in that exclusive right is the right to control the details of that authorization, exemplified by book authors selling hardcover and paperback publication rights to separate publishers. The GPL is not asserting control over distributing the combined or derivative work as a whole. It simply says that if you wish to copy and distribute the covered work as part of a combined or derivative work, you may do this only if you distribute the work as a whole under the GPL. If you can't or won't do that, you have no permission to include the GPLed work in the combined work. Nothing forces the copyright holder of the GPLed work to grant such permission, and copyright law forbids copying and distributing the GPLed work as part of a combined work absent that permission. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: The CAFC sets no precedent in copyright cases. It applies a very reasonable and straightforward line of thinking that other courts faced with similar issues will adopt. Fact: The CAFC sets no precedent in copyright cases. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Keith Thompson wrote: [...] Consider a license that says: You may copy, make derivative works, and distribute those works that are based on the covered source code provided that you first compute to the last decimal place the value of pi. The condition is not illegal, merely impossible. I'd say that the above is equivalent to: You may not copy, make derivative works, or distribute those works that are based on the covered source code. Nope, consider: http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/1441.html A condition in a contract, the fulfillment of which is impossible or unlawful, within the meaning of the Article on the Object of Contracts, or which is repugnant to the nature of the interest created by the contract, is void. http://www.websupp.org/data/EDCA/1:07-cv-00092-41-EDCA.pdf Legal Standard Under the law of contracts, parties may expressly agree that a right or duty is conditional upon the occurrence or nonoccurrence of an act or event. Platt Pacific, Inc. v. Andelson, 6 Cal.4th 307, 313 (1993). A condition precedent is either an act of a party that must be performed or an uncertain event that must happen before the contractual right accrues or the contractual duty arises. Cal. Civ. Code § 1436; Platt Pacific, 6 Cal.4th at 313. Generally, if a condition precedent is not fulfilled, the right to enforce the contract does not evolve. Kadner v. Shields, 20 Cal.App.3d 251, 258 (1971); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1436; Bennett v. Carlen, 213 Cal.App.2d 307, 311 (1963). Performance of a duty subject to a condition cannot become due unless the condition occurs or its non-occurrence is excused. R.J. Kuhl Corp. v. Sullivan, 13 Cal.App.4th 1589, 1601 (1993). The nonoccurrence of a condition precedent may be excused for a number of legally recognized reasons. Platt Pacific, 6 Cal.4th at 314. Performance of a condition precedent may be excused inter alia when the condition is waived, performance of the condition is unlawful or impossible, or the other party prevents or makes impossible the performance of the condition. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1441; Jacobs v. Tenneco West, Inc., 186 Cal.App.3d 1413, 1418 (1986); Sosin v. Richardson, 210 Cal.App.2d 258, 264 (1962); BAJI California Jury Instructions Civil § 10.81 (Spring 2007 ed.). The nonoccurrence of a condition may be excused by prevention or hinderance of its occurrence through a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. R.J. Kuhl, 13 Cal.App.4th at 1601. [...] Discussion Orlando has sufficiently pled a cause of action for breach of contract. The Court will again assume that Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 9 contain conditions precedent.5 Defendantss motion is largely based on the premise that Orlando must allege that these conditions have been performed. However, the nonoccurrence of a condition precedent may be excused and the contract enforced under certain circumstances. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1441; Platt Pacific, 6 Cal.4th at 314; R.J. Kuhl, 13 Cal.App.4th at 1601; Careau Co., 222 Cal.App.3d at 1389-91; Jacobs, 186 Cal.App.3d at 1418; Sosin, 210 Cal.App.2d at 264; BAJI California Jury Instructions Civil § 10.81 (Spring 2007 ed.). Impossibility and conduct by the defendant may excuse the failure of a condition precedent. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1441; R.J. Kuhl, 13 Cal.App.4th at 1601; Jacobs, 186 Cal.App.3d at 1418; BAJI § 10.81. With respect to Paragraph 2, Orlando has argued that Defendants and Alarm One acted in bad faith by failing to make good faith efforts to obtain a $200,000 note from lenders. See FAC at ¶ 14. This allegation sufficiently pleads an excuse to the nonoccurrence of Paragraph 2. With respect to Paragraph 9, Orlando pleads that the condition is impossible because there were actually no third party creditors who were legally required to give consent (which was known to Defendants and Alarm One), thus, making it impossible to obtain the consent. See FAC at ¶ 16. Further, Orlando pleads that Defendants and Alarm One made no good faith efforts to obtain consent from necessary third party creditors if such creditors actually do exist. See FAC at ¶ 17. These allegations sufficiently plead an excuse to the nonoccurrence of Paragraph 9. That there is tension between Orlandos theories regarding necessary third party creditors does not affect the FAC since inconsistent and/or alternative pleading is permissible in federal court. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(e)(2); Oki Am., Inc. v. Microtech Intl, Inc., 872 F.2d 312, 314 (9th Cir. 1989); Ryan v. Foster Marshall, Inc., 556 F.2d 460, 463 (9th Cir. 1977). Defendantss arguments regarding a possible lack of mutual assent and the application of California Civil Code § 1441 if the third party creditors do not actually exist is inadequately developed and unpersuasive. First, by the plain language of California Civil Code § 1441, that section voids impossible conditions precedent; it does not void entire contracts. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1441; Carlisle v.
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: The GPL can't set scope-of-use restrictions on distribution of a derivative work as a whole because no such exclusive right exists. That's fine, because it does no such thing. The GPL sets requirements for obtaining authorization to copy and distribute the covered work. Such authorization may be finely divided, as when an author sells paperback and hardcover rights to separate publishers. The GPL does not permit code covered by it to be copied and distributed as part of a combined work unless that work as a whole is distributed under the GPL. The exclusive right that the GPL authorizes is only on how the covered work itself may be copied and distributed when it is part of a combined work. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: How many times do you have to be told that the Copyright Act does not grant an *EXCLUSIVE RIGHT* to control the distribution of a derivative work as a whole? The copyright acts grants the exclusive right to authorize the copying and distribution of a specific work. Inherent in that exclusive right is the right to control the details of that authorization, exemplified by book authors selling hardcover and paperback publication rights to separate publishers. The GPL is not asserting control over distributing the combined or derivative work as a whole. It simply says that if you wish to copy and distribute the covered work as part of a combined or derivative work, you may do this only if you distribute the work as a whole under the GPL. That's fine. . . if it's in the privity of contract. Attempting to bind all third parties under the GPL provisions is against public policy (unenforceable). If you can't or won't do that, you have no permission to include the GPLed work in the combined work. Nothing forces the copyright holder of the GPLed work to grant such permission, and copyright law forbids copying and distributing the GPLed work as part of a combined work absent that permission. Just because contractual agreements are voluntary doesn't make any illegal terms in those agreements enforceable. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Keith Thompson wrote: [...] Consider a license that says: You may copy, make derivative works, and distribute those works that are based on the covered source code provided that you first compute to the last decimal place the value of pi. The condition is not illegal, merely impossible. I'd say that the above is equivalent to: You may not copy, make derivative works, or distribute those works that are based on the covered source code. Nope, consider: http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/1441.html A condition in a contract, the fulfillment of which is impossible or unlawful, within the meaning of the Article on the Object of Contracts, or which is repugnant to the nature of the interest created by the contract, is void. http://www.websupp.org/data/EDCA/1:07-cv-00092-41-EDCA.pdf Legal Standard “Under the law of contracts, parties may expressly agree that a right or duty is conditional upon the occurrence or nonoccurrence of an act or event.” Platt Pacific, Inc. v. Andelson, 6 Cal.4th 307, 313 (1993). A condition precedent is either an act of a party that must be performed or an uncertain event that must happen before the contractual right accrues or the contractual duty arises. Cal. Civ. Code § 1436; Platt Pacific, 6 Cal.4th at 313. Generally, if a condition precedent “is not fulfilled, the right to enforce the contract does not evolve.” Kadner v. Shields, 20 Cal.App.3d 251, 258 (1971); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1436; Bennett v. Carlen, 213 Cal.App.2d 307, 311 (1963). “Performance of a duty subject to a condition cannot become due unless the condition occurs or its non-occurrence is excused.” R.J. Kuhl Corp. v. Sullivan, 13 Cal.App.4th 1589, 1601 (1993). The “nonoccurrence of a condition precedent may be excused for a number of legally recognized reasons.” Platt Pacific, 6 Cal.4th at 314. Performance of a condition precedent may be excused inter alia when the condition is waived, performance of the condition is unlawful or impossible, or the other party prevents or makes impossible the performance of the condition. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1441; Jacobs v. Tenneco West, Inc., 186 Cal.App.3d 1413, 1418 (1986); Sosin v. Richardson, 210 Cal.App.2d 258, 264 (1962); BAJI California Jury Instructions – Civil § 10.81 (Spring 2007 ed.). “The nonoccurrence of a condition may be excused by prevention or hinderance of its occurrence through a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.” R.J. Kuhl, 13 Cal.App.4th at 1601. [...] Discussion Orlando has sufficiently pled a cause of action for breach of contract. The Court will again assume that Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 9 contain conditions precedent.5 Defendants’s motion is largely based on the premise that Orlando must allege that these conditions have been performed. However, the nonoccurrence of a condition precedent may be excused and the contract enforced under certain circumstances. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1441; Platt Pacific, 6 Cal.4th at 314; R.J. Kuhl, 13 Cal.App.4th at 1601; Careau Co., 222 Cal.App.3d at 1389-91; Jacobs, 186 Cal.App.3d at 1418; Sosin, 210 Cal.App.2d at 264; BAJI California Jury Instructions – Civil § 10.81 (Spring 2007 ed.). Impossibility and conduct by the defendant may excuse the failure of a condition precedent. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1441; R.J. Kuhl, 13 Cal.App.4th at 1601; Jacobs, 186 Cal.App.3d at 1418; BAJI § 10.81. With respect to Paragraph 2, Orlando has argued that Defendants and Alarm One acted in bad faith by failing to make good faith efforts to obtain a $200,000 note from lenders. See FAC at ¶ 14. This allegation sufficiently pleads an excuse to the nonoccurrence of Paragraph 2. With respect to Paragraph 9, Orlando pleads that the condition is impossible because there were actually no third party creditors who were legally required to give consent (which was known to Defendants and Alarm One), thus, making it impossible to obtain the consent. See FAC at ¶ 16. Further, Orlando pleads that Defendants and Alarm One made no good faith efforts to obtain consent from necessary third party creditors if such creditors actually do exist. See FAC at ¶ 17. These allegations sufficiently plead an excuse to the nonoccurrence of Paragraph 9. That there is tension between Orlando’s theories regarding necessary third party creditors does not affect the FAC since inconsistent and/or alternative pleading is permissible in federal court. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(e)(2); Oki Am., Inc. v. Microtech Int’l, Inc., 872 F.2d 312, 314 (9th Cir. 1989); Ryan v. Foster Marshall, Inc., 556 F.2d 460, 463 (9th Cir. 1977). Defendants’s arguments regarding a possible lack of mutual assent and the application of California Civil Code § 1441 if the third party creditors do not actually exist is inadequately developed and unpersuasive. First, by the plain language of California Civil Code § 1441, that section voids impossible conditions precedent; it does not void entire contracts. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1441;
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: The GPL can't set scope-of-use restrictions on distribution of a derivative work as a whole because no such exclusive right exists. That's fine, because it does no such thing. CORRECT !! It only attempts to... The GPL sets requirements for obtaining authorization to copy and distribute the covered work. Such authorization may be finely divided, as when an author sells paperback and hardcover rights to separate publishers. The GPL does not permit code covered by it to be copied and distributed as part of a combined work unless that work as a whole is distributed under the GPL. The exclusive right that the GPL authorizes is only on how the covered work itself may be copied and distributed when it is part of a combined work. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: Utterly false. No, utterly true. The obligations of the GPL are between the copyright holder and the distributor. The distributees acquire rights when the distributor tells them that the distribution is covered by the GPL, because he has then promised them certain things. (There's your promissory estoppel!) But if someone were to distribute GPLed code without informing distributees of the license, they themselves would have no recourse for obtaining the source code. Only the rights holder could go after the distributor, for copyright violation. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: Truer words were never spoken. No, those words are false. The obligations of the GPL are between the copyright holder and the distributor. The distributees acquire rights when the distributor tells them that the distribution is covered by the GPL, because he has then promised them certain things. (There's your promissory estoppel!) But if someone were to distribute GPLed code without informing distributees of the license, they themselves would have no recourse for obtaining the source code. Only the rights holder could go after the distributor, for copyright violation. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: To repeat: Your repeated assertion is utterly false. No, it's utterly true. The obligations of the GPL are between the copyright holder and the distributor. The distributees acquire rights when the distributor tells them that the distribution is covered by the GPL, because he has then promised them certain things. (There's your promissory estoppel!) But if someone were to distribute GPLed code without informing distributees of the license, they themselves would have no recourse for obtaining the source code. Only the rights holder could go after the distributor, for copyright violation. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: Truer words were never spoken. No, those words are false. The obligations of the GPL are between the copyright holder and the distributor. The distributees acquire rights when the distributor tells them that the distribution is covered by the GPL, because he has then promised them certain things. (There's your promissory estoppel!) But if someone were to distribute GPLed code without informing distributees of the license, they themselves would have no recourse for obtaining the source code. Only the rights holder could go after the distributor, for copyright violation. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: Violation of 17 USC 301. This makes even less sense than usual. 17 USC 301 is the federal preemption of copyright law. It cannot be violated. And it has no relevance to the GPL. The GPL also violates contractual privity requirements for enforceability. The GPL violates nothing. It is a simple copyright license granting authorization to copy and distribute in certain ways provided certain conditions are met. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: That leaves the GPL open to the different common law contract interpretation rules of the fifty different states (plus Guam and Puerto Rico). This is not a problem because of 17 USC 301. If it were legally enforceable, which it is not. The GPL is legal and enforceable (in the sense that if someone copies and distributes without obeying its conditions he is liable for copyright infringement). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: The CAFC case is meaningless to *any* other copyright infringement case *anywhere*: The reasoning it applied was straightforward and correct and will be applied when similar cases arise elsewhere. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: The GPL contains unenforceable terms. The GPL is a copyright license which may be accepted voluntarily by someone who wishes to copy and distribute a covered work, and if so, its obligations are enforceable and if not obeyed the distributor has infringed the copyrights of the rights holder. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
amicus_curious wrote: After conveying the license to use the software to the end user, the GPL goes on and on about what is allowed to be in the black box. I don't think that the courts really care. That's false. For example, until the law was changed, copyright law forbade the importation for sale into the U.S. of English-language books published in other countries besides Canada. So a traveler who went to England, purchased a book, and brought it home would be in the same end position as a purchaser who bought an illegally imported copy, but the illegal importer would still have been liable for copyright violation. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: Fact: The CAFC sets no precedent in copyright cases. The line of reasoning the CAFC used is straightforward and correct and courts facing the same situation will reason the same way. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: Attempting to bind all third parties under the GPL provisions is against public policy (unenforceable). Since the GPL only binds the single person who is accepting its authorization to copy and distribute the covered work, what you say about binding all third parties is irrelevant. Just because contractual agreements are voluntary doesn't make any illegal terms in those agreements enforceable. Fortunately the GPL contains no illegal or unenforceable terms. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: Performance of a condition precedent may be excused inter alia when the condition is waived, performance of the condition is unlawful or impossible, or the other party prevents or makes impossible the performance of the condition. The conditions of the GPL are legal, possible, and enforceable. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: CORRECT !! It only attempts to... No. It only controls the covered work, but part of that control is asserting authority of how it may be used in a combined work. That authority is granted by copyright law to the rights holder. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: CORRECT !! It only attempts to... No. It only controls the covered work, but part of that control is asserting authority of how it may be used in a combined work. That authority is granted by copyright law to the rights holder. quote source=Open Source Licensing: Virus or Virtue? Even if the open source license [GPL] is binding, the copyleft provision may still not be enforceable as to independent proprietary code, in light of the intellectual property misuse doctrine. The doctrine is asserted as an affirmative defense to an intellectual property infringement claim. Much like an unclean hands defense, the misuse doctrine precludes enforcement of intellectual property rights that have been extended beyond the scope of those rights. [...] A successful misuse defense bars the misuser from prevailing against anyone on an action for infringement of the misused intellectual property, even against defendants who have not been harmed or affected by the misuse.[76] The misuse doctrine was judicially created, first in the patent context. Only recently has the misuse doctrine been extended to copyrights, building on the rich misuse history in the patent law.[77] Importantly, most courts have found misuse without requiring a finding of antitrust liability.[78] Thus, market power is unnecessary, as is any analysis of the competitive and anticompetitive impacts of the provision.[79] The courts have yet to analyze a copyleft provision for misuse, but the courts have addressed an analogous provision - the grantback. A grantback provision requires that a licensee of intellectual property grant back to the licensor a license or ownership in creations made by the licensee. The typical grantback provision requires that the licensee give the licensor a nonexclusive license to any improvements or derivatives that the licensee creates based on the original licensed property. The idea is that the licensee would not have been able to make the improvement or derivative without permission of the licensor or at least access to the original; thus, the licensor should not be blocked by an improvement or derivative he and his intellectual property helped create. Giving the license back encourages licensors to license, since it mitigates the risk of becoming blocked by derivative intellectual property. Like a grantback, copyleft requires the licensee to license back its improvements. The copyleft provision is more expansive, though. [...] Although grantbacks have not come up in the copyright misuse arena, they have in the patent context - and as we have seen, the patent misuse cases form the underpinning for the copyright misuse doctrine. Courts have found that grantback clauses extending to improvements are not misuse, because the licensee in some sense developed the improvement with the help of the original patent. Where grantback clauses extend to preexisting or unrelated patents, however, courts have found patent misuse. Where the scope of [licensee's] 'improvements' and inventions required to be assigned to [the patent licensor] extended far beyond the scope of [the] basic patent [licensed by licensor] the effect was to extend unlawfully its monopoly and thus result in patent misuse.[80] Plainly, the Patent Act does not give the patent owner rights to other unrelated patents, and using a patent to obtain such rights exceeds the scope of the patent. Similarly, the Copyright Act's grant of rights does not extend to unrelated works or preexisting (and therefore necessarily nonderivative) works, and using the copyright license to extract such rights exceeds the scope of the copyright grant. This may constitute copyright misuse. A license to a copyrighted work on condition that any work with which it is combined or shares data must be licensed back to the licensor -and the entire world- on the specific terms the licensor mandates, is beyond the scope of the copyright in the originally licensed work. Yet this is what the GPL apparently requires. The copyleft provision purports to infect independent, separate works that are not derivative of the open source code, and requires that such independent works be licensed back to the licensor and the entire world under the GPL. The Copyright Act does not give the copyright owner rights to such independent nonderivative works. Attempting to extract such rights exceeds the scope of the copyright. The fact that the GPL mandates that the license be free and open is irrelevant; as explained above, misuse doctrine does not require an analysis of market share, or a weighing of the competitive and anticompetitive effects of the provision. If the copyleft provision constitutes misuse, then the plaintiff's copyrights in the open source program are unenforceable until the misuse is purged.[81] As a result, at least with respect to the code contributed by any plaintiff, the defendant
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Alexander Terekhov wrote: quote source=Open Source Licensing: Virus or Virtue? Even if the open source license [GPL] is binding, the copyleft provision may still not be enforceable as to independent proprietary code, in light of the intellectual property misuse doctrine. This may in fact be true (for a change!) but until a court rules that way, the assumption must be that the GPL provisions are valid. Also, from IP and antirust by Hovenkamp, Janis, and Lemley: http://books.google.com/books?id=ILcfV28n7WgCpg=PT124lpg=PT124dq=patent+grantback+misusesource=blots=KCrvPfGsu1sig=CCMAUtr8AnS46n5b6aASlIsUbx4hl=enei=5q7LSdWSKKHNlQeluZHWCQsa=Xoi=book_resultresnum=1ct=result#PPT126,M1 One significant determinant of the competitive effect of a grantback clause is the exclusivity of the grant of rights required. Nonexclusive licenses should almost never cause competitive concern. And from the DOJ and FTC Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0558.pdf In the vast majority of cases, restraints in intellectual property licensing arrangements are evaluated under the rule of reason. The Agencies' general approach in analyzing a licensing restraint under the rule of reason is to inquire whether the restraint is likely to have anticompetitive effects and, if so, whether the restraint is reasonably necessary to achieve procompetitive benefits that outweigh those anticompetitive effects. I am reading these excerpts as indicating that a copyright misuse claim will fail against the GPL. It would be unwise for a distributor to act as if this claim will succeed until a court actually establishes that. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: quote source=Open Source Licensing: Virus or Virtue? Even if the open source license [GPL] is binding, the copyleft provision may still not be enforceable as to independent proprietary code, in light of the intellectual property misuse doctrine. This may in fact be true (for a change!) but until a court rules that way, the assumption must be that the GPL provisions are valid. Also, from IP and antirust by Hovenkamp, Janis, and Lemley: http://books.google.com/books?id=ILcfV28n7WgCpg=PT124lpg=PT124dq=patent+grantback+misusesource=blots=KCrvPfGsu1sig=CCMAUtr8AnS46n5b6aASlIsUbx4hl=enei=5q7LSdWSKKHNlQeluZHWCQsa=Xoi=book_resultresnum=1ct=result#PPT126,M1 One significant determinant of the competitive effect of a grantback clause is the exclusivity of the grant of rights required. Nonexclusive licenses should almost never cause competitive concern. And from the DOJ and FTC Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0558.pdf In the vast majority of cases, restraints in intellectual property licensing arrangements are evaluated under the rule of reason. The Agencies' general approach in analyzing a licensing restraint under the rule of reason is to inquire whether the restraint is likely to have anticompetitive effects and, if so, whether the restraint is reasonably necessary to achieve procompetitive benefits that outweigh those anticompetitive effects. I am reading these excerpts as indicating that a copyright misuse claim will fail against the GPL. What part in Importantly, most courts have found misuse without requiring a finding of antitrust liability.[78] Thus, market power is unnecessary, as is any analysis of the competitive and anticompetitive impacts of the provision.[79] [...] as explained above, misuse doctrine does not require an analysis of market share, or a weighing of the competitive and anticompetitive effects of the provision. don't you understand, stupid Hyman? Here's more: http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise15.html The copyright misuse defense is similar to an antitrust claim, where a copyright owner has misused the limited monopoly granted by the copyright. However, the Lasercomb decision made it clear that the copyright misuse defense is available even when the misuse does not reach the level of an antitrust violation. To repeat: quote source=Open Source Licensing: Virus or Virtue? Even if the open source license [GPL] is binding, the copyleft provision may still not be enforceable as to independent proprietary code, in light of the intellectual property misuse doctrine. The doctrine is asserted as an affirmative defense to an intellectual property infringement claim. Much like an unclean hands defense, the misuse doctrine precludes enforcement of intellectual property rights that have been extended beyond the scope of those rights. [...] A successful misuse defense bars the misuser from prevailing against anyone on an action for infringement of the misused intellectual property, even against defendants who have not been harmed or affected by the misuse.[76] The misuse doctrine was judicially created, first in the patent context. Only recently has the misuse doctrine been extended to copyrights, building on the rich misuse history in the patent law.[77] Importantly, most courts have found misuse without requiring a finding of antitrust liability.[78] Thus, market power is unnecessary, as is any analysis of the competitive and anticompetitive impacts of the provision.[79] The courts have yet to analyze a copyleft provision for misuse, but the courts have addressed an analogous provision - the grantback. A grantback provision requires that a licensee of intellectual property grant back to the licensor a license or ownership in creations made by the licensee. The typical grantback provision requires that the licensee give the licensor a nonexclusive license to any improvements or derivatives that the licensee creates based on the original licensed property. The idea is that the licensee would not have been able to make the improvement or derivative without permission of the licensor or at least access to the original; thus, the licensor should not be blocked by an improvement or derivative he and his intellectual property helped create. Giving the license back encourages licensors to license, since it mitigates the risk of becoming blocked by derivative intellectual property. Like a grantback, copyleft requires the licensee to license back its improvements. The copyleft provision is more expansive, though. [...] Although grantbacks have not come up in the copyright misuse arena, they have in the patent context - and as we have seen, the patent misuse cases form the underpinning for the copyright
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Alexander Terekhov wrote: don't you understand, stupid Hyman? The copyright misuse defense is similar to an antitrust claim, where a copyright owner has misused the limited monopoly granted by the copyright. However, the Lasercomb decision made it clear that the copyright misuse defense is available even when the misuse does not reach the level of an antitrust violation. As always, poor Alexander can't read: From the Lasercomb decision, http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/cases/15PQ2D1846.htm We think the anticompetitive language in Lasercomb’s licensing agreement is at least as egregious as that which led us to bar the infringement action in Compton, and therefore amounts to misuse of its copyright. Again, the analysis necessary to a finding of misuse is similar to but separate from the analysis necessary to a finding of antitrust violation. The misuse arises from Lasercomb’s attempt to use its copyright in a particular expression, the Interact software, to control competition in an area outside the copyright, i.e., the idea of computer-assisted die manufacture, regardless of whether such conduct amounts to an antitrust violation. The courts find copyright misuse when the copyright holders attempt to use their rights improperly to restrain competition, whether or not that rises to the level of antitrust. That's why the GPL almost certainly would not be found to be misuse of copyright should anyone try to claim that. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message news:tslyl.148172$2h5.58...@newsfe11.iad... amicus_curious wrote: After conveying the license to use the software to the end user, the GPL goes on and on about what is allowed to be in the black box. I don't think that the courts really care. That's false. For example, until the law was changed, copyright law forbade the importation for sale into the U.S. of English-language books published in other countries besides Canada. So a traveler who went to England, purchased a book, and brought it home would be in the same end position as a purchaser who bought an illegally imported copy, but the illegal importer would still have been liable for copyright violation. Was anyone ever prosecuted over such a silly situation? You are off the mark anyway. The discussion here was about the effects of the EULA for a commercial product versus the GPL. Pay more attention to context. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: don't you understand, stupid Hyman? The copyright misuse defense is similar to an antitrust claim, where a copyright owner has misused the limited monopoly granted by the copyright. However, the Lasercomb decision made it clear that the copyright misuse defense is available even when the misuse does not reach the level of an antitrust violation. As always, poor Alexander can't read: Stop being utter idiot Hyman. From the Lasercomb decision, http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/cases/15PQ2D1846.htm If, as it appears, the district court analogized from the rule of reason concept of antitrust law, we think its reliance on that principle was misplaced. Such reliance is, however, understandable. Both the presentation by appellants and the literature tend to intermingle antitrust and misuse defenses.17 15 USPQ2d 1853 E.g.,Holmes, Intellectual Property, at §4.09. A patent or copyright is often regarded as a limited monopoly an exception to the general public policy against restraints of trade.18 Since antitrust law is the statutory embodiment of that public policy, there is an understandable association of antitrust law with the misuse defense. Certainly, an entity which uses its patent as the means of violating 911 F.2d 978 antitrust law is subject to a misuse of patent defense. However, Morton Salt held that it is not necessary to prove an antitrust violation in order to successfully assert patent misuse: It is unnecessary to decide whether respondent has violated the Clayton Act, for we conclude that in any event the maintenance of the present suit to restrain petitioners manufacture or sale of the alleged infringing machines is contrary to public policy and that the district court rightly dismissed the complaint for want of equity. 314 U.S. at 494. See also Hensley Equip. Co. v. Esco Corp., 383 F.2d 252, 261 n. 19 [152 USPQ 781], amended on rehg, 386 F.2d 442 [155 USPQ 183](5th Cir. 1967); 8 Walker on Patents, at §28:33. So while it is true that the attempted use of a copyright to violate antitrust law probably would give rise to a misuse of copyright defense, the converse is not necessarily true a misuse need not be a violation of antitrust law in order to comprise an equitable defense to an infringement action. The question is not whether the copyright is being used in a manner violative of antitrust law (such as whether the licensing agreement is reasonable), but whether the copyright is being used in a manner violative of the public policy embodied in the grant of a copyright. The courts find copyright misuse when the copyright holders attempt to use their rights improperly to restrain competition Yeah, yeah. Right from the GNU's mouth: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete in other areas, while benefiting mutually in this one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that's tough on you. regards, alexander. -- 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: More FSF hypocrisy
amicus_curious wrote: Was anyone ever prosecuted over such a silly situation? I don't know if there were prosecutions, but the publishing industry very much wanted this law enforced - it was the equivalent of DVD region coding for books. Publishers wanted control over how books were published here and didn't want sellers doing an end run around them and importing the same books from other countries. Here's a story where similar laws in the EU may have affected Amazon: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/07/bpi_down_plays_amazon_com/ You are off the mark anyway. The discussion here was about the effects of the EULA for a commercial product versus the GPL. Pay more attention to context. I did. You said: That is what is different about the GPL, I think, namely that the end user arrives at the same endpoint condition and the copyright owner is in the same condition regardless of the way that the software is conveyed. If there were a black box connecting the copyright owner to the end user, you could not ever say just what was in the box, only that some mechanism existed for conveying the software from the owner to the user. After conveying the license to use the software to the end user, the GPL goes on and on about what is allowed to be in the black box. I don't think that the courts really care. And I pointed out that in fact, how an end user gets his copy can matter. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: Violation of 17 USC 301. This makes even less sense than usual. 17 USC 301 is the federal preemption of copyright law. It cannot be violated. And it has no relevance to the GPL. The GPL also violates contractual privity requirements for enforceability. The GPL violates nothing. The GPL also violates contractual privity requirements for enforceability. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Stop being utter idiot Hyman. From the Lasercomb decision, http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/cases/15PQ2D1846.htm The question is not whether the copyright is being used in a manner violative of antitrust law (such as whether the licensing agreement is “reasonable”), but whether the copyright is being used in a manner violative of the public policy embodied in the grant of a copyright. Still having trouble reading? Of yet greater concern, these creative abilities are withdrawn from the public The courts find copyright misuse when the copyright holders attempt to use their rights improperly to restrain competition http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition. Restraint of competition is universally held to be an attempt to prevent others from generating competing products. Forcing public availability is the opposite of that, as your fellow crank Daniel Wallace discovered: http://www.internetlibrary.com/pdf/Wallace-IBM-7th-Cir.pdf Although the antitrust laws forbid conspiracies in restraint of trade, 15 U.S.C. §1, §26, the GPL does not restrain trade. It is a cooperative agreement that facilitates production of new derivative works, and agreements that yield new products that would not arise through unilateral action are lawful. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Rjack wrote: The GPL also violates contractual privity requirements for enforceability. Does not. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: That leaves the GPL open to the different common law contract interpretation rules of the fifty different states (plus Guam and Puerto Rico). This is not a problem because of 17 USC 301. If it were legally enforceable, which it is not. The GPL is legal and enforceable (in the sense that if someone copies and distributes without obeying its conditions he is liable for copyright infringement). If it were legally enforceable, which it is not. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: The CAFC case is meaningless to *any* other copyright infringement case *anywhere*: The reasoning it applied was straightforward and correct and will be applied when similar cases arise elsewhere. Fact: The CAFC case is meaningless to *any* other copyright infringement case *anywhere*: ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
