Here's the SFLC's GPL litigation track record:
1. Dismissal Without Prejudice.
2. Dismissal Without Prejudice.
3. Dismissal Without Prejudice.
4. Dismissal With Prejudice.
5. Dismissal Without Prejudice.
6. Dismissal Without Prejudice.
7. Dismissal Without Prejudice.
8. Dismissal With
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Here's the SFLC's GPL litigation track record:
1. Dismissal Without Prejudice.
2. Dismissal Without Prejudice.
3. Dismissal Without Prejudice.
4. Dismissal With Prejudice.
5. Dismissal Without Prejudice.
6. Dismissal Without Prejudice.
7. Dismissal Without
Jet another latter from Dan Ravicher asking for delay of the pretrial
conference.
(from PACER)
-
01/30/2009 6 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Paul G. Gardephe from
Daniel B. Ravicher dated 1/30/09 re: Counsel requests an adjournment of
the pretrial conference currently scheduled for
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://web-sniffer.net/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.verizon.net%2Fwebdownload%2Ffirmware%2Fupgrades%2Factiontec%2520gateway%2F4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmtsubmit=Submithttp=1.1gzip=yestype=GETuak=0
Verizon's web server may itself be connecting to Actiontec
to send the
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
How do you explain continued 'litigation' by the SFLC for many month
after availability of the source code from Hammer Storage site, Hyman?
The same way I always do. Legal processes are slow. They work
through exchanges of papers filed with courts, with negotiations
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
You seem to confuse real litigation with SFLC's way of litigation.
I said that legal processes are slow. Your dislike of the SFLC does
not change that, so there is nothing for me to reanswer. Real
litigation, where the parties are unable to settle, would take even
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
The only important part of the track record is that after each case,
the GPLed sources are available.
You seem to not grasp the situation, Hyman: the SFLC has sued (filing
utterly defective copyright complaints warranting automatic dismissal) a
bunch of companies
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
What say you now, Hyman?
I say that companies which distribute software licensed
under the GPL must comply with the terms of the GPL where
copyright would not otherwise permit them to do this.
The SFLC acts on behalf of clients who claim that their
software is being
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Actiontec is a reseller, now see 17 USC 109.
I'm not privy to the details of how the firmware gets
on to the routers that Actiontec delivers, so I'm not
in a position to say whether the First Sale doctrine
applies. But they do distribute software from their
web site,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
applies. But they do distribute software from their
web site, and that must be done in compliance with
the GPL.
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
http://www2.verizon.net
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
http://download.verizon.net/webdownload/firmware/upgrades/actiontec%20gateway/4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt
actiontec gateway
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
http://download.verizon.net/webdownload/firmware/upgrades/actiontec%20gateway/4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt
Ha ha. Yet another GPL 'victory' in court:
10/17/2008 16 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Pursuant to Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff(s)
and or their counsel(s), hereby give notice that the above-captioned
action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
(Update.)
Wah wah, yet another delay, letter from Dan Ravicher.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
(Update.)
Yet another delay...
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this
action. (rdz) (Entered:
(Update.)
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
1. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
2. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
3. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
4. Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice.
5. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
6. DEFAULT JUDGMENT (defendants must send
(Update.)
Yet another delay...
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this
action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
WOW!
Am I blind or is the court's clerk got concerned regarding (missing)
Registration of
David Kastrup wrote:
Depends on what a program is and how much it is structured to
depend on that library...
...it will be rather hard to declare the whole as independent.
I don't think you understand. It has nothing to do with a work
being independent. For one thing, copyright law doesn't
Hyman Rosen wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
Depends on what a program is and how much it is structured to
depend on that library...
...it will be rather hard to declare the whole as independent.
I don't think you understand. It has nothing to do with a work
being independent. For one thing,
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Who is we, Hyman? You're a speaker for ...
I just thought I couldn't possibly be the only one.
Let's see if anyone else chimes in.
Oh, by the way, the J.K. Rowling decision should be
interesting (and dismaying) reading for
David Kastrup wrote:
You got a bad case of slandries.
From http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080909014304275,
quoting from the decision:
By condensing, synthesizing, and reorganizing the preexisting
material in an A-to-Z reference guide, the Lexicon does not
recast the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
You got a bad case of slandries.
From http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080909014304275,
quoting from the decision:
By condensing, synthesizing, and reorganizing the preexisting
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
You got a bad case of slandries.
From http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080909014304275,
quoting from the decision:
By condensing, synthesizing, and reorganizing the preexisting
material in an A-to-Z reference
Oh dear dak,
[... copyright's strongholds are abolished ...]
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html
-
AM4: The problem with this change in the copyright laws for three would
be that you wouldn't get the sources.
RMS: Right. There would have also to be a condition, a
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh dear dak,
[... copyright's strongholds are abolished ...]
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html
-
AM4: The problem with this change in the copyright laws for three would
be that you wouldn't get the sources.
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Do you think the FSF would refuse to get a better world if it can't get
It can't get what, exactly? Spell it out in precise terms (what you
called perfect world). And who is the FSF? I associate this charity
with RMS. RMS' better world leads to extinction:
Live
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:02:15 -0500, Rjack wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Do you think the FSF would refuse to get a better world if it can't get
It can't get what, exactly? Spell it out in precise terms (what you
called perfect world). And who is the FSF? I
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Do you think the FSF would refuse to get a better world if it can't get
It can't get what, exactly? Spell it out in precise terms (what you
called perfect world). And who is the FSF? I associate this charity
with RMS. RMS' better world
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
The GPL enforcement is already in existence.
I said *court* enforcement, Hyman.
There was no court order to date (World Wide) enforcing the GPL, to my
knowledge.
Here's English language comprehension exercise for you that might help.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I said *court* enforcement, Hyman.
Courts enforce things when the parties cannot come to
agreement on their own. So far that hasn't happened.
Well, except in the JMRI case, where the appeals court
said that the plaintiffs could go ahead with their
claims of copyright
Verizon, Hyman.
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
Where is a mention of the GPL and/or source code?
I'm tired of you playing this advocate game.
Verizon was a defendant. (Dismissed by the SFLC *with prejudice* against
their own client Plaintiffs.)
When one of their
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Verizon, Hyman.
The company which manufactures the routers for Verizon makes
the GPLed sources available. They were not doing so for a
substantial period of time after they began distributing the
routers and before the SFLC filed its case.
The URL for downloading
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... it's quite possible ...]
:-)
Nothing is Impossible.
You can't begin to imagine how tired we are of you.
Who is we, Hyman? You're a speaker for ...
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In any event, the BusyBox developers seem to have decided that having
the manufacturer provide the GPLed sources is sufficiently in
compliance with the GPL that they chose not to pursue Verizon. As the
copyright holders, that is their privilege.
We should be
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Boring.
Extend time, extend time... time and time again. Case and case again.
(With all cases thus far being closed following voluntarily dismissal
notice filed by the SFLC.)
When will the SFLC's GPL court enforcement come in existence?
After each case has ended, the
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this
action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
WOW!
Am I blind or is the court's clerk got concerned regarding (missing)
Registration of busybox copyright(s)?
U.S. District Court
United States
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
ROFL!
Yet another delay (07/16/2008 3 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge
Richard M. Berman from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 7/14/08) AND blog
announcement of yet another settlement.
(from PACER... final order is not yet available on PACER as of
07/24/2008
Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this
action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
WOW!
Am I blind or is the court's clerk got concerned regarding (missing)
Registration of busybox copyright(s)?
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The track record is sorta getting better! LOL.
The track record is that after each case ends, the
GPLed source code is available.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That one's easy. Suppose that his wife is a three-headed fire-breathing
dragon. You are toast.
Mmmm, toast
-Miles
--
Dictionary, n. A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of
a language and making it hard and inelastic. This
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:49:13 +, Rahul Dhesi wrote:
thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To my understanding, the buyer does have the right, under the GPL, to
the source. After, the GPL is targeted, you could say, at buyers to
protect copyright owners.
If no buyer has rights to the source,
Tim Smith wrote:
[...]
(I'm assuming statutory damages would be available, because I'm assuming
the copyrights have been registered. I can't find that registration,
but I don't claim to be a good copyright registration searcher. I
assume they have been registered, because if not, every
Tim Smith wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
The SFLC says it differently. Their GPL enforcement always seeks some
sort of penalty for the offender that goes far beyond simply making GPL
sources available. Otherwise future defendants would have no
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
SFLC to the World: files notice of voluntary dismissal Victory!
Before case begins: Defendants in violation of GPL.
After case ends: Defendants make GLPed sources available.
Victory indeed.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
* The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Alexander Terekhov
How did you get that link, Hyman?
I wen to http://www.supermicro.com, used the menu
to click on Support/Downloads and noticed the link
Supermicro FTP Site under Additional
* Hyman Rosen peremptorily fired off this memo:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Now please go out of home and ask 100 guys on the street what does FTP
Site (short of GPL) mean.
100 guys on the street, or a hundred guys on the street
who have an interest in the source code? Of the latter,
all of
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
SFLC to the World: files notice of voluntary dismissal Victory!
Before case begins: Defendants in violation of GPL.
After case ends: Defendants make GLPed sources available.
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
regards,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
rjack wrote:
The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow a district court to review the
terms of their preempted, unenforceable GPL license on the merits. The
fat revenue stream from charitable funds flowing into SFLC's attorneys'
pockets would suddenly cease if their
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
SFLC to the World: files notice of voluntary dismissal Victory!
Before case begins: Defendants in violation of GPL.
After case ends: Defendants make GLPed sources available.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
http://opensource.actiontec.com/
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
SFLC to the World: files notice of voluntary dismissal Victory!
Before case begins: Defendants in violation of GPL.
^^
After case ends:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
http://opensource.actiontec.com/
Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant.
After the case ends: Defendant is still in violation of the GPL.
After the case ends: Defendant
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant.
Verizon is the visible face for FIOS, so the suit was
launched against them. I assume that in the process of
discovering where things came from, the plaintiffs
decided that since Verizon is redistributing
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant.
Verizon is the visible face for FIOS, so the suit was
launched against them. I assume that in the process of
discovering where things came from, the plaintiffs
decided that since Verizon is redistributing
The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow a district court to review
the terms of their preempted, unenforceable GPL license on the
merits. The fat revenue stream from charitable funds flowing into
SFLC's attorneys' pockets would suddenly cease if their one of
their crackpot
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
http://opensource.actiontec.com/
Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant.
After the case
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow a district court to review
the terms of their preempted, unenforceable GPL license on the
merits. The fat revenue stream from charitable funds flowing into
SFLC's attorneys' pockets would suddenly cease if their one of
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see how you can tell if they are satisfying 3(b) or not without
actually obtaining one of the routers from Verizon and seeing if it is
accompanied with a written offer to provide the source. If it is, there
is nothing that says that if they choose
Tim Smith wrote:
[...]
I don't see how you can tell if they are satisfying 3(b) or not without
actually obtaining one of the routers from Verizon and seeing if it is
accompanied with a written offer to provide the source. If it is, there
is nothing that says that if they choose to distribute
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
How could one possibly make an online distribution server
being responsible for files delivery fall outside the scope
of exclusive rights
Downloading from anywhere can cause pieces of a file to get
copied from one computer to another before they reach you.
Why
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Here's breaking news: invalid means that your invalid *demands*
(not permissions) are void, and the rest is just fine.
In your dreams.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
rjack wrote:
[ promissory estoppel detrimental reliance ]?
That's why it's good to have a nice clear license like
the GPL. No on reading the GPL can have any doubt about
what the license intends. Certainly cranks, crackpots,
and code grabbers might not want to abide by the license
or believe
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I've obtained a copy of 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt from
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp and can confirm
that this transaction yielded no written offer to provide the source
whatsoever. Go try it yourself.
Have you installed the firmware on
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Here's breaking news: invalid means that your invalid *demands*
(not permissions) are void, and the rest is just fine.
In your dreams.
Care to elaborate, Hyman? Suppose...
Example: (A contract)
I (Hyman Rosen) hereby rent my apartment to
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I've obtained a copy of 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt from
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp and can confirm
that this transaction yielded no written offer to provide the source
whatsoever. Go try it yourself.
Have
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
How could one possibly make an online distribution server
being responsible for files delivery fall outside the scope
of exclusive rights
Downloading from anywhere can cause pieces of a file
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
What's next, Hyman?
I kick you out of the apartment, you go running to a judge
whining about promissory estoppel, and he laughs at you.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
What's next, Hyman?
I kick you out of the apartment, you go running to a judge
whining about promissory estoppel, and he laughs at you.
Suppose that my wife is a police officer. Forget kicking me out of your
apartment. You might not survive
Tim Smith wrote:
Who made that copy and/or distributed that copy? X or Y?
This is at the heart of the making available suits. See
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/making-available-distribution-says-court-london-sire-v-doe.
Either answer has some problematic implications.
That's what
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Have you? Did you find the offer?
I don't have FIOS - I live in an apartment building
in NYC and Verizon isn't offering it to me yet. One
day - I use Verizon for DSL.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
What's next, Hyman?
We get filmed for an episode of COPS. Or maybe Reno 911.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
What's next, Hyman?
I kick you out of the apartment, you go running to a judge
whining about promissory estoppel, and he laughs at you.
Suppose that my wife is a police officer. Forget kicking me
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
I mean, while we are in the who can come up with the silliest
irrelevant hypothetical contest, this entry seems as good as any.
No. We are in enforcing invalid license contracts episode. You seem to
suggest that it would require a three-headed fire-breathing dragon.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I've obtained a copy of 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt from
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp and can confirm
that this transaction yielded no written offer to provide the
thufir wrote:
The buyer is the guy who walks in off the street and purchases the router
(which run GPL'ed software)?
To my understanding, the buyer does have the right, under the GPL, to the
source. After, the GPL is targeted, you could say, at buyers to protect
copyright owners.
That
thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] espoused:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:01:14 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
No. Whomever distributes the software is on the hook for providing the
source.
You can force people to walk the chain all the way back to the
manufacturer, but they are still ultimately on the hook
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A settlement is a private agreement between parties, and it can be as
formal or informal as they want. In any case, there is no reason that
the fine details need to be made public, and the general tendency of
lawyers is to keep things quiet, because what you
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Your essential argument is that although they are hiding the actual
settlement, they are not hiding anything within it.
No. They are hiding the exact monetary amounts involved,
for example, and there may be other things as well. We
know only what both sides have agreed
ROFL!
Yet another delay (07/16/2008 3 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge
Richard M. Berman from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 7/14/08) AND blog
announcement of yet another settlement.
(from PACER... final order is not yet available on PACER as of
07/24/2008 13:55:26 ET)
--
U.S. District Court
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Your essential argument is that although they are hiding the actual
settlement, they are not hiding anything within it.
No. They are hiding the exact monetary amounts involved,
for example, and there may be other things as well. We
know
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Your essential argument is that although they are hiding the actual
settlement, they are not hiding anything within it.
No. They are hiding the exact monetary amounts involved,
for example, and there may be
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Yet another delay (07/16/2008 3 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge
Richard M. Berman from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 7/14/08) AND blog
announcement of yet another settlement.
Exactly as I said would happen. There's no need for scare quotes
around the word. The
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
So we agree...
I really have no idea what you're getting at. The SFLC
sues for GPL violations, they settle, the defendants
agree to comply with the GPL and try to make good their
previous violations, and some money changes hands.
Your interest in knowing every last detail
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
You seem to overlook the case of monetary amount
being negative to Busybox.
That could be true. Perhaps Busybox and the SFLC are
so eager to enforce GPL compliance that they don't
mind paying a little bit of money to help it along.
But I doubt it.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
(3) suit ends, (4) GPLed sources made available. That's what
I've just visited
http://www.supermicro.com/
and entered GPL in Home Contact Us Advanced Search field. Clicking
on Search button yielded
-
Supermicro Search Results
Home
Contact Us
Advanced Search
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Do you have a link, Hyman?
ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/GPL/
TFTP Listing of /GPL/ at ftp.supermicro.com
Parent Directory
Jul 08 2008 12:02 74165878 ipmi_ppc_opensrc.tgz
Jul 17 2008 11:1710212 lib_smc_usb_lcd_linux.tgz
Brand spanking new
thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:45:15 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't see why their participation is required, it's between the buyer
and the manufacturer.
No. The buyer has no rights derived from copyright law since he is not
the copyright owner.
The buyer
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But as usual, we have (1) GPL violation, (2) SFLC files suit,
(3) suit ends, (4) GPLed sources made available. That's what
GPL enforcement is all about.
The SFLC says it differently. Their GPL enforcement always seeks some
sort of penalty for the offender
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. The copyright owner has the right to demand that the buyer gets the
source. The buyer does not have this right.
If I pay at a merry-go-round for a ride of my child, the child does not
get the right to demand a ride. _I_ get the right to demand that
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Do you have a link, Hyman?
ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/GPL/
TFTP Listing of /GPL/ at ftp.supermicro.com
Parent Directory
Jul 08 2008 12:02 74165878 ipmi_ppc_opensrc.tgz
Jul 17 2008 11:1710212
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
How did you get that link, Hyman?
I wen to http://www.supermicro.com, used the menu
to click on Support/Downloads and noticed the link
Supermicro FTP Site under Additional Resources.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
How did you get that link, Hyman?
I wen to http://www.supermicro.com, used the menu
to click on Support/Downloads and noticed the link
Supermicro FTP Site under Additional Resources.
Now please go out of home and ask 100 guys on the street
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Alexander Terekhov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:38:38 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
How did you get that link, Hyman?
I wen to http://www.supermicro.com, used the menu
to click on Support/Downloads and
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Now please go out of home and ask 100 guys on the street what does FTP
Site (short of GPL) mean.
100 guys on the street, or a hundred guys on the street
who have an interest in the source code? Of the latter,
all of them know what an FTP site is.
In any case, I
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
The SFLC says it differently. Their GPL enforcement always seeks some
sort of penalty for the offender that goes far beyond simply making GPL
sources available. Otherwise future defendants would have no incentive
to not
JEDIDIAH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2008-07-22, Rahul Dhesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess that the plaintiffs decided that having the manufacturer of
the routers comply with the GPL was good enough for them, because
it would be difficult to explain in
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
rjack wrote:
The trouble is you can't write a copyright license that controls
all third parties as long as they follow the GPL. Congress
specifically forbid this situation with 17 USC sec. 301.
That's the federal preemption clause. What does that
have
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the
buyer of the router, the right to get source code from somewhere.
It does, unless the chain of GPL licensing is somehow broken,
perhaps through the use of the First
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:01:14 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
No. Whomever distributes the software is on the hook for providing the
source.
You can force people to walk the chain all the way back to the
manufacturer, but they are still ultimately on the hook for using
someone elses work without
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Uh no. Third parties are not involved. Only recipients. In GPLv2,
there was a clause that you could replace source code with a written
offer to source code, and this offer had to be valid for any third party
(namely, any
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:
http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx
So when did this page appear? And do they actually honor
So once again you want me to prove something?
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
