The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread RJack

Now for my prediction for the resolution of Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et. al.

I predict that Judge Scheindlin will grant a Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1). She will dismiss the lawsuit because
the plaintiffs lack Article III standing.

The definitive case concerning Article III case or controversy
standing is Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
In Lujan the Supreme Court held:

Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible
constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements: First, the
plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact — an invasion of a
legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see
id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v.
Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972); [n.1]  and (b) actual or
imminent, not `conjectural' or `hypothetical,' Whitmore, supra, at 155
(quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983)). Second, there
must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of — the injury has to be fairly . . . trace[able] to the
challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the
independent action of some third party not before the court. Simon v.
Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976). Third,
it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury
will be redressed by a favorable decision. Id., at 38, 43..

We see three requirements 1) injury in fact ; 2) causal connection 3)
redressibility.

What is the alleged injury in fact to the plaintiffs that is concrete
and particularized and not conjectural or hypothetical in the current
controversy?

The Complaint claims:

34. Plaintiffs are also entitled to permanent injunctive relief
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502 and to an order impounding any and all
infringing materials pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 503. Plaintiffs have no
adequate remedy at law for each Defendant's wrongful conduct because,
among other things, (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable
property whose market value is impossible to assess, thus causing
irreparable harm, (b) each Defendant’s infringement harms Plaintiffs
such that Plaintiffs could not be made whole by any monetary award, and
(c) each Defendant's wrongful conduct, and the resulting damage to
Plaintiffs, is continuing.

The statement . . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable
property whose market value is impossible to assess, . . .
automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is
conjectural and hypothetical. The SFLC lawyers have pleaded their
clients right out of Court.

Note: Article III standing is distinct from legislatively conferred
statutory standing.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

























___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Alexander Terekhov

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
 http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf

Under California contract law...

http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936

--- 
This is not legal advice... 

As an attorney spending a great deal of time on software related IP 
licensing and litigation matters, I find the CAFC decision in the 
Jacobsen case to be troubling. While I am sympathetic to the court's 
apparent desire to validate the concept of open source licensing and 
its alternative forms of consideration, I do not believe that the 
court's ruling justifies a euphoric response by the open source 
community. 

First, the CAFC's decision is a clear repudiation of the bare 
license theory long espoused by Mr. Moglen and his followers. The 
CAFC's decision reflects the fact that open source licenses, like any 
other form of software licenses, are contracts. I agree with this 
aspect of the decision as it is well supported by precedent at all 
levels. Neither Mr. Moglen, nor any of his followers have cited legal 
precedent in support of the bare license theory. The CAFC's decision 
should serve as clear notice that the bare license theory is nothing 
more than Moglen's wishful thinking. The necessary implication of this 
finding by the court is that open source licenses must be interpreted 
in the context of applicable state law, and to an extent, the common 
law of the Federal Circuit in which the open source agreement is 
interpreted. (This is directly in conflict with the CAFC's willful 
failure to follow state law and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the 
interpretation of restrictions as conditions precedent). 

Second, the CAFC's opinion creates a great deal of uncertainty for 
software licensing (whether proprietary or open source). Let's take 
the GPLv3 as an example. As most peoople are aware, there are a 
variety of disagreements over exactly what is required of a licensee 
to comply with various provisions of the GPL. Section 2 of the GPL 
appears to condition the rights granted under the license on the 
licensee's compliance with the conditions stated in the license. 
Under the CAFC's decision in Jacobsen, it stands to reason that a 
licensee that fails to fully satisfy the conditions stated in the 
GPLv3 would infringe the licensor's copyrights rather than merely 
breaching the license. Thus, even if the licensee unintentionally 
violated the terms of the GPLv3 because the meaning of the terms are 
not clear, the licensee would be liabile for infringement. 

Why does this matter? State courts, the federal circuit courts of 
appeal and the US Supreme Court have all uniformly and routinely 
interpreted license restrictions as covenants rather than conditions 
precedent. In other words, the courts presume that the restrictions 
are covenants rather than conditions precedent unless the agreement 
clearly defines the restrictions as conditions. the CAFC's decision 
wholly ignores this long held principle of law. 

Most licenses, open source or proprietary, contain provisions whose 
meanings are open to viable debate. In the past, parties to a 
software license have largely understood that a licensee that breaches 
a license agreement's terms is liable to the licensor for damages 
decided under contract law. Proprietary licenses typically include 
provisions which define or otherwise limit the scope of damages that 
may be recovered in the event of a breach. On the other hand, a party 
that is liable for infringement of a copyright is subject to 
injunctive relief and damages equal to the owner's actual damages 
(plus the infringer's profits not covered by the owner's actual 
damages) OR statutory damages of up to $150,000 per incidence of 
infringement. Any contractually agreed limitations on damages would 
be irrelevant in the infringement setting. 

The CAFC's Jacobsen decision unwittingly attempts to radically change 
the risks of licensing software. The CAFC states that any failure to 
comply with a license provision that the license even generally calls 
a condition is an infringement rather than a breach. Thus, any 
licensee that violates the conditions of a license, even if 
unintentional, is subject to infringement damages. If the CAFC's 
decision stands and is generally followed in the Circuits and state 
courts, (which it should not be), every license from this point 
forward will need to clearly state which, if any, restrictions are 
conditions precedent and which restrictions are merely covenants 
(all other restrictions). Moreover, the provisions that are 
conditions precedent will need to be defined with a high degree of 
care to minimize a licensee's risk of unintentionally infringing the 
copyrights as a result of miinterpreting the provisions. 

Another side note - many licesne agreement issues are brought in state 
courts. Section 301(a) of the Copyright Act, however, preempts any 
state court from hearing or deciding any cause of action which is 
equivalent to a copyright 

Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread me

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote:

The statement . . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and
valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . .
. automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is 
conjectural and hypothetical. The SFLC lawyers have pleaded their

 clients right out of Court.


Unfortunately for you, the court does not agree with you: 
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The choice to

exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source
requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as
a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition.
Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative,
these types of license restrictions might well be rendered
meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief.


[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial
system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower
federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts
may think it to be.; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982).

Tell it to the United States Supreme Court and Justice Scalia.
ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Hyman Rosen

On 4/15/2010 11:06 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf

Under California contract law...
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936


http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf
The GPL is Not a Contract
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Hyman Rosen

On 4/15/2010 11:12 AM, me wrote:

Tell it to the United States Supreme Court and Justice Scalia.


Fortunately, nothing the Supreme Court has said is inconsistent
with the CAFC JMRI decision.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread RJack

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote:

The statement . . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and
valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . .
. automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is 
conjectural and hypothetical. The SFLC lawyers have pleaded their

 clients right out of Court.


Unfortunately for you, the court does not agree with you: 
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The choice to

exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source
requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as
a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition.
Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative,
these types of license restrictions might well be rendered
meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief.




In Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 903, at 909
(Fed.Cir.1984), this court said:

Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters in
the light of the problems faced by the district court from which each
count originated, including the law there applicable. In this manner, we
desire to avoid exacerbating  the problem of intercircuit conflicts in
non-patent areas. A district court judge should not be expected to look
over his shoulder to the law in this circuit, save as to those claims
over which our subject matter jurisdiction is exclusive.

The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their
particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned
exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions and in
this case.; ATARI, INC., v. JS  A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ
1074  (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc)

ROFL

[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial
system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower
federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts
may think it to be.; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982).

ROFL

Sincerely,
RJack :)

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread RJack

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/15/2010 11:06 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Under California contract law... 
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936


http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf The GPL is Not a Contract



-- Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed
by ordinary principles of state contract law.'; McCoy v.
Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) --

-- Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in
construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under
Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written.
Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 584 N.W.2d 218, 226
(Wis. App. 1998). 187 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 1999) --

-- Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.  101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them.; Automation by
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) --

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread RJack

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/15/2010 11:12 AM, me wrote:

Tell it to the United States Supreme Court and Justice Scalia.


Fortunately, nothing the Supreme Court has said is inconsistent with
the CAFC JMRI decision.


Also... up is down and black is white. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Alexander Terekhov

Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 4/15/2010 12:00 PM, RJack wrote:
  Hyman Rosen wrote:
  http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf The GPL is Not a Contract
 
  -- Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed
  by ordinary principles of state contract law.'; McCoy v.
  Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of
  Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) --
 
  -- Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in
  construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under
  Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written.
  Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 584 N.W.2d 218, 226
  (Wis. App. 1998). 187 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 1999) --
 
  -- Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101-
  1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
  federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
  turn to the relevant state law to interpret them.; Automation by
  Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
  States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) --
 
 http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf
  The author is a Faculty Fellow at Duke University School of Law
  and a 2003 graduate of the University of Chicago Law School.
 
 Perhaps you should contact him and explain to him why he's wrong.

Him is she, you idiot.

http://www.sapnakumar.org

http://www.sapnakumar.org/IMG_2030.JPG/IMG_2030-full;init_.JPG

Or is she/he a shemale?

Is that what you mean Hyman?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Hyman Rosen

On 4/15/2010 12:45 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Him is she, you idiot.


I am insufficiently familiar with Indian-sounding names
to determine their gender. The gender of the author has
no bearing on the validity of the work, in any case.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread RJack

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/15/2010 12:00 PM, RJack wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:
http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf The GPL is Not a 
Contract


-- Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed 
by ordinary principles of state contract law.'; McCoy v. 
Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) --


-- Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in 
construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. 
Under Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are 
written. Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 584 N.W.2d

 218, 226 (Wis. App. 1998). 187 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 1999) --

-- Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101- 1332,
 grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the 
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and 
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them.; Automation by 
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United 
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) --


http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf The author is a Faculty Fellow
 at Duke University School of Law and a 2003 graduate of the 
University of Chicago Law School.







Perhaps you should contact him and explain to him why he's wrong.


The authors of the decisions I cited are comprised of six Federal
Circuit Appellate Court judges and a sitting Federal District Court
judge. All have had their qualifications vetted and approved by the full
body of the United States Senate.

Perhaps you should contact your non-tenured junior research assistant
(three years out of law school) and explain to him the legal authority
hierarchy of the United States Judicial Branch of government. No federal
court in the last 83 years has ruled a copyright license to be anything
other than a contract interpreted under state law. For your Faculty
Fellow to publish his ludicrous claims without even acknowledging the
precedents of the federal courts set the past 83 years renders him unfit
and unqualified for a research position at *any* U.S. law school.

Pee Jay over at Groklaw can blather some really stupid statements but
today you have outdone Her Highness at all levels.

Sincerely,
RJack :)












___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Alexander Terekhov

David Kastrup wrote:
 
 RJack u...@example.net writes:
 
  Now for my prediction for the resolution of Software Freedom
  Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et. al.
 
  I predict that Judge Scheindlin will grant a Motion to Dismiss
  pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1). She will dismiss the lawsuit because
  the plaintiffs lack Article III standing.
 
 And when your prediction does not come true, like always, what will you
 then do?  Just silently go away?  Bluster about how wrong the court must
 be and/or how wrong the defendants to come into compliance and not
 revert to a higher court?

Whatever RJack will do if judge Scheindlin will not grant a motion to
dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1) aside for a moment, please
answer the following simple question, dak.

How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread peterwn
On Apr 16, 2:36 am, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
 On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote:

  The statement . . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable
  property whose market value is impossible to assess, . . .
  automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is
  conjectural and hypothetical. The SFLC lawyers have pleaded their
  clients right out of Court.

 Unfortunately for you, the court does not agree with you:
 http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
      The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance
      with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation
      of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled
      to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of
      damages is inherently speculative, these types of license
      restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the
      ability to enforce through injunctive relief.

This is also in line with the fundamental philosophy of copyright.

A purely monetarist attitude would cause great difficulty in the case
of something like the Mona Lisa where assessing a monetary value would
be elusive.

In any case the GPL would apparently be less open to this form of
attack than the licence at issue in the case.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread RJack

peterwn wrote:

On Apr 16, 2:36 am, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:

On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote:


The statement . . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and
valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . .
. automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is 
conjectural and hypothetical. The SFLC lawyers have pleaded

their clients right out of Court.
Unfortunately for you, the court does not agree with you: 
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The choice to

exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source
requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than
as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal
recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently
speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be
rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through
injunctive relief.


This is also in line with the fundamental philosophy of copyright.

A purely monetarist attitude would cause great difficulty in the case
 of something like the Mona Lisa where assessing a monetary value
would be elusive.


One need only offer it on the open market at auction. Verifiable legal
appraisals of property occur thousands of time each day. The value of a
nonexclusive copyright license like the GPL is called its contractual
interest.  What US law does not recognize is the value of moral rights.

In any case the GPL would apparently be less open to this form of 
attack than the licence at issue in the case.


Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:

 David Kastrup wrote:
 
 RJack u...@example.net writes:
 
  Now for my prediction for the resolution of Software Freedom
  Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et. al.
 
  I predict that Judge Scheindlin will grant a Motion to Dismiss
  pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1). She will dismiss the lawsuit because
  the plaintiffs lack Article III standing.
 
 And when your prediction does not come true, like always, what will you
 then do?  Just silently go away?  Bluster about how wrong the court must
 be and/or how wrong the defendants to come into compliance and not
 revert to a higher court?

 Whatever RJack will do if judge Scheindlin will not grant a motion to
 dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1) aside for a moment, please
 answer the following simple question, dak.

 How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak?

I should think a lot more comfortably than you make friends.

-- 
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Alexander Terekhov

David Kastrup wrote:
 
 Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
 
  David Kastrup wrote:
 
  RJack u...@example.net writes:
 
   Now for my prediction for the resolution of Software Freedom
   Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et. al.
  
   I predict that Judge Scheindlin will grant a Motion to Dismiss
   pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1). She will dismiss the lawsuit because
   the plaintiffs lack Article III standing.
 
  And when your prediction does not come true, like always, what will you
  then do?  Just silently go away?  Bluster about how wrong the court must
  be and/or how wrong the defendants to come into compliance and not
  revert to a higher court?
 
  Whatever RJack will do if judge Scheindlin will not grant a motion to
  dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1) aside for a moment, please
  answer the following simple question, dak.
 
  How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak?
 
 I should think a lot more comfortably than you make friends.

I should think that you are jobless, right?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Hyman Rosen

On 4/15/2010 6:34 PM, RJack wrote:

The value of a nonexclusive copyright license like the GPL

 is called its contractual interest.

Something like this:
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/sun-to-acquire-mysql.html
SANTA CLARA, CA January 16, 2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: JAVA)
today announced it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire
MySQL AB, an open source icon and developer of one of the world's
fastest growing open source databases for approximately $1 billion in
total consideration.

 What US law does not recognize is the value of moral rights.

You have apparently failed to notice 17 USC 106A.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_0106---A000-.html
§ 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
... (a bunch of stuff) ...
(b) Scope and Exercise of Rights.—
Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by
subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright
owner.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread RJack

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/15/2010 6:34 PM, RJack wrote:

The value of a nonexclusive copyright license like the GPL

  is called its contractual interest.

Something like this:
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/sun-to-acquire-mysql.html
SANTA CLARA, CA January 16, 2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: JAVA)
today announced it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire
MySQL AB, an open source icon and developer of one of the world's
fastest growing open source databases for approximately $1 billion in
total consideration.

  What US law does not recognize is the value of moral rights.

You have apparently failed to notice 17 USC 106A.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_0106---A000-.html
§ 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
... (a bunch of stuff) ...
(b) Scope and Exercise of Rights.—
Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by
subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright
owner.


Yup. Only the author of a work of visual art
ROFL

Sincerely,
RJack :)

of a work of visual art



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Hyman Rosen

On 4/16/2010 2:30 PM, RJack wrote:

Yup. Only the author of a work of visual art


You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize
the value of moral rights.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Alexander Terekhov

Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 4/16/2010 2:30 PM, RJack wrote:
  Yup. Only the author of a work of visual art
 
 You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize
 the value of moral rights.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html

Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a work of
visual art. For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes paintings,
drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing in a single copy
or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer. In
order to be protected, a photograph must have been taken for exhibition
purposes only. VARA only protects works of recognized stature;
posters, maps, globes, motion pictures, electronic publications, and
applied art are among the categories of visual works explicitly excluded
from VARA protection. 

The language of the Copyright Act excludes works-for-hire from the
definition of works of visual art, thereby excluding such works from
VARA protection. 

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Hyman Rosen

On 4/16/2010 2:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize
the value of moral rights.


http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html

Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a work of
visual art. For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes paintings,
drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing in a single copy
or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer. In
order to be protected, a photograph must have been taken for exhibition
purposes only. VARA only protects works of recognized stature;
posters, maps, globes, motion pictures, electronic publications, and
applied art are among the categories of visual works explicitly excluded
from VARA protection.

The language of the Copyright Act excludes works-for-hire from the
definition of works of visual art, thereby excluding such works from
VARA protection. 


Thank you for providing a confirming link that US law
does recognize the value of moral rights.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Alexander Terekhov

Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
 On 4/16/2010 2:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  Hyman Rosen wrote:
  You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize
  the value of moral rights.
 
  http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html
 
  Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a work of
  visual art. For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes paintings,
  drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing in a single copy
  or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer. In
  order to be protected, a photograph must have been taken for exhibition
  purposes only. VARA only protects works of recognized stature;
  posters, maps, globes, motion pictures, electronic publications, and
  applied art are among the categories of visual works explicitly excluded
  from VARA protection.
 
  The language of the Copyright Act excludes works-for-hire from the
  definition of works of visual art, thereby excluding such works from
  VARA protection. 
 
 Thank you for providing a confirming link that US law
 does recognize the value of moral rights.

a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer.

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~csundt/copyweb/CunardCAA2002.htm

As a threshold matter, only certain art is protected by VARA: works
that fit a definition of “Works of Visual Art” in § 101 of the Act.
Works in traditional media such as painting and drawing are covered, but
multiples such as sculpture and prints are only protected if the work is
a unique print or if it is in signed and numbered editions of 200 or
less. Similarly, still photographs produced for exhibition purposes are
protected only if they are unique or are in signed, numbered editions of
200 or less. Specifically excluded are numerous items listed in the
statute, such as posters, maps, models, applied art, motion pictures, or
other audiovisual works, periodicals, databases, and art produced for
primarily commercial purposes, such as advertising, packaging, or
promotional material. Also excluded is any portion of a mixed-media work
of art incorporating one of the specifically excluded items. 

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Hyman Rosen

On 4/16/2010 3:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer.


It is a bit more like moral rights of art than moral
rights of artists. They're trying to keep people from
buying the Mona Lisa and drawing a mustache on it,
but it's hard to write a law that expresses that but
doesn't stop you from using a newspaper to wrap fish.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread RJack

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 4/16/2010 2:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize the
value of moral rights.


http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html

Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a
work of visual art. For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes
paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing
in a single copy or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered
copies or fewer. In order to be protected, a photograph must have
been taken for exhibition purposes only. VARA only protects works
of recognized stature; posters, maps, globes, motion pictures,
electronic publications, and applied art are among the categories
of visual works explicitly excluded from VARA protection.

The language of the Copyright Act excludes works-for-hire from the 
definition of works of visual art, thereby excluding such works

from VARA protection. 


Thank you for providing a confirming link that US law does recognize
the value of moral rights.


Computer programs are not works of visual art. What is exactly your
goal? To deflect attention from the fact that the SFLC BusyBox lawsuits
are abject failures? That a copyright license is a contract? To confuse
folks concerning the fact that the GPL is unenforceable dure to lack of
article III standing?

Sincerely,
RJack :)

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Hyman Rosen

On 4/16/2010 3:24 PM, RJack wrote:

What is exactly your goal?


To correct your incorrect statements. http://xkcd.com/386/
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Alan Mackenzie
In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:

 David Kastrup wrote:

  How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak?

 I should think a lot more comfortably than you make friends.

 I should think that you are jobless, right?

I'd think you're friendless, too, eh?

 regards,
 alexander.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nurmberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss


Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

2010-05-04 Thread Alexander Terekhov

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
 
 In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
 
  David Kastrup wrote:
 
   How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak?
 
  I should think a lot more comfortably than you make friends.
 
  I should think that you are jobless, right?
 
 I'd think you're friendless, too, eh?

I'm not friendless and I'm pretty sure that dak is jobless.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress.

Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss