Big blow to GPL linking nonsense.

  • Permalink
  • submit to reddit
  • Email
  • Follow


The following decision probably settles most questions touching upon
copyright law and dynamically linking to open source code and vice
versa. Simply placing a hook in GPL source code to call independent
proprietary drivers or libraries is fully protected by 17 USC sec. 117.
Simply dynamically calling GPL code doesn't involve copyright questions
at all.

"Other passages of the report, however, describe the right to modify
programs in a manner that goes far beyond concern with compatibility and
strongly suggests that the writers of the CONTU Report envisioned a
loose concept of necessity that would encompass our very issue � the
addition of features so that a program better serves the needs of the
customer for which it was created. The report states:

'Thus, a right to make those changes necessary to enable the use for
which it was both sold and purchased should be provided. The conversion
of a program from one higher-level language to another to facilitate use
would fall within this right, *as would the right to add features to the
program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition.*'

Id. (emphasis added). Without question, the CONTU Report, in the
italicized text, specifically contemplates protection for modifications
adding features, rather than merely securing continued functioning of
what was originally created. The CONTU Report thus persuasively rebuts
Krause's narrow reading of � 117(a)(1), which would authorize only
changes needed to permit the program to function."; Krause v. Titleserv,
Inc., 402 F. 3d 119 (2nd Cir. 2006)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16327862974386079523&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

The CONTU phrase ". . . as would the right to add features to the
program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition" is a
blow to those who would restrict the scope of 17 USC sec. 117.

Recognized copyright authority William Patry (lead copyright attorney
for Google) noted this decision with approval.
0
Reply RJack 5/16/2010 2:50:16 PM

See related articles to this posting


RJack the stupid 1 wrote:

> The following decision probably settles most questions touching upon
> copyright law and dynamically linking to open source code and vice
> versa. Simply placing a hook in GPL source code to call independent
> proprietary drivers or libraries is fully protected by 17 USC sec. 117.
> Simply dynamically calling GPL code doesn't involve copyright questions
> at all.

Nope.

'Simply placing a hook' is no different 
to saying embedding irrespective of how that embedding
was achieved.

Once proprietary code is embedded into GPL'd code
the whole product now has two incompatible licenses.
And you may be violating both licenses.

As for the embedded GPL, you can use it for your own
private use under the terms of the GPL. But you can't distribute 
it if it violates the GPL. You can distribute after you
remove the GPL'd code and/or substitute it with your own code,
or remove the embedded proprietary code, or re-license the proprietary
code with one that is compatible with the GPL license.


 
> "Other passages of the report, however, describe the right to modify
> programs in a manner that goes far beyond concern with compatibility and
> strongly suggests that the writers of the CONTU Report envisioned a
> loose concept of necessity that would encompass our very issue — the
> addition of features so that a program better serves the needs of the
> customer for which it was created. The report states:
> 
> 'Thus, a right to make those changes necessary to enable the use for
> which it was both sold and purchased should be provided. The conversion
> of a program from one higher-level language to another to facilitate use
> would fall within this right, *as would the right to add features to the
> program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition.*'
> 
> Id. (emphasis added). Without question, the CONTU Report, in the
> italicized text, specifically contemplates protection for modifications
> adding features, rather than merely securing continued functioning of
> what was originally created. The CONTU Report thus persuasively rebuts
> Krause's narrow reading of § 117(a)(1), which would authorize only
> changes needed to permit the program to function."; Krause v. Titleserv,
> Inc., 402 F. 3d 119 (2nd Cir. 2006)
> 
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16327862974386079523&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
> 
> The CONTU phrase ". . . as would the right to add features to the
> program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition" is a
> blow to those who would restrict the scope of 17 USC sec. 117.
> 
> Recognized copyright authority William Patry (lead copyright attorney
> for Google) noted this decision with approval.


0
Reply 7 5/16/2010 3:12:31 PM

7 wrote:
> RJack the stupid 1 wrote:
> 
>> The following decision probably settles most questions touching
>> upon copyright law and dynamically linking to open source code and
>> vice versa. Simply placing a hook in GPL source code to call
>> independent proprietary drivers or libraries is fully protected by
>> 17 USC sec. 117. Simply dynamically calling GPL code doesn't
>> involve copyright questions at all.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> 'Simply placing a hook' is no different to saying embedding
> irrespective of how that embedding was achieved.
> 
> Once proprietary code is embedded into GPL'd code the whole product
> now has two incompatible licenses. And you may be violating both
> licenses.
> 
> As for the embedded GPL, you can use it for your own private use
> under the terms of the GPL. But you can't distribute it if it
> violates the GPL. You can distribute after you remove the GPL'd code
> and/or substitute it with your own code, or remove the embedded
> proprietary code, or re-license the proprietary code with one that is
> compatible with the GPL license.
> 

Placing (embedding) a "jmp" or "call" instruction to code residing in a
seperate place in memory is trivial requiring only a few bytes and does
not change the creative aspects of a program since it is a purely
functional and utilitarian addition. Purely functional aspects of
a computer program are not protected by copyright due to the dichotomy
of expression and function.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 5/16/2010 4:49:36 PM

"7" the lazy, inept diarrhea pig snout and gonhorraic twat 
<website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote 
news:5_THn.66469$M17.37305@newsfe02.ams2...
> RJack the stupid 1 wrote:
>
>> The following decision probably settles most questions touching upon
>> copyright law and dynamically linking to open source code and vice
>> versa. Simply placing a hook in GPL source code to call independent
>> proprietary drivers or libraries is fully protected by 17 USC sec. 117.
>> Simply dynamically calling GPL code doesn't involve copyright questions
>> at all.
>
> Nope.
>
Nonsense, Josh!, you Google asstroturfing fraudster with a big girlie butt 
from Google Department of Marketing.
b.t.w.
Retard "7" in COLA:
"Google: a Linux company"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAH!! 

0
Reply Clogwog 5/16/2010 4:56:12 PM

RJack the stupid 1 wrote:

>> 
>>> The following decision probably settles most questions touching
>>> upon copyright law and dynamically linking to open source code and
>>> vice versa. Simply placing a hook in GPL source code to call
>>> independent proprietary drivers or libraries is fully protected by
>>> 17 USC sec. 117. Simply dynamically calling GPL code doesn't
>>> involve copyright questions at all.
>> 
>> Nope.
>> 
>> 'Simply placing a hook' is no different to saying embedding
>> irrespective of how that embedding was achieved.
>> 
>> Once proprietary code is embedded into GPL'd code the whole product
>> now has two incompatible licenses. And you may be violating both
>> licenses.
>> 
>> As for the embedded GPL, you can use it for your own private use
>> under the terms of the GPL. But you can't distribute it if it
>> violates the GPL. You can distribute after you remove the GPL'd code
>> and/or substitute it with your own code, or remove the embedded
>> proprietary code, or re-license the proprietary code with one that is
>> compatible with the GPL license.
>> 
> 
> Placing (embedding) a "jmp" or "call" instruction to code


blearghhh! Technicalities.


> residing in a
> seperate place in memory is trivial requiring only a few bytes and does
> not change the creative aspects of a program since it is a purely
> functional and utilitarian addition. Purely functional aspects of
> a computer program are not protected by copyright due to the dichotomy
> of expression and function.
> 
> Sincerely,
> RJack :)


If only you were even close oh stupid 1.

You should consult a software engineer about the numerous methods of
embedding before handing out judicial reviews on public usenet.




0
Reply 7 5/16/2010 5:51:50 PM

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> 7 wrote:
>> RJack the stupid 1 wrote:
>>
>>> The following decision probably settles most questions touching
>>> upon copyright law and dynamically linking to open source code and
>>> vice versa. Simply placing a hook in GPL source code to call
>>> independent proprietary drivers or libraries is fully protected by
>>> 17 USC sec. 117. Simply dynamically calling GPL code doesn't
>>> involve copyright questions at all.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> 'Simply placing a hook' is no different to saying embedding
>> irrespective of how that embedding was achieved.
>>
>> Once proprietary code is embedded into GPL'd code the whole product
>> now has two incompatible licenses. And you may be violating both
>> licenses.
>>
>> As for the embedded GPL, you can use it for your own private use
>> under the terms of the GPL. But you can't distribute it if it
>> violates the GPL. You can distribute after you remove the GPL'd code
>> and/or substitute it with your own code, or remove the embedded
>> proprietary code, or re-license the proprietary code with one that is
>> compatible with the GPL license.
>>
>
> Placing (embedding) a "jmp" or "call" instruction to code residing in a
> seperate place in memory is trivial requiring only a few bytes and does
> not change the creative aspects of a program since it is a purely
> functional and utilitarian addition. Purely functional aspects of
> a computer program are not protected by copyright due to the dichotomy
> of expression and function.

You are confused.  Modification even in uncreative ways is not a right
granted by copyright.

But that is not really relevant for the embedding question.  Relevant
for the embedding question is whether the resulting application is an
aggregation, or a new work with new aspects.  If it is the latter (and
the choice of the word "embedding" strongly suggests that this is what a
judge would consider), then the GPL allows distribution of the changed
work only if the resulting work as a whole is distributed under the GPL.

As always: your legal fantasies loosely based on some phrases you want
to mean something different are not relevant.  Let's see a judge apply
them to GPLed works before you wet yourself over them.

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 5/16/2010 6:52:30 PM

On 5/16/2010 10:50 AM, RJack wrote:
> The following decision probably settles most questions touching upon
> copyright law and dynamically linking to open source code and vice
> versa.

It does nothing of the sort, and there is nothing in this
decision that impacts upon the GPL at all.

The case is Krause v. Titleserv,
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16327862974386079523>,
and it is about the owner of a copy of a computer program
being permitted to make changes to it:
     Titleserv moved for summary judgment on the basis of 17 U.S.C.
     � 117(a)(1) (as well as on other grounds). Section 117(a)(1)
     provides an affirmative defense against copyright infringement
     for anyone who (i) owns a physical copy of a computer program,
     (ii) makes an adaptation "as an essential step in the utilization
     of the computer program in conjunction with a machine," and (iii)
     uses it "in no other manner." The district court, following the
     recommendation of Magistrate Judge William D. Wall, concluded
     there was no genuine issue of material fact and granted summary
     judgment in favor of Titleserv.

     On appeal, Krause challenges the district court's interpretation
     and application of � 117(a)(1). We affirm.

The GPL says, <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>,
     To �modify� a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of
     the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than
     the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a
     �modified version� of the earlier work or a work �based on� the
     earlier work.
     A �covered work� means either the unmodified Program or a work
     based on the Program.
     To �convey� a work means any kind of propagation that enables
     other parties to make or receive copies.
     You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
     convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise
     remains in force.

The rights granted by 17 USC 117 are thus at least restated and
likely broadened by the GPL.
0
Reply Hyman 5/17/2010 2:09:12 PM

On 5/16/2010 2:52 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> You are confused.  Modification even in uncreative ways
 > is not a right granted by copyright.

You're wrong, for computer programs:
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html>
     Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
     infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to
     make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of
     that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or
     adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization
     of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that
     it is used in no other manner

The courts have given extremely broad latitude as to what an
"essential step in the utilization" means, including addition
of new functionality. The law is pretty much that you can make
any change you want to a legal copy of a program. Nothing in
this gives you the right to make further copies, though.
0
Reply Hyman 5/17/2010 2:13:15 PM


"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message 
news:_9cIn.13512$TL5.10239@newsfe24.iad...
> On 5/16/2010 2:52 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> You are confused.  Modification even in uncreative ways
> > is not a right granted by copyright.
>
> You're wrong, for computer programs:
> <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html>
>     Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
>     infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to
>     make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of
>     that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or
>     adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization
>     of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that
>     it is used in no other manner
>
> The courts have given extremely broad latitude as to what an
> "essential step in the utilization" means, including addition
> of new functionality. The law is pretty much that you can make
> any change you want to a legal copy of a program. Nothing in
> this gives you the right to make further copies, though.

But he GPL states "The act of running the Program is not restricted..." 
which means that I can run the program as I wish with no restriction.  So I, 
as a downstream user of Rjack's modified program am authorized to run the 
program with no restriction including, as you note by adding the new 
functionality as provided by Rjack.  The net effect of this is that the 
modifications made by Rjack can be kept proprietary and I can use them in 
conjunction with the original code to do whatever it is that Rjack thinks is 
better than what it previously did. 

0
Reply amicus_curious 5/17/2010 9:14:16 PM

On 5/17/2010 5:14 PM, amicus_curious wrote:
> I, as a downstream user of Rjack's modified program

If a copy of the the program has been conveyed without
complying with the requirements of the GPL, the conveyor
has infringed the copyrights of the holders, and will be
enjoined from further such conveyance and may be subject
to other penalties if the infringement was deliberate.

The recipient of the illegally conveyed program has no
right to further convey it, or to do anything else with
it - holders of illegal copies of a work don't get any
rights.
0
Reply Hyman 5/17/2010 9:25:27 PM


"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message 
news:9viIn.8188$HG1.1274@newsfe21.iad...
> On 5/17/2010 5:14 PM, amicus_curious wrote:
>> I, as a downstream user of Rjack's modified program
>
> If a copy of the the program has been conveyed without
> complying with the requirements of the GPL, the conveyor
> has infringed the copyrights of the holders, and will be
> enjoined from further such conveyance and may be subject
> to other penalties if the infringement was deliberate.
>
Well, OK, so say that I post some link somewhere saying that you can get the 
Busy Box or whatever source from some place that has it.  Now you have said 
many times that covers the waterfront for using and conveying the GPL 
program.  So it is legitimately conveyed and subsequently it is legitimately 
modified by adding Rjack's proprietary piece to it to form the improved 
program.  You cannot sue the customer and I don't see where you can sue the 
distributor since he has published the link to the source meeting the GPL 
requirement


> The recipient of the illegally conveyed program has no
> right to further convey it, or to do anything else with
> it - holders of illegal copies of a work don't get any
> rights.

Well, in my scenario that is just what Rjack would want, since the user is 
not allowed to further convey Rjack's additions either.  It is pretty much 
like selling a program that uses some GPL program as a base but not putting 
the whole thing under the GPL.  Who cares what the user does with the 
original GPL program, there isn't any commercial value in that.  The key is 
being able to obtain the commercial value from the add-on that does 
something new. 

0
Reply amicus_curious 5/17/2010 9:39:03 PM

On 5/17/2010 5:39 PM, amicus_curious wrote:
> Well, OK, so say that I post some link somewhere saying that you can get
> the Busy Box or whatever source from some place that has it. Now you
> have said many times that covers the waterfront for using and conveying
> the GPL program. So it is legitimately conveyed and subsequently it is
> legitimately modified by adding Rjack's proprietary piece to it to form
> the improved program. You cannot sue the customer and I don't see where
> you can sue the distributor since he has published the link to the
> source meeting the GPL requirement

Sorry, I can't figure out from your description above who the
actors are and what they are doing. The GPL requires that the
conveyor of a covered work provide the source code for the
version of the work being conveyed. The GPL permits changes to
be made without restriction or requirement to a copy of the
work which is not conveyed. Someone may add a non-free piece to
a GPLed work, but may then not convey the combined work. So if
a "customer" wishes to modify a GPLed work, he is allowed to do
so - indeed, I imagine there are any number of companies who
make in-house modifications to GPLed works and never convey
those works, and so never provide the source for their changes.

Remember, the purpose of the GPL is to provide freedom for users
of software. That's why users are permitted to do all of this
without restriction. But in order to provide freedom for all users,
once someone wants to convey a covered work, they must do so under
the terms of the GPL, so that the recipients can share in the same
freedom.

>> The recipient of the illegally conveyed program has no
>> right to further convey it, or to do anything else with
>> it - holders of illegal copies of a work don't get any
>> rights.
>
> Well, in my scenario that is just what Rjack would want, since the user
> is not allowed to further convey Rjack's additions either. It is pretty
> much like selling a program that uses some GPL program as a base but not
> putting the whole thing under the GPL. Who cares what the user does with
> the original GPL program, there isn't any commercial value in that. The
> key is being able to obtain the commercial value from the add-on that
> does something new.

As I said, the GPL requires that the someone who conveys a covered
work provide the source to the version being conveyed, so I don't
know what you mean by "selling a program that uses some GPL program
as a base but not putting the whole thing under the GPL". That is an
infringement of the copyright of the base program.
0
Reply Hyman 5/17/2010 10:02:13 PM

On May 16, 10:50=A0am, RJack <u...@example.net> wrote:
> The following decision probably settles most questions touching upon
> copyright law and dynamically linking to open source code and vice
> versa. Simply placing a hook in GPL source code to call independent
> proprietary drivers or libraries is fully protected by 17 USC sec. 117.
> Simply dynamically calling GPL code doesn't involve copyright questions
> at all.

The entire judgement seems to overturn nearly 35 years of copyright
law.

The first question, which the Judge avoided issuing a ruling on, was
whether the copyrighted work was work for hire.  In 1976 copyright law
distinguished work for contract from work for hire.  In this case, the
claim of the plaintiff was that the software was written during
negotiation for a contract, and that the terms of the contract were
unacceptable.  He apparently had been paid something, and so under a
settlement he offered them a set of license terms in which they were
permitted to use the software he wrote, in their binary form.

Had the judge ruled instead that that this was just software for hire
and that the defendent owned the copyrights themselves - which
requires a prior written agreement with the person as part of an
employment agreement.  Most companies have employees sign explicit
intellectual rights agreements in which employees agree to grant the
employers all intellectual property rights related to the profession
for which they are hired.  In this case, there was no such agreement
of employment and no such agreement of assignment of intellectual
property rights.

The defendant did admit that they had been given a software license
agreement, and that they had accepted the terms agreement by using the
software they had been given - the equivalent of "i accept".  The
defendant also admitted that it reverse engineered the software -
therefore creating a "derivative work" from the copyrighted work, and
claimed that it owned this derivative work exclusively, even though
they had explicitly NOT been given any of these rights.

The Judge decided to disregard these precepts of copyright law and
accepted the rulings of a lower magistrate, who seemed to assume that
simply because the defendant possessed copies of the code, that this
was sufficient basis to grant them "ownership" of the copyrighted
work, even though they were clearly only given a license to the
copyrighted work and had no assignment of intellectual property rights
agreement under an employment agreement.  Based on the lack of
evidence - at minimum the summary judgement should have gone in favor
of the plaintiff, not the defendant, or deferred until further
disclosures were ordered and a sufficient body of discovery to
determine, based on the preponderance of discovery evidence whether a
summary judgement was warranted.

The judge further decided that rather than honor the restrictions on
derivative works which prevents the licensee from doing self-applied
upgrades, a fundamental basis for "for-fee" upgrades for applications
published by major vendors like Microsoft, Borland, Lotus, Corel, and
most other major software companies, the judge ruled that the
defendent had the right to make any modifications they wished to make
the software "useful" under the new circumstances.  This would be a
bit like a judge ruling that hackers have the legal right to unlock
software and publish the unlock codes - because it makes the software
"useful" on "new hardware and software" - even if that's a
competitor's product.

Ironically, it's highly likely that Krouse will find some interesting
allies backing his appeal, possibly even to the Supreme court, at
least making a case for a remand to get a full trial or settlement.
The Summary judgement was premature at best, and a dangerous precedent
at worst.

It's unlikely that companies like Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM would
want such a ruling to stand, because it establishes an ambiguous
precedent that possession of a copyrighted work gives the possessor
the right to create derivative works based on the mere possession of
the work.

0
Reply Rex 5/17/2010 11:39:40 PM

On May 16, 2:52=A0pm, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> RJack <u...@example.net> writes:
> > 7 wrote:
> >> RJack the stupid 1 wrote:

> You are confused. =A0Modification even in uncreative ways is not a right
> granted by copyright.

Actually, by default, ANY modification is a "derivative work" and all
rights to derivative works including the right to create and
distribute them - are controlled by the copyright owner.  The
copyright owner may grant some permission to release derivative works
- such as the BSD license, but these permissions must be granted
explicitly.

The whole point of the Revised Copyright Act of 1976 and the Digital
Millenium Copyright Act of 1994 was to limit the ability of Judges to
define "fair use" at their discresssion.

It's worth noting that it was BECAUSE of the Revised Copyright Act of
1976 that Microsoft was able to exist and thrive the way it did.

If the basis for this summary judgement were allowed to stand as legal
precedent, based on the current lack of evidence that the software was
not "work for hire" - the lack of a negotiated contract does not make
it work for hire, because the defendant acknowledges that they were
still in progress of negotiating the contract, and that contract
negotiation broke down when the terms of the interim agreement were
changed.


0
Reply Rex 5/18/2010 3:08:19 AM

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Remember, the purpose of the GPL is to provide freedom for users of 
> software. That's why users are permitted to do all of this without 
> restriction. But in order to provide freedom for all users, once 
> someone wants to convey a covered work, they must do so under the 
> terms of the GPL, so that the recipients can share in the same 
> freedom.
> 

Remember. . . LMAO.

Anything Richard Stallman dreams up, including the claim that "a
copyright license is not a contract" is in your credo. Good luck.

History is replete with pseudo Karl Marx's who believed their
belief system would free mankind from their conception of tyranny.
They've all failed dismally. Happy philosophizing.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 5/18/2010 11:13:30 AM

Rex Ballard wrote:
> On May 16, 2:52 pm, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> RJack <u...@example.net> writes:
>>> 7 wrote:
>>>> RJack the stupid 1 wrote:
> 
>> You are confused.  Modification even in uncreative ways is not a
>> right granted by copyright.
> 
> Actually, by default, ANY modification is a "derivative work" and all
>  rights to derivative works including the right to create and 
> distribute them - are controlled by the copyright owner.  The 
> copyright owner may grant some permission to release derivative works
>  - such as the BSD license, but these permissions must be granted 
> explicitly.
> 
> The whole point of the Revised Copyright Act of 1976 and the Digital 
> Millenium Copyright Act of 1994 was to limit the ability of Judges to
>  define "fair use" at their discresssion.

Actually, the central goal of Congress concerning fair use was stated in
the House of Representatives' Report HR No. 94-1476. The courts were
given flexibility within the statutory guidelines:

"General intention behind the provision

The statement of the fair use doctrine in section 107 offers some
guidance to users in determining when the principles of the doctrine
apply. However, the endless variety of situations and combinations of
circumstances that can rise in particular cases precludes the
formulation of exact rules in the statute. The bill endorses the purpose
and general scope of the judicial doctrine of fair use, but there is no
disposition to freeze the doctrine in the statute, especially during a
period of rapid technological change. Beyond a very broad statutory
explanation of what fair use is and some of the criteria applicable to
it, their courts must be free to adapt the doctrine to particular
situations on a case-by-case basis. Section 107 is intended to restate
the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or
enlarge it in any way."
> 

> It's worth noting that it was BECAUSE of the Revised Copyright Act of
>  1976 that Microsoft was able to exist and thrive the way it did.
> 
> If the basis for this summary judgement were allowed to stand as
> legal precedent, based on the current lack of evidence that the
> software was not "work for hire" - the lack of a negotiated contract
> does not make it work for hire, because the defendant acknowledges
> that they were still in progress of negotiating the contract, and
> that contract negotiation broke down when the terms of the interim
> agreement were changed.
> 
Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 5/18/2010 11:31:33 AM

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
>> Remember, the purpose of the GPL is to provide freedom for users of
>> software. That's why users are permitted to do all of this without
>> restriction. But in order to provide freedom for all users, once
>> someone wants to convey a covered work, they must do so under the
>> terms of the GPL, so that the recipients can share in the same
>> freedom.
>>
>
> Remember. . . LMAO.
>
> Anything Richard Stallman dreams up, including the claim that "a
> copyright license is not a contract" is in your credo. Good luck.
>
> History is replete with pseudo Karl Marx's who believed their
> belief system would free mankind from their conception of tyranny.

Marx offered not as much a belief system as historical predictions (not
as far off the mark as many want to believe, but also not on-spot:
apparently quite a bit of historic inevitability was evitable) and sort
of a call to arms.  It was the job of others to make a pseudo-belief
system from that.  Somewhat ironically, to the detriment of some of his
predictions.

> They've all failed dismally. Happy philosophizing.

Well, you can't have both.  If you choose to count Stallman among
Marxists, obviously they have not "all failed dismally".  Free software
is exploding in importance.  And if you choose to not count him among
them, what are you yelling about?

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 5/18/2010 11:43:59 AM

David Kastrup wrote:
> RJack <user@example.net> writes:
> 
>> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> 
>>> Remember, the purpose of the GPL is to provide freedom for users
>>> of software. That's why users are permitted to do all of this
>>> without restriction. But in order to provide freedom for all
>>> users, once someone wants to convey a covered work, they must do
>>> so under the terms of the GPL, so that the recipients can share
>>> in the same freedom.
>>> 
>> Remember. . . LMAO.
>> 
>> Anything Richard Stallman dreams up, including the claim that "a 
>> copyright license is not a contract" is in your credo. Good luck.
>> 
>> History is replete with pseudo Karl Marx's who believed their 
>> belief system would free mankind from their conception of tyranny.
> 
> Marx offered not as much a belief system as historical predictions
> (not as far off the mark as many want to believe, but also not
> on-spot: apparently quite a bit of historic inevitability was
> evitable) and sort of a call to arms.  It was the job of others to
> make a pseudo-belief system from that.  Somewhat ironically, to the
> detriment of some of his predictions.
> 
>> They've all failed dismally. Happy philosophizing.
> 
> Well, you can't have both.  If you choose to count Stallman among 
> Marxists, obviously they have not "all failed dismally".  Free
> software is exploding in importance.

Yeah... "exploding in importance". I used to read reports about Linus
Torvald's seminars "World Domination 101" ten years ago.

Same old shit, different decade. LMAO.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

> And if you choose to not count him among them, what are you yelling
> about?
> 
Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 5/18/2010 12:51:51 PM


"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message 
news:G1jIn.16893$Ak3.8753@newsfe16.iad...
> On 5/17/2010 5:39 PM, amicus_curious wrote:
>> Well, OK, so say that I post some link somewhere saying that you can get
>> the Busy Box or whatever source from some place that has it. Now you
>> have said many times that covers the waterfront for using and conveying
>> the GPL program. So it is legitimately conveyed and subsequently it is
>> legitimately modified by adding Rjack's proprietary piece to it to form
>> the improved program. You cannot sue the customer and I don't see where
>> you can sue the distributor since he has published the link to the
>> source meeting the GPL requirement
>
> Sorry, I can't figure out from your description above who the
> actors are and what they are doing.

Have you been conveniently stupid all your life or has that happened 
recently.  I am sure you get the point, having been around this forum for so 
long, but I will go more slowly:

>The GPL requires that the
> conveyor of a covered work provide the source code for the
> version of the work being conveyed.

Exactly.  So to please the SFLC, Rjack conveys the original version of, say, 
Busy Box, by posting the source somewhere.


> The GPL permits changes to
> be made without restriction or requirement to a copy of the
> work which is not conveyed. Someone may add a non-free piece to
> a GPLed work, but may then not convey the combined work. So if
> a "customer" wishes to modify a GPLed work, he is allowed to do
> so - indeed, I imagine there are any number of companies who
> make in-house modifications to GPLed works and never convey
> those works, and so never provide the source for their changes.
>

But the GPL goes beyond the pall here.  Rjack has simply augmented the 
program that was properly conveyed to the end user by means of adding in his 
improvements and authorizes the end user to use the combination via some 
proprietary license that restricts the user from further redistribution of 
the combination.  That is a legitimate action under the copyright laws and 
under the GPL as I have framed it.  The mere fact that Rjack has found a 
very efficient way of modifying the end user's copy of the GPL work, i.e., a 
recompilation, is immaterial, at least to the copyright laws.


> Remember, the purpose of the GPL is to provide freedom for users
> of software. That's why users are permitted to do all of this
> without restriction. But in order to provide freedom for all users,
> once someone wants to convey a covered work, they must do so under
> the terms of the GPL, so that the recipients can share in the same
> freedom.
>
That is, of course, a joke, but, even so, the end user is just as free as 
Rjack to use the Busy Box software in the same form as used by Rjack.

>>> The recipient of the illegally conveyed program has no
>>> right to further convey it, or to do anything else with
>>> it - holders of illegal copies of a work don't get any
>>> rights.
>>
>> Well, in my scenario that is just what Rjack would want, since the user
>> is not allowed to further convey Rjack's additions either. It is pretty
>> much like selling a program that uses some GPL program as a base but not
>> putting the whole thing under the GPL. Who cares what the user does with
>> the original GPL program, there isn't any commercial value in that. The
>> key is being able to obtain the commercial value from the add-on that
>> does something new.
>
> As I said, the GPL requires that the someone who conveys a covered
> work provide the source to the version being conveyed, so I don't
> know what you mean by "selling a program that uses some GPL program
> as a base but not putting the whole thing under the GPL". That is an
> infringement of the copyright of the base program.

Well, you can say that all day, but it has no effect.  You say that a user 
may take a GPL work and modify it and use it himself with no obligations to 
anyone and that is the key to the issue.  Say that some company wishes to to 
just that, for example Google.  Now there is no "Google user" per se, just a 
company that employs a lot of people who know how to code.  So one or more 
of them make the modifications and receive payment for those services in 
doing that work.  The result is conveyed to Google as a legal entity and no 
disclosure is made of the exact modifications in use.  That is no different 
than an end user hiring Rjack to make necessary modifications and receiving 
the result and not disclosing any source. 

0
Reply amicus_curious 5/18/2010 12:53:20 PM


"RJack" <user@example.net> wrote in message 
news:HvWdnZ5KxpP362_WnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
>> Remember, the purpose of the GPL is to provide freedom for users of 
>> software. That's why users are permitted to do all of this without 
>> restriction. But in order to provide freedom for all users, once someone 
>> wants to convey a covered work, they must do so under the terms of the 
>> GPL, so that the recipients can share in the same freedom.
>>
>
> Remember. . . LMAO.
>
> Anything Richard Stallman dreams up, including the claim that "a
> copyright license is not a contract" is in your credo. Good luck.
>
I think that was Moglen who came up with that.  Stallman is not so astute.

Stallman is a odd duck with an odd appearance and a even odder mantra.  For 
years he shamelessly used the banner of MIT to hide his mere Harvard 
undergraduate qualifications.  He is a technician run amok and is no true 
son of MIT.  He is a charlatan to the core and parades his silly image in 
front of wannabe dweebs who confuse such shenanigans with technical 
urbanity.  Linux, Apache, PHP, and even MySQL have a legitimate place in the 
world as public domain, generic solutions to many IT needs, but the sideshow 
of the GPL and Stallman's musings do not.
 

0
Reply amicus_curious 5/18/2010 1:04:05 PM

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Well, you can't have both.  If you choose to count Stallman among
>> Marxists, obviously they have not "all failed dismally".  Free
>> software is exploding in importance.
>
> Yeah... "exploding in importance". I used to read reports about Linus
> Torvald's seminars "World Domination 101" ten years ago.

You really should do something about those hallucinations.  There were
no such seminars, just a jocular reference.  At least it was sort of
jocular in 1991 or 1992 when it was made.  People have stopped laughing
about it long since.

> Same old shit, different decade. LMAO.

Well, world domination in internet servers was already achieved in 1999,
according to <URL:http://leb.net/hzo/ioscount/data/r.9904.txt>

And Apache has been serving more than 50% of active websites for a
similar amount of time.

Among the top 500 super computers, GNU/Linux is employed on 78.2%
<URL:http://www.top500.org/stats/list/34/os>.

That's not exactly insignificant...

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 5/18/2010 1:30:35 PM

"amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net> writes:

> Stallman is a odd duck with an odd appearance and a even odder mantra.
> For years he shamelessly used the banner of MIT to hide his mere
> Harvard undergraduate qualifications.  He is a technician run amok and
> is no true son of MIT.  He is a charlatan to the core and parades his
> silly image in front of wannabe dweebs who confuse such shenanigans
> with technical urbanity.

You should count his commits in Emacs (still ongoing) and Gcc (he
designed, wrote and maintained it for a long time, and many of his
extensions and concepts are still alive).

That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...

> Linux, Apache, PHP, and even MySQL have a legitimate place in the
> world as public domain, generic solutions to many IT needs, but the
> sideshow of the GPL and Stallman's musings do not.

Huh?  Neither of these are public domain.  Seems like you don't get
anything right.

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 5/18/2010 1:33:59 PM

David Kastrup wrote:
> RJack <user@example.net> writes:
> 
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Well, you can't have both.  If you choose to count Stallman among
>>>  Marxists, obviously they have not "all failed dismally".  Free 
>>> software is exploding in importance.
>> Yeah... "exploding in importance". I used to read reports about
>> Linus Torvald's seminars "World Domination 101" ten years ago.
> 
> You really should do something about those hallucinations.  There
> were no such seminars, just a jocular reference.  At least it was
> sort of jocular in 1991 or 1992 when it was made.  People have
> stopped laughing about it long since.
> 
>> Same old shit, different decade. LMAO.
> 
> Well, world domination in internet servers was already achieved in
> 1999, according to <URL:http://leb.net/hzo/ioscount/data/r.9904.txt>
> 
> And Apache has been serving more than 50% of active websites for a 
> similar amount of time.

Apache is GPL ? Hmmm.....

> 
> Among the top 500 super computers, GNU/Linux is employed on 78.2% 
> <URL:http://www.top500.org/stats/list/34/os>.
> 
> That's not exactly insignificant...
> 

The Abacus was was the dominant computer operating system in 1810. LMAO.

Let's be neutral and count 'em all since it's a big World:
======================================================================
                      OS Platform Statistics
Windows XP is the most popular operating system. The Windows family
counts for almost 90%:

2010  	 Win7  	Vista  	Win2003  WinXP  W2000  	Linux  	Mac
April 	16.7% 	13.2% 	1.3% 	56.1% 	0.5% 	4.5% 	7.1%
March 	14.7% 	13.7% 	1.4% 	57.8% 	0.5% 	4.5% 	6.9%
Feb 	13.0% 	14.4% 	1.4% 	58.4% 	0.6% 	4.6% 	7.1%
Jan 	11.3% 	15.4% 	1.4% 	59.4% 	0.6% 	4.6% 	6.8

=======================================================================
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 5/18/2010 2:07:00 PM

David Kastrup wrote:
> "amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net> writes:
> 
>> Stallman is a odd duck with an odd appearance and a even odder
>> mantra. For years he shamelessly used the banner of MIT to hide his
>> mere Harvard undergraduate qualifications.  He is a technician run
>> amok and is no true son of MIT.  He is a charlatan to the core and
>> parades his silly image in front of wannabe dweebs who confuse such
>> shenanigans with technical urbanity.
> 
> You should count his commits in Emacs (still ongoing) and Gcc (he 
> designed, wrote and maintained it for a long time, and many of his 
> extensions and concepts are still alive).
> 
> That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...
> 
>> Linux, Apache, PHP, and even MySQL have a legitimate place in the 
>> world as public domain, generic solutions to many IT needs, but the
>>  sideshow of the GPL and Stallman's musings do not.
> 
> Huh?  Neither of these are public domain.

They are close. You just don't understand that fact yet.

> Seems like you don't get anything right.
> 

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 5/18/2010 2:09:52 PM

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> "amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net> writes:
>>
>>> Linux, Apache, PHP, and even MySQL have a legitimate place in the
>>> world as public domain, generic solutions to many IT needs, but the
>>> sideshow of the GPL and Stallman's musings do not.
>>
>> Huh?  Neither of these are public domain.
>
> They are close. You just don't understand that fact yet.

You are confusing "facts" and "theories".  And your theories are shown
to collide with the real world time and again.

Again: seems like you don't get anything right.

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 5/18/2010 2:31:51 PM


"David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message 
news:878w7hz648.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
> "amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net> writes:
>
>> Stallman is a odd duck with an odd appearance and a even odder mantra.
>> For years he shamelessly used the banner of MIT to hide his mere
>> Harvard undergraduate qualifications.  He is a technician run amok and
>> is no true son of MIT.  He is a charlatan to the core and parades his
>> silly image in front of wannabe dweebs who confuse such shenanigans
>> with technical urbanity.
>
> You should count his commits in Emacs (still ongoing) and Gcc (he
> designed, wrote and maintained it for a long time, and many of his
> extensions and concepts are still alive).
>
> That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...
>
Old stuff and water long ago under the bridge.  Sure he could code back when 
it wasn't so hard to do, but what has he done lately?  In any case, the 
charlatan aspect comes from his misuse of the MIT brand that he did not 
deserve, for example the use of gnu.MIT.edu before the institute was made 
aware of the practice and put an end to it..  He was a grad school drop out 
who got a job as a computer operator, pure and simple.  He did no research 
and he published nothing of the caliber of the AI lab that he claimed 
affinity with.  He is a silly wannabe.

>> Linux, Apache, PHP, and even MySQL have a legitimate place in the
>> world as public domain, generic solutions to many IT needs, but the
>> sideshow of the GPL and Stallman's musings do not.
>
> Huh?  Neither of these are public domain.  Seems like you don't get
> anything right.
>
That is just hair-splitting pedantry.  You can use these programs MOL as you 
wish for generic implementation of IT structures.  Certainly there are 
pitfalls and such, but they are free for the taking in terms of what the 
majority of users do with them.  That is great for the hobbyist or for the 
the freelancer who doesn't need anything else. 

0
Reply amicus_curious 5/18/2010 2:46:25 PM

On 5/18/2010 7:13 AM, RJack wrote:
> They've all failed dismally.

Unfortunately, free software is failing miserably as well,
because people are happy to trade principle for convenience,
viz. Apple.
0
Reply Hyman 5/18/2010 2:47:31 PM

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 5/18/2010 7:13 AM, RJack wrote:
>> They've all failed dismally.
> 
> Unfortunately, free software is failing miserably as well, because 
> people are happy to trade principle for convenience, viz. Apple.

As "Free Software" continues to fail, true unencumbered open source
code will accelerate it's benefits to the public by encouraging new
proprietary free market competition thus benefiting everyone. People who
don't like the real, unconstrained "freedom" of BSD and MIT style
licenses can place their code under their pillows or sell it to the
highest bidder. Now, that's *real* freedom.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 5/18/2010 3:01:32 PM

On 5/18/2010 8:53 AM, amicus_curious wrote:
> So to please the SFLC, Rjack conveys the original version of,
> say, Busy Box, by posting the source somewhere.

OK.

> But the GPL goes beyond the pall here.

A cloud of smoke? Or do you mean "beyond the pale"?

 > Rjack has simply augmented the program that was properly conveyed
 > to the end user by means of adding in  his improvements

Are these improvements conveyed in combination with the
GPLed program as a work as a whole, or are they sent to
the end user separately? If the former, then the source
to these improvements must be provided by the terms of
the GPL, because otherwise there is no permission to
convey the GPLed work. If the latter, there is no problem.

 > and authorizes the end user to use the combination via
> some proprietary license that restricts the user from further
> redistribution of the combination.

That's fine, as long as the extra non-GPLed portion is
conveyed separately. It is not a violation of the GPL
to instruct end users on how to build a program combining
GPLed and non-GPLed components, or for those end users to
do so. And those end users will not be able to further
convey the combined work.

> You say that a
> user may take a GPL work and modify it and use it himself with no
> obligations to anyone and that is the key to the issue. Say that some
> company wishes to to just that, for example Google. Now there is no
> "Google user" per se, just a company that employs a lot of people who
> know how to code. So one or more of them make the modifications and
> receive payment for those services in doing that work. The result is
> conveyed to Google as a legal entity and no disclosure is made of the
> exact modifications in use. That is no different than an end user hiring
> Rjack to make necessary modifications and receiving the result and not
> disclosing any source.

That's correct. In both of these cases, the companies or users
who have contracted for the changes may not convey the changed
program to other entities (this does not include their own
employees in their capacity as employees) except in compliance
with the GPL, which would include providing the source to the
modifications and extra components. But they may freely use the
modified works themselves.

I don't see what you find noteworthy about this. It has been
true from the moment of conception of the GPL that anyone may
make changes to GPLed software for their own use (including
entire companies as the "anyone") without incurring any
disclosure requirements. GPL requirements take effect when
its permissions are used to convey covered works from one
person or entity to another. This is because, mock as you like,
the purpose of the GPL is to preserve the freedoms of users,
and so users must be given the source code to GPLed works they
receive. The modifying users in your example have already had
this freedom - they have the sources of the GPLed work which
they are using. But they cannot choose to convey covered works
to other users while denying them the same freedom they have
themselves received, namely the source code of the entire work.
0
Reply Hyman 5/18/2010 3:06:49 PM

"amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net> writes:

> "David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message
> news:878w7hz648.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
>> "amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net> writes:
>>
>>> Stallman is a odd duck with an odd appearance and a even odder mantra.
>>> For years he shamelessly used the banner of MIT to hide his mere
>>> Harvard undergraduate qualifications.  He is a technician run amok and
>>> is no true son of MIT.  He is a charlatan to the core and parades his
>>> silly image in front of wannabe dweebs who confuse such shenanigans
>>> with technical urbanity.
>>
>> You should count his commits in Emacs (still ongoing) and Gcc (he
>> designed, wrote and maintained it for a long time, and many of his
>> extensions and concepts are still alive).
>>
>> That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...
>>
> Old stuff and water long ago under the bridge.

More than you ever did or started.

> Sure he could code back when it wasn't so hard to do,

Uh, what?

> but what has he done lately?

Check the commits to Emacs.  Do you you even read what you are replying
to?

> In any case, the charlatan aspect comes from his misuse of the MIT
> brand that he did not deserve, for example the use of gnu.MIT.edu
> before the institute was made aware of the practice and put an end to
> it..

Wow, do you get many facts wrong.  He _was_ employed by the AI lab.  And
he was invited to distribute GNU software from there by the lab
professor.  That's not so unusual: there is a _lot_ of software of
interest for students (and the world) distributed by universities.
Dissemination of information is their prime job.

At some point of time, this distribution became hard to sustain.  So
servers were acquired, and distribution changed to those dedicated
servers.

> He was a grad school drop out who got a job as a computer operator,
> pure and simple.  He did no research and he published nothing of the
> caliber of the AI lab that he claimed affinity with.  He is a silly
> wannabe.

Not as silly as to try pasting over one's utter lack of contributions to
society by choosing a pseudonym like "amicus_curious" and posting
slander about people in an entirely different class.

>>> Linux, Apache, PHP, and even MySQL have a legitimate place in the
>>> world as public domain, generic solutions to many IT needs, but the
>>> sideshow of the GPL and Stallman's musings do not.
>>
>> Huh?  Neither of these are public domain.  Seems like you don't get
>> anything right.
>>
> That is just hair-splitting pedantry.

If it were, you would not be spewing bile here.  You are doing the
latter because there is a difference, and a difference that counts.

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 5/18/2010 3:09:13 PM

On 5/18/2010 11:01 AM, RJack wrote:
> As "Free Software" continues to fail

Of course, as the SFLC lawsuits demonstrate, free software
hasn't gone away yet. And in none of the concluded lawsuits
brought by the SFLC have any of the defendants chosen to stop
using free software. Instead, they have made the sources
properly available under the GPL.
0
Reply Hyman 5/18/2010 3:09:34 PM

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> On 5/18/2010 7:13 AM, RJack wrote:
>>> They've all failed dismally.
>>
>> Unfortunately, free software is failing miserably as well, because
>> people are happy to trade principle for convenience, viz. Apple.
>
> As "Free Software" continues to fail, true unencumbered open source
> code will accelerate it's benefits to the public by encouraging new
> proprietary free market competition thus benefiting everyone.

Again, reality has chosen a path different from your pipe dreams.  The
GPL accounts for the licensing of the vast majority of available (and
deployed) free software.

And "proprietary free market competition" is an oxymoron since
proprietary software is _not_ available for creating competition on the
free market.  Free software distributors compete with one another, as
everyone can do the job of the next one.  The distribution of
proprietary software, in contrast, is locked to a set of authorized
distributors.

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 5/18/2010 3:19:00 PM


"David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message 
news:87vdalxn52.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
> "amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net> writes:
>
>> "David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message
>> news:878w7hz648.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
>>> "amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Stallman is a odd duck with an odd appearance and a even odder mantra.
>>>> For years he shamelessly used the banner of MIT to hide his mere
>>>> Harvard undergraduate qualifications.  He is a technician run amok and
>>>> is no true son of MIT.  He is a charlatan to the core and parades his
>>>> silly image in front of wannabe dweebs who confuse such shenanigans
>>>> with technical urbanity.
>>>
>>> You should count his commits in Emacs (still ongoing) and Gcc (he
>>> designed, wrote and maintained it for a long time, and many of his
>>> extensions and concepts are still alive).
>>>
>>> That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...
>>>
>> Old stuff and water long ago under the bridge.
>
> More than you ever did or started.
>
>> Sure he could code back when it wasn't so hard to do,
>
> Uh, what?
>
>> but what has he done lately?
>
> Check the commits to Emacs.  Do you you even read what you are replying
> to?
>
Emacs?  LOL.

>> In any case, the charlatan aspect comes from his misuse of the MIT
>> brand that he did not deserve, for example the use of gnu.MIT.edu
>> before the institute was made aware of the practice and put an end to
>> it..
>
> Wow, do you get many facts wrong.  He _was_ employed by the AI lab.  And
> he was invited to distribute GNU software from there by the lab
> professor.  That's not so unusual: there is a _lot_ of software of
> interest for students (and the world) distributed by universities.
> Dissemination of information is their prime job.
>
He was employed as a computer operator assigned to run jobs on a batch 
processing system for grad students actually doing research.  He was not 
invited to distribute software or to use the mit.edu URL and when the lab 
director found out he was doing that, the practice ceased.

MIT does not endorse the FSF.

> At some point of time, this distribution became hard to sustain.  So
> servers were acquired, and distribution changed to those dedicated
> servers.
>
>> He was a grad school drop out who got a job as a computer operator,
>> pure and simple.  He did no research and he published nothing of the
>> caliber of the AI lab that he claimed affinity with.  He is a silly
>> wannabe.
>
> Not as silly as to try pasting over one's utter lack of contributions to
> society by choosing a pseudonym like "amicus_curious" and posting
> slander about people in an entirely different class.
>
You presume to know something about me, but you do not.  You are just 
irritated by the truth.

>>>> Linux, Apache, PHP, and even MySQL have a legitimate place in the
>>>> world as public domain, generic solutions to many IT needs, but the
>>>> sideshow of the GPL and Stallman's musings do not.
>>>
>>> Huh?  Neither of these are public domain.  Seems like you don't get
>>> anything right.
>>>
>> That is just hair-splitting pedantry.
>
> If it were, you would not be spewing bile here.  You are doing the
> latter because there is a difference, and a difference that counts.
>
You are crazy. 

0
Reply amicus_curious 5/18/2010 4:31:12 PM

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> "amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net> writes:
>
>> "David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message
>> news:878w7hz648.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
>>> "amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Stallman is a odd duck with an odd appearance and a even odder mantra.
>>>> For years he shamelessly used the banner of MIT to hide his mere
>>>> Harvard undergraduate qualifications.  He is a technician run amok and
>>>> is no true son of MIT.  He is a charlatan to the core and parades his
>>>> silly image in front of wannabe dweebs who confuse such shenanigans
>>>> with technical urbanity.
>>>
>>> You should count his commits in Emacs (still ongoing) and Gcc (he
>>> designed, wrote and maintained it for a long time, and many of his
>>> extensions and concepts are still alive).
>>>
>>> That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...
>>>
>> Old stuff and water long ago under the bridge.
>
> More than you ever did or started.
>
>> Sure he could code back when it wasn't so hard to do,
>
> Uh, what?
>
>> but what has he done lately?
>
> Check the commits to Emacs.  Do you you even read what you are replying
> to?
>
>> In any case, the charlatan aspect comes from his misuse of the MIT
>> brand that he did not deserve, for example the use of gnu.MIT.edu
>> before the institute was made aware of the practice and put an end to
>> it..
>
> Wow, do you get many facts wrong.  He _was_ employed by the AI lab.  And
> he was invited to distribute GNU software from there by the lab
> professor.  That's not so unusual: there is a _lot_ of software of
> interest for students (and the world) distributed by universities.
> Dissemination of information is their prime job.
>
> At some point of time, this distribution became hard to sustain.  So
> servers were acquired, and distribution changed to those dedicated
> servers.
>
>> He was a grad school drop out who got a job as a computer operator,
>> pure and simple.  He did no research and he published nothing of the
>> caliber of the AI lab that he claimed affinity with.  He is a silly
>> wannabe.
>
> Not as silly as to try pasting over one's utter lack of contributions to
> society by choosing a pseudonym like "amicus_curious" and posting
> slander about people in an entirely different class.
>
>>>> Linux, Apache, PHP, and even MySQL have a legitimate place in the
>>>> world as public domain, generic solutions to many IT needs, but the
>>>> sideshow of the GPL and Stallman's musings do not.
>>>
>>> Huh?  Neither of these are public domain.  Seems like you don't get
>>> anything right.
>>>
>> That is just hair-splitting pedantry.
>
> If it were, you would not be spewing bile here.  You are doing the
> latter because there is a difference, and a difference that counts.

I remember you once claiming it was all "really simple".

if you somehow don't think those things are PD in a "real sense" then you
need to adjust your medication.

AC was right : you're displaying hair splitting pedantry.
0
Reply Hadron 5/18/2010 4:33:50 PM

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:

> On 5/18/2010 7:13 AM, RJack wrote:
>> They've all failed dismally.
>
> Unfortunately, free software is failing miserably as well,
> because people are happy to trade principle for convenience,
> viz. Apple.

You can only trade what you have. And most people do not have
"principles" about paying for and using good closed commercial code.

The problems with lunatics like you and DK is that you think we should
all adhere to your nutty something for nothing principles.

0
Reply Hadron 5/18/2010 4:35:40 PM


"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message 
news:d2yIn.8435$HG1.6250@newsfe21.iad...

>
> I don't see what you find noteworthy about this.

I think that you are ignoring the premise on purpose because you have no 
answer that fits your philosophy.  Once again:

A.  Someone wants an improved version of some GPL work.

B.  They contract with a third part to obtain that modified GPL work, paying 
the third part a sum agreeable to the third party.

C.  As a condition of the third party contract, the person agrees to not 
disclose any details or make copies of the item for use by others not party 
to the contract.

D.  When all is said and done, the person has his software to use and the 
supplier has his money.  No GPL violations here.

So Rjack is free to sell his amalgamation of GPL and self-provided software 
to anyone, free of GPL restrictions, as long as the customer has access to 
the original, unmodified source.


 

0
Reply amicus_curious 5/18/2010 4:47:21 PM

On 5/18/2010 12:35 PM, Hadron wrote:
> Hyman Rosen<hyrosen@mail.com>  writes:
>> Unfortunately, free software is failing miserably as well,
>> because people are happy to trade principle for convenience,
>> viz. Apple.
>
> You can only trade what you have. And most people do not have
> "principles" about paying for and using good closed commercial code.

Free software, like any other public advocacy movement, attempts
to educate people about the issues involved. Sometimes these efforts
succeed, and sometimes they fail. With the technology world involved
in digital rights management, selective output control, region coding,
restrictive application stores, and "jailbreaking" phones, it may
become more apparent to the public how important freedom is to end
users, how those freedoms have been exchanged for convenience or less,
and how prescient Richard Stallman was in foreseeing this decades ago.
Or it may not. You never know.

> The problems with lunatics like you and DK is that you think we
 > should all adhere to your nutty something for nothing principles.

Regardless of what we think others should do, the free software
movement has created a commons under the GPL where like-minded
people can share code and preserve the freedom of users. The
problem with thieves like you and the other anti-GPL cranks is
that you want to steal works from there without honoring the
exclusive rights that those creators are given by US law.
0
Reply Hyman 5/18/2010 5:21:27 PM

On 5/18/2010 12:47 PM, amicus_curious wrote:
> I think that you are ignoring the premise on purpose because you have no
> answer that fits your philosophy. Once again:
> A. Someone wants an improved version of some GPL work.
> B. They contract with a third part to obtain that modified GPL work,
> paying the third part a sum agreeable to the third party.
> C. As a condition of the third party contract, the person agrees to not
> disclose any details or make copies of the item for use by others not
> party to the contract.
> D. When all is said and done, the person has his software to use and the
> supplier has his money. No GPL violations here.

All correct. What I don't understand is why you believe this
is antithetical to the free software philosophy. There is no
user here who has been deprived of any freedom - the user is
voluntarily choosing not to share his program with others, but
free software doesn't require such sharing.

> So Rjack is free to sell his amalgamation of GPL and self-provided
> software to anyone, free of GPL restrictions, as long as the customer
> has access to the original, unmodified source.

And as long as the purveyor of this amalgamation does not
convey it as a unified work without honoring the GPL.
0
Reply Hyman 5/18/2010 5:27:19 PM

Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> writes:

> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
>
>> On 5/18/2010 7:13 AM, RJack wrote:
>>> They've all failed dismally.
>>
>> Unfortunately, free software is failing miserably as well,
>> because people are happy to trade principle for convenience,
>> viz. Apple.
>
> You can only trade what you have. And most people do not have
> "principles" about paying for and using good closed commercial code.
>
> The problems with lunatics like you and DK is that you think we should
> all adhere to your nutty something for nothing principles.

If you use software I wrote, you have to heed the license under which
you got it.  The only adherence involved is that to copyright law.

I'd be fine if nobody had to adhere to what by now amounts to an absurd
block of knowledge dissemination, but as long as those laws are in
effect, you are not free to use software I wrote other than under those
terms I license them.

If you are not fine with that, talk to your congressman about reducing
the power of copyright.

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 5/18/2010 6:04:07 PM

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> If you are not fine with that, talk to your congressman about reducing
> the power of copyright.

Reducing the power of copyright would not satisfy true GNUtians, you
retard dak.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community-2000.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 law that to 
sell copies of the software to the public the source code must be 
deposited somewhere so that three years later it can be released. So 
it could be deposited say, with the library of congress in the US, 
and I think other countries have similar institutions where copies 
of published books get placed, and they could also received the 
source code and after three years, publish it. And of course, if the 
source code didn't correspond to the executable that would be fraud, 
and in fact if it really corresponds then they ought to be able to 
check that very easily when the work is published initially so 
you're publishing the source code and somebody there says alright 
"dot slash configure dot slash make" and sees if produces the same 
executables and uh. 

So you're right, just eliminating copyright would not make software 
free. 

AM5: Um libre 

RMS: Right."

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@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 <hyrosen@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.)
0
Reply Alexander 5/18/2010 7:07:59 PM

David Kastrup wrote:
> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 5/18/2010 7:13 AM, RJack wrote:
>>>> They've all failed dismally.
>>> Unfortunately, free software is failing miserably as well, 
>>> because people are happy to trade principle for convenience, viz.
>>>  Apple.
>> You can only trade what you have. And most people do not have 
>> "principles" about paying for and using good closed commercial 
>> code.
>> 
>> The problems with lunatics like you and DK is that you think we 
>> should all adhere to your nutty something for nothing principles.


> If you use software I wrote, you have to heed the license under which
>  you got it.

Only if the contract terms are legally enforceable -- which in the case
of the GPL they aren't.


> The only adherence involved is that to copyright law.
> 
> I'd be fine if nobody had to adhere to what by now amounts to an 
> absurd block of knowledge dissemination, but as long as those laws 
> are in effect, you are not free to use software I wrote other than 
> under those terms I license them.

Sincerely,
RJack :)



> 
> If you are not fine with that, talk to your congressman about 
> reducing the power of copyright.
> 
0
Reply RJack 5/18/2010 7:37:24 PM

On 5/18/2010 3:37 PM, RJack wrote:
> Only if the contract terms are legally enforceable -- which in the case
> of the GPL they aren't.

The license terms of the GPL are perfectly legal, and
are assumed voluntarily by anyone who chooses to copy
and distribute GPL-covered works. There is no other
permission available to copy and distribute such works,
so anyone who does so without honoring the terms of the
GPL will have the terms of copyright infringement legally
enforced against them.
0
Reply Hyman 5/18/2010 7:45:35 PM

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...

Yeah, yeah.

http://luca.priorelli.com/lang/en-us/2010/05/14/dining-with-richard-m-stallman/

"Dining with Richard M. Stallman

Yesterday I had the fortune (misfortune?) to dine with Richard M.
Stallman aka RMS. Stange person indeed. Very bright, he has an answer
for everything, and the answer is always very intelligent and gives you
lots to think about. 

That said, I think he is also the most discourteous and rude person I
met in my life (which spans, I regret to say, over half a century).
True, he is a globe trotter giving conferences constantly everywhere,
and he certainly had his good share of bad experiences, but... nobody
has condemned him to do it.

So, while the memory is still warm, I thought to give him few (unasked
and unwanted, I am afraid) suggestions that may help improve his
manners:

At table:

1. do not read when you are with other people, especially while they are
talking to you

2. do not keep your netbook over the dish, constantly typing on it and
lifting it only when you have to take a fork of whatever lies under it

3. do not get angry and accuse your host for not having consulted with
you in advance on what you like and dislike to eat

4. do not charge your host with the mischief of having irreparably
ruined your dinner due to his totally lack of courtesy (sic!)

5. when somebody asks you a question do not ignore him and start to talk
with the person at his side

6. if somebody, concerned of your tiredness, asks you if you prefer to
stay silent, do not answer �yes, unless you have something important to
say�

At a conference:

1. do not remove your shoes and socks and start massaging your feet with
a cream

2. if somebody asks you a question don�t start the answer with a �your
question is meaningless�

3. wait for the question to be completed and do not interrupt assuming
the rest and then reproach your interlocutor that he is making
assumptions and assumptions are wrong

In general:

1. try to find some time to read a good book on the subject of
�etiquette�. There are many

2. see if the evangelical concept of �why do you look at the speck of
sawdust in your brother�s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your
own eye?� can be applied also to you 

3. before accepting an invitation, get acquainted with the customs of
the place you are going, and if you don�t like them, don�t send them in
advance a paper explaining how you expect to be treated and then treat
them as idiots for not having fully complied with all your requests. Try
to adapt. If you cannot, simply don�t go. So doing, you will not offend
anybody and your cause would not be damaged.

Anyway, I am still on the FLOSS side."

<chuckles>

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@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 <hyrosen@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.)
0
Reply Alexander 5/18/2010 8:03:50 PM

On 5/18/2010 4:03 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> http://luca.priorelli.com/lang/en-us/2010/05/14/dining-with-richard-m-stallman/

It is not unknown for people with unique vision to
have personal eccentricities. Fortunately, tolerating
the eccentricities is limited to their circle of
acquaintances, while the visionary ideas can spread
to influence a much larger audience.

How much more sad to be an endlessly ranting crank.
0
Reply Hyman 5/18/2010 8:11:40 PM

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 5/18/2010 3:37 PM, RJack wrote:
>> Only if the contract terms are legally enforceable -- which in the 
>> case of the GPL they aren't.
> 
> The license terms of the GPL are perfectly legal, and are assumed 
> voluntarily by anyone who chooses to copy and distribute GPL-covered 
> works. There is no other permission available to copy and distribute 
> such works, so anyone who does so without honoring the terms of the 
> GPL will have the terms of copyright infringement legally enforced 
> against them.

A U.S. court has *never* enforced a single term of the GPL contract
and *never* will. You're dreaming -- or hallucinating.

A winning court ruling in the hand is worth 100 losing voluntary
dismissals in the bush. ROFL and LMAO.

Keep on spinnin' Hyman -- just keep on spinnin'.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 5/18/2010 8:14:23 PM

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> so anyone who does so without honoring the terms of the
> GPL will have the terms of copyright infringement legally
> enforced against them.

When was that done in a United States court, silly Hyman?

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@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 <hyrosen@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.)
0
Reply Alexander 5/18/2010 8:19:56 PM

On 5/18/2010 4:14 PM, RJack wrote:
> A U.S. court has *never* enforced a single term of the GPL contract

Thus far, when copyright infringement of GPL-covered works
have been brought to trial, the defendants have agreed to
comply with the GPL, so no court enforcement has been needed.

> and *never* will.

I agree that it's likely that compliance with the GPL will
always be forthcoming, but you can never tell.
0
Reply Hyman 5/18/2010 8:23:38 PM

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> It is not unknown for people with unique vision to
[...]
> acquaintances, while the visionary ideas can spread

Stallman is an ill person without any visionary ideas. See the GNG link
below.

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@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 <hyrosen@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.)
0
Reply Alexander 5/18/2010 8:25:12 PM

On 5/18/2010 4:19 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> so anyone who does so without honoring the terms of the
>> GPL will have the terms of copyright infringement legally
>> enforced against them.
>
> When was that done in a United States court?

So far, the SFLC has brought several enforcement measures
against copyright infringers of GPL-covered works, and in
every concluded case the defendants have agreed to comply
with the GPL. We have yet to see such a case carried to
judgment, since it's likely that the infringement was due
to carelessness or laziness. We may in fact never see such
a full case, since real companies have lawyers who advise
them against foolishness, while cranks like Daniel Wallace
are incapable of coherence.
0
Reply Hyman 5/18/2010 8:29:34 PM

On 5/18/2010 4:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Stallman is ... without any visionary ideas.

On the contrary, in a world of locked-down systems,
his ideas about freedom for users have never been
more relevant.
0
Reply Hyman 5/18/2010 8:32:17 PM

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> every concluded case the defendants have agreed to comply

Take your meds Hyman. Take your meds.

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@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 <hyrosen@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.)
0
Reply Alexander 5/18/2010 8:36:51 PM

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 5/18/2010 4:14 PM, RJack wrote:
>> A U.S. court has *never* enforced a single term of the GPL contract
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> Thus far, when copyright infringement of GPL-covered works have been
>  brought to trial,

So far, every plaintiff in a GPL lawsuit has cut and run prior to
the court ever reading the GPL contract -- must less judging it terms.

> the defendants have agreed to comply with the GPL, so no court 
> enforcement has been needed.
> 
>> and *never* will.
> 
> I agree that it's likely that compliance with the GPL will always be
>  forthcoming, but you can never tell.

It is easily verfied that the term "compliance" has never been raised in
a GPL lawsuit -- must less enforced.

LMAO:
One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came
to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over
a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing
back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch.
Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no
greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but
at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air,
saying: "I am sure they are sour."


Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 5/18/2010 8:37:11 PM

"Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> schreef in bericht 
news:4BF2F2A6.36B2EBCA@web.de...
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...
>
> Yeah, yeah.
>
> http://luca.priorelli.com/lang/en-us/2010/05/14/dining-with-richard-m-stallman/
>
> "Dining with Richard M. Stallman
>
> Yesterday I had the fortune (misfortune?) to dine with Richard M.
> Stallman aka RMS. Stange person indeed. Very bright, he has an answer
> for everything, and the answer is always very intelligent and gives you
> lots to think about.
>
> That said, I think he is also the most discourteous and rude person I
> met in my life (which spans, I regret to say, over half a century).
> True, he is a globe trotter giving conferences constantly everywhere,
> and he certainly had his good share of bad experiences, but... nobody
> has condemned him to do it.
>
> So, while the memory is still warm, I thought to give him few (unasked
> and unwanted, I am afraid) suggestions that may help improve his
> manners:
>
> At table:
>
> 1. do not read when you are with other people, especially while they are
> talking to you
>
> 2. do not keep your netbook over the dish, constantly typing on it and
> lifting it only when you have to take a fork of whatever lies under it
>
> 3. do not get angry and accuse your host for not having consulted with
> you in advance on what you like and dislike to eat
>
> 4. do not charge your host with the mischief of having irreparably
> ruined your dinner due to his totally lack of courtesy (sic!)
>
> 5. when somebody asks you a question do not ignore him and start to talk
> with the person at his side
>
> 6. if somebody, concerned of your tiredness, asks you if you prefer to
> stay silent, do not answer "yes, unless you have something important to
> say"
>
> At a conference:
>
> 1. do not remove your shoes and socks and start massaging your feet with
> a cream

He ate his toe jam (a nasty, smelly substance that collects between the toes 
of unwashed feet), probably! ;-)
"Richard Stallman Eats Something From His Foot"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ

>
> 2. if somebody asks you a question don't start the answer with a "your
> question is meaningless"
>
> 3. wait for the question to be completed and do not interrupt assuming
> the rest and then reproach your interlocutor that he is making
> assumptions and assumptions are wrong
>
> In general:
>
> 1. try to find some time to read a good book on the subject of
> "etiquette". There are many
>
> 2. see if the evangelical concept of "why do you look at the speck of
> sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your
> own eye?" can be applied also to you
>
> 3. before accepting an invitation, get acquainted with the customs of
> the place you are going, and if you don't like them, don't send them in
> advance a paper explaining how you expect to be treated and then treat
> them as idiots for not having fully complied with all your requests. Try
> to adapt. If you cannot, simply don't go. So doing, you will not offend
> anybody and your cause would not be damaged.
>
> Anyway, I am still on the FLOSS side."
>
> <chuckles>
>
> regards,
> alexander.
>
> P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
> originality standards required by copyright law."
>
> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@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 <hyrosen@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.)


0
Reply Clogwog 5/18/2010 8:49:32 PM

On 5/18/2010 4:37 PM, RJack wrote:
> So far, every plaintiff in a GPL lawsuit has cut and run prior to
> the court ever reading the GPL contract -- must less judging it terms.

The purpose of these lawsuits is to enforce copyright
of GPL-covered works. Since the defendants in all the
concluded cases have come into compliance with the GPL,
the lawsuits accomplished their purpose. Lawsuits do
not continue when the parties no longer have a dispute.
Courts do not offer opinions for the satisfaction of
cranks.

> It is easily verfied that the term "compliance" has
 > never been raised in a GPL lawsuit -- must less enforced.

You are lying:
<http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf>
     25. Plaintiffs have at no time granted any permission to
     any party to copy, modify, or distribute BusyBox under any
     terms other than those of the License. Plaintiffs do not
     permit anyone to distribute BusyBox except in compliance
     with the License.
0
Reply Hyman 5/18/2010 8:50:42 PM

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf>
>      25. Plaintiffs have at no time granted any permission to
>      any party to copy, modify, or distribute BusyBox under any
>      terms other than those of the License. Plaintiffs do not
>      permit anyone to distribute BusyBox except in compliance
>      with the License.

See PRAYER FOR RELIEF, you idiot. It is easily verified that the term
"compliance" has never been raised in PRAYER FOR RELIEF in a GPL lawsuit
-- must less enforced.

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@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 <hyrosen@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.)
0
Reply Alexander 5/18/2010 9:15:39 PM

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 5/18/2010 4:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Stallman is ... without any visionary ideas.
> 
> On the contrary, in a world of locked-down systems,
> his ideas about freedom for users have never been
> more relevant.

Take your meds Hyman. Take your meds.

regards,
alexander.

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

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@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 <hyrosen@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.)
0
Reply Alexander 5/18/2010 9:22:21 PM

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 5/18/2010 4:37 PM, RJack wrote:
>> So far, every plaintiff in a GPL lawsuit has cut and run prior to 
>> the court ever reading the GPL contract -- must less judging it 
>> terms.
> 
> The purpose of these lawsuits is to enforce copyright of GPL-covered 
> works. Since the defendants in all the concluded cases have come into
>  compliance with the GPL, the lawsuits accomplished their purpose. 
> Lawsuits do not continue when the parties no longer have a dispute. 
> Courts do not offer opinions for the satisfaction of cranks.
> 
>> It is easily verfied that the term "compliance" has never been 
>> raised in a GPL lawsuit -- must less enforced.
> 
> You are lying: 
> <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf>
> 
> 
> 
> 25. Plaintiffs have at no time granted any permission to any party to
>  copy, modify, or distribute BusyBox under any terms other than those
>  of the License. Plaintiffs do not permit anyone to distribute
> BusyBox except in compliance with the License.

That has nothing to do with the relief requests raised by the plaintiffs
in any SFLC lawsuit. Twist and squirm all you want Hyman but a court has
never granted anything an SFLC lawsuit any plaintiff has ever requested
because they have cut and run before any judge could ever read their
complaint.

Keep on spinnin' Hyman -- just keep on spinnin'.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 5/18/2010 10:25:56 PM

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> If you are not fine with that, talk to your congressman about reducing
>> the power of copyright.
>
> Reducing the power of copyright would not satisfy true GNUtians, you
> retard dak.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community-2000.html

[...]

> So you're right, just eliminating copyright would not make software 
> free. 
>
> AM5: Um libre 
>
> RMS: Right."

Sure, it has not just advantages.  But the advantages would outweigh the
disadvantages enough to make them worthwhile.

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 5/19/2010 5:33:33 AM

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...
>
> Yeah, yeah.
>
> http://luca.priorelli.com/lang/en-us/2010/05/14/dining-with-richard-m-stallman/
>
> "Dining with Richard M. Stallman

As always, you quote something that actually is against the point you
try to make.  This (rather crude) article does not call Stallman a
charlatan, but rather a lot of other things.

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 5/19/2010 5:38:04 AM

The SFLC has been granted a pre-motion conference with Judge Scheindlin
requesting permission to file for FRCP 56 Summary Judgment with respect
to defendant Western Digital Electronics LLC. Western Digital has filed
an ABC (assignment for the benefit of creditors) in the state of
California and does not anticipate responding to the SFLC suit.

Should Judge Scheindlin grant permission for the SFLC to file for
Summary Judgment, the controlling law in the Second Circuit which
defines the guidelines for a district court to follow is:

"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that if a non-moving party
fails to oppose a summary judgment motion, then "summary judgment, if
appropriate, shall be entered against" him. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) (emphasis
added). This Court has made clear, however, that where the non-moving
party "chooses the perilous path of failing to submit a response to a
summary judgment motion, the district court may not grant the motion
without first examining the moving party's submission to determine if it
has met its burden of demonstrating that no material issue of fact
remains for trial." Amaker, 274 F.3d at 681. If the evidence submitted
in support of the summary judgment motion does not meet the movant's
burden of production, then "summary judgment must be denied even if no
opposing evidentiary matter is presented." Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted); Giannullo, 322 F.3d at 141 (noting that the "non-movant is not
required to rebut an insufficient showing"). Moreover, in determining
whether the moving party has met this burden of showing the absence of a
genuine issue for trial, the district court may not rely solely on the
statement of undisputed facts contained in the moving party's Rule 56.1
statement. It must be satisfied that the citation to evidence in the
record supports the assertion. Giannullo,  322 F.3d at 143 n. 5 (stating
that not verifying in the record the assertions in the motion for
summary judgment "would derogate the truth-finding functions of the
judicial process by substituting convenience for facts").

An unopposed summary judgment motion may also fail where the undisputed
facts fail to "`show that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.'" Champion v. Artuz, 76 F.3d 483, 486 (2d Cir.1996) (per
curiam) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). Where the order granting summary
judgment is insufficiently clear to permit this Court to determine
whether the grounds for granting the motion are valid, remand is
appropriate. See Miranda v. Bennett, 322 F.3d 171, 175 (2d Cir.2003);
Amaker, 274 F.3d at 681 n. 1 (vacating and remanding the judgment of the
district court that granted an unopposed summary judgment motion is
singularly appropriate "as the district court is in a far better
position to conduct a summary judgment analysis in the first instance")."
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/373/373.F3d.241.03-7030.html

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 5/20/2010 2:42:50 PM

On 5/18/2010 5:15 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>  It is easily verified that the term
> "compliance" has never been raised in PRAYER FOR RELIEF in a GPL lawsuit
> -- must less enforced.

Of course not, since compliance with the GPL cannot be compelled.
Accepting its requirements is completely voluntary. The prayers
for relief are those normally demanded in cases of copyright
infringement. It is up to the defendants to plead acceptance of
the license if they so choose, and then to explain why they have
not complied with it.
0
Reply Hyman 5/21/2010 3:18:10 PM

On 5/18/2010 6:25 PM, RJack wrote:
> That has nothing to do with the relief requests raised by the plaintiffs
> in any SFLC lawsuit.

Of course not, since compliance with the GPL cannot be compelled.
Accepting its requirements is completely voluntary. The prayers
for relief are those normally demanded in cases of copyright
infringement. It is up to the defendants to plead acceptance of
the license if they so choose, and then to explain why they have
not complied with it.
0
Reply Hyman 5/21/2010 3:18:34 PM

The SFLC is filing for a Default Judgment in the alternative to Summary
Judgment. There is no burden of proof in a default judgment.

The Judge Scheindlin believes that Western Digital was manufacturing
"Busy Boxes".

I can see that this defendant's (Western Digital) default is going to
be a real hummdinger. Anyone ever seen a  "Busy Box" manufactured by
Western Digital?

Sincerely,
RJack :)

0
Reply RJack 6/3/2010 8:17:50 PM

The SFLC's PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST
DEFENDANT WESTINGHOUSE DIGITAL ELECTRONICS,
LLC states:

"4 The version of BusyBox distributed by Westinghouse is believed to be
version v0.60.2. D. Kuhn � 10; SMF � 14. While Mr. Andersen owns
copyright in portions of that version of BusyBox as well, the copyright
registration here was for the next subsequent version of BusyBox,
v0.60.3. D. Andersen � 4; SMF � 4. However, since Mr. Andersen �is the
owner of the copyright of both the derivative and preexisting work, the
registration certificate relating to the derivative work in this
circumstance will suffice to permit it to maintain an action for
infringement based on defendants' infringement of the preexisting work.�
Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. Vandam, Inc., 159 F.3D 739, 747 (2d Cir. 1998).
Thus, the registration for v0.60.3 constitutes registration for v0.60.2
as well."

The official source for v0.60.2 is here:

http://www.busybox.net/downloads/legacy/busybox-0.60.2.tar.gz

A grep of the source tree for v0.60.2 reflects Erik Andersen's
name appears in the following files:

autodocifier.pl
bootfloppy.txt
BusyBox.html
BusyBox.html
BusyBox.txt
depmod.pl
index.html
oldnews.html

The compiled BusyBox binary v0.60.2 that Andersen claims that Western
Digital is distributing is allegedly in a ramdisk kernel image according
to his sworn witness D. Kuhn.

Andersen's contribution to v0.60.2 consists of name mention in four html
scripts, two text files and two perl scripts.

NONE OF THE FILES MENTIONING ERIK ANDERSEN IN THE SOURCE TREE FOR
v0.60.2 ARE COMPILED INTO THE CLAIMED BINARY VERSION OF BUSYBOX THAT IS
ALLEGEDLY DISTRIBUTED BY WESTERN DIGITAL.

His "contribution" to v0.60.2 consists of name mention in four html
scripts, two text files and two perl scripts.

Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2 although
he has contributed no executable code to the compiled BusyBox binary at
all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than this. It would be a
toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar -- The Sofware Freedom
Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.

If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent request for
default judgment to proceed, they should be restricted to practicing law
in Siberia.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

0
Reply RJack 6/4/2010 2:40:31 AM

On Jun 4, 5:40=A0am, RJack <u...@example.net> wrote:

> Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2 although
> he has contributed no executable code to the compiled BusyBox binary at
> all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than this. It would be a
> toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar -- The Sofware Freedom
> Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.
>
> If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent request for
> default judgment to proceed, they should be restricted to practicing law
> in Siberia.
>

Right.  And they won't.  This is just another IP troll attempt, this
time by the Linux crowd, to extract money from corporations in the
legal arena after having failed in the marketplace.  Opera browser did
it with Microsoft in Europe.

RL
0
Reply RayLopez99 6/4/2010 9:30:00 AM

RJack wrote:
> 
> The SFLC's PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION 
> FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST
>  DEFENDANT WESTINGHOUSE DIGITAL ELECTRONICS, LLC states:
> 
> "4 The version of BusyBox distributed by Westinghouse is believed to 
> be version v0.60.2. D. Kuhn � 10; SMF � 14. While Mr. Andersen owns 
> copyright in portions of that version of BusyBox as well, the 
> copyright registration here was for the next subsequent version of 
> BusyBox, v0.60.3. D. Andersen � 4; SMF � 4. However, since Mr. 
> Andersen �is the owner of the copyright of both the derivative and 
> preexisting work, the registration certificate relating to the 
> derivative work in this circumstance will suffice to permit it to 
> maintain an action for infringement based on defendants' infringement
>  of the preexisting work.� Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. Vandam, Inc., 159
>  F.3D 739, 747 (2d Cir. 1998). Thus, the registration for v0.60.3 
> constitutes registration for v0.60.2 as well."
> 
> The official source for v0.60.2 is here:
> 
> http://www.busybox.net/downloads/legacy/busybox-0.60.2.tar.gz
> 
> A grep of the source tree for v0.60.2 reflects Erik Andersen's name 
> appears in the following files:

I found some more files in the source tree v0.60.2. mentioning Erik
Andersen where the original authors' licensed source code has been
claimed by Andersen and placed under the GPL. See:

"Mr. Andersen, his past employers and Mr. Landley appear to have removed
some of the copyright statements of other Busybox developers, and appear
to have altered license statements, in apparent violation of various
laws."  -- Bruce Perens.
http://perens.com/blog/d/2009/12/15/23/

How convenient that a default judgment could mask all the underlying
lies in this lawsuit.

RJack :)








0
Reply RJack 6/4/2010 9:34:53 AM

RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jun 4, 5:40�am, RJack <u...@example.net> wrote:
>
>> Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2 although
>> he has contributed no executable code to the compiled BusyBox binary at
>> all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than this. It would be a
>> toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar -- The Sofware Freedom
>> Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.
>>
>> If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent request for
>> default judgment to proceed, they should be restricted to practicing law
>> in Siberia.
>>
>
> Right.  And they won't.  This is just another IP troll attempt, this
> time by the Linux crowd, to extract money from corporations in the
> legal arena after having failed in the marketplace.

<URL:http://www.top500.org/stats/list/35/osfam>

455 systems are powered by Linux.  5 systems by Windows.

I consider this more a sign of failure of Microsoft's "High performance
computing Windows" initiative.

<URL:http://www.drdobbs.com/184404102>

    Thomas Watson, Jr, IBM's CEO, noted in a famous memo to IBM
    employees: "Last week, Control Data ... announced the 6600 system. I
    understand that in the laboratory developing the system there are
    only 34 people including the janitor. Of these, 14 are engineers and
    4 are programmers... Contrasting this modest effort with our vast
    development activities, I fail to understand why we have lost our
    industry leadership position by letting someone else offer the
    world's most powerful computer." To which Cray replied: "It seems
    like Mr. Watson has answered his own question."

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 6/4/2010 10:25:28 AM

David Kastrup pulled this Usenet boner:

> RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Jun 4, 5:40�am, RJack <u...@example.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>
> <URL:http://www.top500.org/stats/list/35/osfam>
>
> 455 systems are powered by Linux.  5 systems by Windows.
>
> I consider this more a sign of failure of Microsoft's "High performance
> computing Windows" initiative.
>
> <URL:http://www.drdobbs.com/184404102>
>
>     Thomas Watson, Jr, IBM's CEO, noted in a famous memo to IBM
>     employees: "Last week, Control Data ... announced the 6600 system. I
>     understand that in the laboratory developing the system there are
>     only 34 people including the janitor. Of these, 14 are engineers and
>     4 are programmers... Contrasting this modest effort with our vast
>     development activities, I fail to understand why we have lost our
>     industry leadership position by letting someone else offer the
>     world's most powerful computer." To which Cray replied: "It seems
>     like Mr. Watson has answered his own question."

Sounds like the "Mythical Man-Month" ought to be called the
"Microsoft Man-Month".

-- 
The state law of Pennsylvania prohibits singing in the bathtub.
0
Reply Chris 6/4/2010 10:35:13 AM

RJack wrote:
> RJack wrote:
>> 
>> The SFLC's PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION
>>  FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
>> AGAINST DEFENDANT WESTINGHOUSE DIGITAL ELECTRONICS, LLC states:
>> 
>> "4 The version of BusyBox distributed by Westinghouse is believed 
>> to be version v0.60.2. D. Kuhn � 10; SMF � 14. While Mr. Andersen 
>> owns copyright in portions of that version of BusyBox as well, the 
>> copyright registration here was for the next subsequent version of 
>> BusyBox, v0.60.3. D. Andersen � 4; SMF � 4. However, since Mr. 
>> Andersen �is the owner of the copyright of both the derivative and 
>> preexisting work, the registration certificate relating to the 
>> derivative work in this circumstance will suffice to permit it to 
>> maintain an action for infringement based on defendants' 
>> infringement of the preexisting work.� Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. 
>> Vandam, Inc., 159 F.3D 739, 747 (2d Cir. 1998). Thus, the 
>> registration for v0.60.3 constitutes registration for v0.60.2 as 
>> well."
>> 
>> The official source for v0.60.2 is here:
>> 
>> http://www.busybox.net/downloads/legacy/busybox-0.60.2.tar.gz
>> 
>> A grep of the source tree for v0.60.2 reflects Erik Andersen's name
>>  appears in the following files:
> 
> I found some more files in the source tree v0.60.2. mentioning Erik 
> Andersen where the original authors' licensed source code has been 
> claimed by Andersen and placed under the GPL. See:
> 
> "Mr. Andersen, his past employers and Mr. Landley appear to have 
> removed some of the copyright statements of other Busybox developers,
>  and appear to have altered license statements, in apparent violation
>  of various laws."  -- Bruce Perens. 
> http://perens.com/blog/d/2009/12/15/23/
> 
> How convenient that a default judgment could mask all the underlying
>  lies in this lawsuit.

Erik Andersen now states:
"While Mr. Andersen owns copyright in portions of that version of
BusyBox...".

Erik has now registered "portions" of the "single computer program"
BusyBox v0.60.3 with the Copyright Office but has totally failed to
identify what those specific "portions" are that he actually claims. He
continues to claim:

"However, since Mr. Andersen 'is the owner of the copyright of both the
derivative and preexisting work, the registration certificate relating
to the derivative work in this circumstance will suffice to permit it to
maintain an action for infringement based on defendants' infringement of
the preexisting work.'�.

So... he now owns *his* own derivative "portions" of BusyBox that he has
never identified to anyone. (Erik is on his knees praying that the court
somehow now believes that he owns the "single computer program" known as
"BusyBox v0.60.2".)

His sole evidence for copyright infringement is the appearance of a
character string in a binary ramdisk image containing the text string
"v0.60.2". Is it any wonder that the 3/22/2010 Scheduling Order stated:

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Shira A. Scheindlin U.S.D.J.
....
2. A concise statement of the issues as they then appear;

Pending results of Defendants' investigations, Defendants
intend to show that the Plaintiff's have no damages, that
the Defendants did nothing actionable under copyright law, that
any alleged copying was not willful, that Plaintiffs are not
the proper parties, that the copyright held by Mr. Andersen
is not applicable, and that, since being put on notice of
the purported requirements of the general public license,
Defendants have endeavored to come into compliance with what
can only be described as a 'moving target'."

----------------------------------------------------------
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Sincerely,
RJack :)

0
Reply RJack 6/4/2010 10:38:13 AM

David Kastrup wrote:
> RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Jun 4, 5:40 am, RJack <u...@example.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2 
>>> although he has contributed no executable code to the compiled 
>>> BusyBox binary at all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than 
>>> this. It would be a toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar -- 
>>> The Sofware Freedom Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.
>>> 
>>> If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent 
>>> request for default judgment to proceed, they should be 
>>> restricted to practicing law in Siberia.
>>> 
>> Right.  And they won't.  This is just another IP troll attempt, 
>> this time by the Linux crowd, to extract money from corporations in
>>  the legal arena after having failed in the marketplace.
> 
> <URL:http://www.top500.org/stats/list/35/osfam>
> 
> 455 systems are powered by Linux.  5 systems by Windows.
> 
> I consider this more a sign of failure of Microsoft's "High 
> performance computing Windows" initiative.
> 
> <URL:http://www.drdobbs.com/184404102>
> 
> Thomas Watson, Jr, IBM's CEO, noted in a famous memo to IBM 
> employees: "Last week, Control Data ... announced the 6600 system. I 
> understand that in the laboratory developing the system there are 
> only 34 people including the janitor. Of these, 14 are engineers and 
> 4 are programmers... Contrasting this modest effort with our vast 
> development activities, I fail to understand why we have lost our 
> industry leadership position by letting someone else offer the 
> world's most powerful computer." To which Cray replied: "It seems 
> like Mr. Watson has answered his own question."
> 

Let's be neutral and count 'em all since it's a big World:
======================================================================
                      OS Platform Statistics
Windows XP is the most popular operating system. The Windows family
counts for almost 90%:

2010       Win7      Vista     Win2003  WinXP  W2000      Linux      Mac
April     16.7%     13.2%     1.3%     56.1%     0.5%     4.5%     7.1%
March     14.7%     13.7%     1.4%     57.8%     0.5%     4.5%     6.9%
Feb       13.0%     14.4%     1.4%     58.4%     0.6%     4.6%     7.1%
Jan       11.3%     15.4%     1.4%     59.4%     0.6%     4.6%     6.8

=======================================================================
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 6/4/2010 11:05:00 AM

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Jun 4, 5:40 am, RJack <u...@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Right.  And they won't.  This is just another IP troll attempt,
>>> this time by the Linux crowd, to extract money from corporations in
>>>  the legal arena after having failed in the marketplace.
>>
>> <URL:http://www.top500.org/stats/list/35/osfam>
>>
>> 455 systems are powered by Linux.  5 systems by Windows.
>>
>> I consider this more a sign of failure of Microsoft's "High
>> performance computing Windows" initiative.
>>
>> <URL:http://www.drdobbs.com/184404102>
>>
>> Thomas Watson, Jr, IBM's CEO, noted in a famous memo to IBM
>> employees: "Last week, Control Data ... announced the 6600 system. I
>> understand that in the laboratory developing the system there are
>> only 34 people including the janitor. Of these, 14 are engineers and
>> 4 are programmers... Contrasting this modest effort with our vast
>> development activities, I fail to understand why we have lost our
>> industry leadership position by letting someone else offer the
>> world's most powerful computer." To which Cray replied: "It seems
>> like Mr. Watson has answered his own question."
>>
>
> Let's be neutral and count 'em all since it's a big World:

So you are saying that CDC was a failure for not producing commodity
computers?

> ======================================================================
>                      OS Platform Statistics
> Windows XP is the most popular operating system. The Windows family
> counts for almost 90%:
>
> 2010       Win7      Vista     Win2003  WinXP  W2000      Linux      Mac
> April     16.7%     13.2%     1.3%     56.1%     0.5%     4.5%     7.1%
> March     14.7%     13.7%     1.4%     57.8%     0.5%     4.5%     6.9%
> Feb       13.0%     14.4%     1.4%     58.4%     0.6%     4.6%     7.1%
> Jan       11.3%     15.4%     1.4%     59.4%     0.6%     4.6%     6.8
>
> =======================================================================
> http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

Actually, this will likely not take into account browsers masking
themselves as Internet Explorer in order not to get fed hogwash (at some
point of time, microsoft.com actually returned special rubbish code for
browsers identifying themselves as "Opera", designed to look like a
rendering error, whereas the code returned for "Internet Explorer"
rendered just fine on Opera).

Anyway, "after having failed in the marketplace" insinuates that the
story is over.  I don't see that...  It is just starting to get
interesting, actually.

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 6/4/2010 11:18:28 AM

RJack wrote:
> 
> The SFLC is filing for a Default Judgment in the alternative to Summary
> Judgment. There is no burden of proof in a default judgment.
> 
> The Judge Scheindlin believes that Western Digital was manufacturing
> "Busy Boxes".

Yeah. 

http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-117-4.pdf

<chuckles>

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.)
0
Reply Alexander 6/4/2010 11:31:31 AM

RayLopez99 wrote:
> 
> On Jun 4, 5:40 am, RJack <u...@example.net> wrote:
> 
> > Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2 although
> > he has contributed no executable code to the compiled BusyBox binary at
> > all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than this. It would be a
> > toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar -- The Sofware Freedom
> > Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.
> >
> > If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent request for
> > default judgment to proceed, they should be restricted to practicing law
> > in Siberia.
> >
> 
> Right.  And they won't.  This is just another IP troll attempt, this
> time by the Linux crowd, to extract money from corporations in the
> legal arena after having failed in the marketplace.  Opera browser did
> it with Microsoft in Europe.

No sane 'troll' would move against utterly assetless and bankrupt
defendant.

See "California State equivalent to bankruptcy" in

http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-117-4.pdf

What does the SFLC really want to achieve moving against defenceless
assetless bankrupt entity?

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.)
0
Reply Alexander 6/4/2010 11:39:38 AM

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> RayLopez99 wrote:
>> 
>> On Jun 4, 5:40 am, RJack <u...@example.net> wrote:
>> 
>> > Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2 although
>> > he has contributed no executable code to the compiled BusyBox binary at
>> > all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than this. It would be a
>> > toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar -- The Sofware Freedom
>> > Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.
>> >
>> > If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent request for
>> > default judgment to proceed, they should be restricted to practicing law
>> > in Siberia.
>> >
>> 
>> Right.  And they won't.  This is just another IP troll attempt, this
>> time by the Linux crowd, to extract money from corporations in the
>> legal arena after having failed in the marketplace.  Opera browser did
>> it with Microsoft in Europe.
>
> No sane 'troll' would move against utterly assetless and bankrupt
> defendant.

If he's in for the money, sure.

> See "California State equivalent to bankruptcy" in
>
> http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-117-4.pdf
>
> What does the SFLC really want to achieve moving against defenceless
> assetless bankrupt entity?

Compliance.  Like always.  Like stated in their pleading.  Like what
they always settle for.  You don't need money to comply with the GPL.

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 6/4/2010 11:53:37 AM

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> 
> > RayLopez99 wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jun 4, 5:40 am, RJack <u...@example.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2 although
> >> > he has contributed no executable code to the compiled BusyBox binary at
> >> > all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than this. It would be a
> >> > toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar -- The Sofware Freedom
> >> > Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.
> >> >
> >> > If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent request for
> >> > default judgment to proceed, they should be restricted to practicing law
> >> > in Siberia.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Right.  And they won't.  This is just another IP troll attempt, this
> >> time by the Linux crowd, to extract money from corporations in the
> >> legal arena after having failed in the marketplace.  Opera browser did
> >> it with Microsoft in Europe.
> >
> > No sane 'troll' would move against utterly assetless and bankrupt
> > defendant.
> 
> If he's in for the money, sure.
> 
> > See "California State equivalent to bankruptcy" in
> >
> > http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-117-4.pdf
> >
> > What does the SFLC really want to achieve moving against defenceless
> > assetless bankrupt entity?
> 
> Compliance. 

The defendant is an assetless bankrupt you idiot.

http://bankruptcy.cooley.com/2008/03/articles/the-financially-troubled-compa/assignments-for-the-benefit-of-creditors-simple-as-abc/

"The ABC is an insolvency proceeding governed by state law rather than
federal bankruptcy law. "

> Like always.  

Uh retard dak. Read the memorandum, it's not about compliance, stupid.

http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-113.pdf

So once again: 

What does the SFLC really want to achieve moving against defenceless
assetless bankrupt entity?

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.)
0
Reply Alexander 6/4/2010 12:20:14 PM

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> RayLopez99 wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 5:40 am, RJack <u...@example.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2
>>> although he has contributed no executable code to the compiled
>>> BusyBox binary at all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than
>>> this. It would be a toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar --
>>> The Sofware Freedom Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.
>>> 
>>> If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent
>>> request for default judgment to proceed, they should be
>>> restricted to practicing law in Siberia.
>>> 
>> Right.  And they won't.  This is just another IP troll attempt,
>> this time by the Linux crowd, to extract money from corporations in
>> the legal arena after having failed in the marketplace.  Opera
>> browser did it with Microsoft in Europe.
> 
> No sane 'troll' would move against utterly assetless and bankrupt 
> defendant.
> 
> See "California State equivalent to bankruptcy" in
> 
> http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-117-4.pdf
> 
> What does the SFLC really want to achieve moving against defenceless 
> assetless bankrupt entity?

A PROPAGANDA VICTORY.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 6/4/2010 4:55:23 PM

RJack wrote:
[...]
> A PROPAGANDA VICTORY.

http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-121.pdf

<chuckles>

Uh retards at SFLC...

In other news, Humax USA Inc. was dismissed without any settlement at
all.

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.)
0
Reply Alexander 6/24/2010 5:32:51 PM

On 6/24/2010 1:32 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> In other news, Humax USA Inc. was dismissed without
 > any settlement at all.

Humax makes the GPLed source code properly available here:
<http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx>
0
Reply Hyman 6/24/2010 5:38:26 PM

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 6/24/2010 1:32 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > In other news, Humax USA Inc. was dismissed without
>  > any settlement at all.
> 
> Humax makes ... 

Show me a settlement agreement you silly.

BTW, did you try to *use* the sources offered by Humax?

"I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Attr: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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.)
0
Reply Alexander 6/24/2010 6:05:48 PM

On 6/24/2010 2:05 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Show me a settlement agreement

Settlement agreements are often kept private between
the parties to the suit, and are likely to contain
things such as financial settlements which are not
pertinent to the public aspects of a GPL lawsuit. It
is the fully public web page
<http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx>
which demonstrates that Humax is properly complying
with the requirements of the GPL.
0
Reply Hyman 6/24/2010 7:00:53 PM

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> is the fully public web page
> <http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx>
> which demonstrates ... 

LOL.

Did you try to use the sources offered by Humax, silly?

"I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Attr: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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.)
0
Reply terekhov (1920) 6/24/2010 7:26:21 PM

On 6/24/2010 3:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Did you try to use the sources offered by Humax

No. I have no reason to believe that they are not exactly
what they purport to be, I do not own any Humax devices,
and I'm insufficiently motivated to set up a development
environment in order to mollify a Usenet crank who would
in any event choose to disbelieve evidence not fitting his
warped worldview.
0
Reply Hyman 6/24/2010 7:38:17 PM


Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 6/24/2010 3:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Did you try to use the sources offered by Humax
> 
> No. I have no reason to believe that they are not exactly

Click on "busybox-1.2.2.1.tar.gz" you retard.

http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx

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.)
0
Reply Alexander 6/24/2010 7:53:05 PM

On 6/24/2010 3:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Click on "busybox-1.2.2.1.tar.gz"
> http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx

Yes? It first asks you to register, and when you do and log in,
you get the source code. Is there some point you're making?
0
Reply Hyman 6/24/2010 7:57:15 PM

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 6/24/2010 3:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Click on "busybox-1.2.2.1.tar.gz"
> > http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx
> 
> Yes? It first asks you to register, and when you do and log in,
> you get the source code. Is there some point you're making?

Try using the source code silly and report the results. 

<chuckles>

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.)
0
Reply terekhov (1920) 6/24/2010 8:27:04 PM

On 6/24/2010 4:27 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> On 6/24/2010 3:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>> Click on "busybox-1.2.2.1.tar.gz"
>>> http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx
>>
>> Yes? It first asks you to register, and when you do and log in,
>> you get the source code. Is there some point you're making?
>
> Try using the source code and report the results.

Why?
0
Reply Hyman 6/24/2010 8:38:11 PM

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 6/24/2010 1:32 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> In other news, Humax USA Inc. was dismissed without any settlement
>> at all.
> 
> Humax makes the GPLed source code properly available here: 
> <http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx>

The only GPL'd code at issue is "BusyBox, v.0.60.3" registered
(fraudulently) by Erik Andersen. *No* hypothetical Busybox suit
"settlement"  ever filed has produced a link to the purportedly
infringed code. The most evidence produced by the SFLC of infringement
in *any* suit is the presence of a text string "v.60.2" in an alleged
binary ramdisk (see SFLC Rule 56.1 statement of uncontested facts).

Well folks that's six identified bytes from a source tree of two million
seven hundred thousand bytes. That's about 0.00022 percent infringement.
Good luck convincing a jury of "substantial similarity" Hyman.

Rolling On the Fucking Laughing.

Sincerely,
RJack
0
Reply RJack 6/24/2010 10:44:15 PM

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> On 6/24/2010 1:32 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>> In other news, Humax USA Inc. was dismissed without any settlement
>>> at all.
>>
>> Humax makes the GPLed source code properly available here:
>> <http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx>
>
> The only GPL'd code at issue is "BusyBox, v.0.60.3" registered
> (fraudulently) by Erik Andersen.

Are you claiming that he is not the author of any BusyBox code?

> *No* hypothetical Busybox suit "settlement" ever filed has produced a
> link to the purportedly infringed code.

The "purportedly infringed code" is any copyrightable material from Erik
Anderson that can be found in both the registered version of Busybox as
well as the infringing code.

> The most evidence produced by the SFLC of infringement in *any* suit
> is the presence of a text string "v.60.2" in an alleged binary ramdisk
> (see SFLC Rule 56.1 statement of uncontested facts).
>
> Well folks that's six identified bytes from a source tree of two
> million seven hundred thousand bytes. That's about 0.00022 percent
> infringement.

A smoking gun is a smoking gun.  It is not against the law to carry
smoking guns on the premises of a murder.  It is nevertheless something
that you should have an outstandingly good explanation for when talking
to a jury.

> Good luck convincing a jury of "substantial similarity" Hyman.

Good luck convincing a jury that all you left in was the
(non-copyrightable) version string.

"Oh, I carry smoking guns around all the time.  Bad habit of me,
really."

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 6/25/2010 6:58:18 AM

David Kastrup wrote:

> A smoking gun is a smoking gun.  It is not against the law to carry 
> smoking guns on the premises of a murder.  It is nevertheless 
> something that you should have an outstandingly good explanation for
>  when talking to a jury.
> 
>> Good luck convincing a jury of "substantial similarity" Hyman.
> 

Good luck convincing the judge to instruct the jury that the burden of
proof is a "smoking gun" and not a preponderance of the evidence.

> Good luck convincing a jury that all you left in was the 
> (non-copyrightable) version string.

Left in what? The couple of million occcurences of non-registered,
non-identified random numbers?

This discussion is academic at best. Long, long before any jury would
hear any admissible evidence, Judge Scheindlin will have shredded and
discarded the GPL licnese.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 6/25/2010 12:47:39 PM

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> A smoking gun is a smoking gun.  It is not against the law to carry
>> smoking guns on the premises of a murder.  It is nevertheless
>> something that you should have an outstandingly good explanation for
>>  when talking to a jury.
>>
>>> Good luck convincing a jury of "substantial similarity" Hyman.
>>
>
> Good luck convincing the judge to instruct the jury that the burden of
> proof is a "smoking gun" and not a preponderance of the evidence.
>
>> Good luck convincing a jury that all you left in was the
>> (non-copyrightable) version string.
>
> Left in what? The couple of million occcurences of non-registered,
> non-identified random numbers?

Every single copyrighted literary work consists of million occurences of
letters.  Well, millions for larger works.

Not a particularly convincing argument you try here.

> This discussion is academic at best. Long, long before any jury would
> hear any admissible evidence, Judge Scheindlin will have shredded and
> discarded the GPL licnese.

For those defendants not coming into compliance, the expected outcome
indeed is that the GPL, its conditions not being met, will be shredded
and discarded by the judge, leaving the defendant without a valid
license to point to for copying and distribution.

That was the whole point of the suit.  So it is not clear why you are
hopping with glee in the prospect of the judge agreeing with the
plaintiffs.

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 6/25/2010 1:06:04 PM

On 6/24/2010 6:44 PM, RJack wrote:
> The only GPL'd code at issue is "BusyBox, v.0.60.3" registered

No, that's incorrect. In order to copy and distribute a
GPLed version of BusyBox, the source code for the exact
version being distributed must be made properly available
according to the terms of the GPL. The version you mention
is one registered by Erik Andersen, but it is not the
version being distributed by the defendants.

It is possible, should the defendants not settle, that they
will assert that registration of a different version prevents
suit on the version they are distributing, and then the court
would decide that matter. The plaintiffs can register other
versions and refile the suit, should that be necessary.
0
Reply Hyman 6/25/2010 2:57:49 PM

David Kastrup wrote:
> RJack <user@example.net> writes:
> 
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>>> A smoking gun is a smoking gun.  It is not against the law to 
>>> carry smoking guns on the premises of a murder.  It is 
>>> nevertheless something that you should have an outstandingly good
>>>  explanation for when talking to a jury.
>>> 
>>>> Good luck convincing a jury of "substantial similarity" Hyman.
>> Good luck convincing the judge to instruct the jury that the burden
>>  of proof is a "smoking gun" and not a preponderance of the 
>> evidence.
>> 
>>> Good luck convincing a jury that all you left in was the 
>>> (non-copyrightable) version string.
>> Left in what? The couple of million occcurences of non-registered, 
>> non-identified random numbers?
> 
> Every single copyrighted literary work consists of million occurences
>  of letters.  Well, millions for larger works.
> 
> Not a particularly convincing argument you try here.

Dyslexia with the word "random"?

>> This discussion is academic at best. Long, long before any jury 
>> would hear any admissible evidence, Judge Scheindlin will have 
>> shredded and discarded the GPL licnese.
> 

> For those defendants not coming into compliance, the expected outcome
>  indeed is that the GPL, its conditions not being met, will be 
> shredded and discarded by the judge, leaving the defendant without a
>  valid license to point to for copying and distribution.

"Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the circumstances;
but the relation between the parties thereafter in respect of any suit
brought must be held to be contractual, and not an unlawful invasion of
the rights of the owner."; De Forest Radio Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United
States, 273 U.S. 236, United States Supreme Court (1927).

> 
> That was the whole point of the suit.  So it is not clear why you are
>  hopping with glee in the prospect of the judge agreeing with the 
> plaintiffs

A failed copyright license is construed against its drafter in the
United States. Read it and weep DAK:

Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel.
Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 6/25/2010 4:12:19 PM

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> RJack <user@example.net> writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good luck convincing a jury that all you left in was the
>>>> (non-copyrightable) version string.
>>> Left in what? The couple of million occcurences of non-registered,
>>> non-identified random numbers?
>>
>> Every single copyrighted literary work consists of million occurences
>>  of letters.  Well, millions for larger works.
>>
>> Not a particularly convincing argument you try here.
>
> Dyslexia with the word "random"?

So you don't know what "dyslexia" means, don't know what "random" means
and/or have no idea what programs are.  Your legal prowess fits right in
with the rest of your remarkable capabilities.

>>> This discussion is academic at best. Long, long before any jury
>>> would hear any admissible evidence, Judge Scheindlin will have
>>> shredded and discarded the GPL licnese.
>
>> For those defendants not coming into compliance, the expected outcome
>> indeed is that the GPL, its conditions not being met, will be
>> shredded and discarded by the judge, leaving the defendant without a
>> valid license to point to for copying and distribution.
>
> "Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
> reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the
> circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in
> respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not an
> unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner."; De Forest Radio Tel. &
> Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, United States Supreme Court
> (1927).

After an exchange of consideration or a two-sided declaration of wanting
to enter into a contractual relation.  It does not look like the
defendants would be in the situation to claim that.

A shoplifter can't state that he should not be sued for theft but merely
for breach of contract because he would have been able to pay and leave
had he wanted to.

>> That was the whole point of the suit.  So it is not clear why you are
>> hopping with glee in the prospect of the judge agreeing with the
>> plaintiffs
>
> A failed copyright license is construed against its drafter in the
> United States.

You mean, a failed _contract_.  A license is something _granting_
permission.  If it fails, there is no license.

> Read it and weep DAK:
>
> Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel.
> Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel.

That's if a license fails for reasons the licensee could not reasonably
expect.  "How was I supposed to know that I had to keep my end of the
deal, too?"  is not exactly going to have the court go "of course, of
course".

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 6/25/2010 5:17:22 PM

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 6/24/2010 6:44 PM, RJack wrote:
>> The only GPL'd code at issue is "BusyBox, v.0.60.3" registered
> 
> No, that's incorrect. In order to copy and distribute a GPLed version
>  of BusyBox, the source code for the exact version being distributed 
> must be made properly available according to the terms of the GPL. 
> The version you mention is one registered by Erik Andersen, but it is
>  not the version being distributed by the defendants.

*Allegedly* distributed Hyman. *Allegedly." Where's the beef?

> It is possible, should the defendants not settle, that they will 
> assert that registration of a different version prevents suit on the 
> version they are distributing, and then the court would decide that 
> matter. The plaintiffs can register other versions and refile the 
> suit, should that be necessary.

The plaintiff(s) don't own *any* version of Busybox "a single computer
program". One of the plaintiff(s) owns no copyrights at all. The
plaintiff Erik Andersen will never successfully get *any* version of
Busybox registered since he doesn't own *any8 version.

Busybox is a snarled, tangled combination of patches and derivative
source modules that defies categorization. No one will *ever*
successfully register "Busybox a single computer program" because the
original authorship of the code is impossible to untangle. More than
fifty authors have contributed patches to Busybox over the course of
ten years -- that's literally millions of bifurcations in a supposed
derivative work.

You can spin but you can't win.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

0
Reply RJack 6/25/2010 7:55:33 PM

David Kastrup wrote:
> RJack <user@example.net> writes:
> 
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>> RJack <user@example.net> writes:
>>> 
>>>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Good luck convincing a jury that all you left in was the 
>>>>> (non-copyrightable) version string.
>>>> Left in what? The couple of million occcurences of
>>>> non-registered, non-identified random numbers?
>>> Every single copyrighted literary work consists of million
>>> occurences of letters.  Well, millions for larger works.
>>> 
>>> Not a particularly convincing argument you try here.
>> Dyslexia with the word "random"?
> 
> So you don't know what "dyslexia" means, don't know what "random"
> means and/or have no idea what programs are.  Your legal prowess fits
> right in with the rest of your remarkable capabilities.
> 
>>>> This discussion is academic at best. Long, long before any jury
>>>>  would hear any admissible evidence, Judge Scheindlin will have
>>>>  shredded and discarded the GPL licnese.
>>> For those defendants not coming into compliance, the expected
>>> outcome indeed is that the GPL, its conditions not being met,
>>> will be shredded and discarded by the judge, leaving the
>>> defendant without a valid license to point to for copying and
>>> distribution.
>> "Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a 
>> reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the 
>> circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in 
>> respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not
>> an unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner."; De Forest Radio
>> Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, United States
>> Supreme Court (1927).
> 
> After an exchange of consideration or a two-sided declaration of
> wanting to enter into a contractual relation.  It does not look like
> the defendants would be in the situation to claim that.
> 
> A shoplifter can't state that he should not be sued for theft but
> merely for breach of contract because he would have been able to pay
> and leave had he wanted to.
> 
>>> That was the whole point of the suit.  So it is not clear why you
>>> are hopping with glee in the prospect of the judge agreeing with
>>> the plaintiffs
>> A failed copyright license is construed against its drafter in the 
>> United States.
> 
> You mean, a failed _contract_.  A license is something _granting_ 
> permission.  If it fails, there is no license.
> 
>> Read it and weep DAK:
>> 
>> Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel. 
>> Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel.
> 
> That's if a license fails for reasons the licensee could not
> reasonably expect.  "How was I supposed to know that I had to keep my
> end of the deal, too?"  is not exactly going to have the court go "of
> course, of course".
> 

You don't even hesitate when you make up this gibberish, do you DAK?

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 6/25/2010 8:00:36 PM

On 6/25/2010 3:55 PM, RJack wrote:
> *Allegedly* distributed

If the defendants believe and wish to assert that they are
not distributing BusyBox, they are free to do so.

> The plaintiff(s) don't own *any* version of Busybox

They own the copyright of any modifications they have
made. The combined work of BusyBox which contains their
copyrighted work may not be distributed without their
permission, and such permission is only through the GPL.

> The plaintiff Erik Andersen will never successfully get
 > *any* version of Busybox registered

This is manifestly false, since he already has such a
version successfully registered.

> Busybox is a snarled, tangled combination of patches and derivative
> source modules that defies categorization. No one will *ever*
> successfully register "Busybox a single computer program" because the
> original authorship of the code is impossible to untangle.

Unfortunately for you, copyright law makes no provision
allowing the copying and distribution of copyrighted works
without permission on grounds of complexity of ownership.
0
Reply Hyman 6/25/2010 8:10:57 PM

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 6/25/2010 3:55 PM, RJack wrote:
>> *Allegedly* distributed
> 
> If the defendants believe and wish to assert that they are not 
> distributing BusyBox, they are free to do so.
> 
Have you read the defendants Answers to Complaint? ROFL.

>> The plaintiff(s) don't own *any* version of Busybox
> 
> They own the copyright of any modifications they have made. The 
> combined work of BusyBox which contains their copyrighted work may 
> not be distributed without their permission, and such permission is 
> only through the GPL.
> 
The *broken* GPL.

>> The plaintiff Erik Andersen will never successfully get *any* 
>> version of Busybox registered
> 
> This is manifestly false, since he already has such a version 
> successfully registered.

This is manifestly true since he already has fraudulently
registered a version of Busybox that he doesn't own -- which is
contrary to copyright law.

You can spin but you can't win.

>> Busybox is a snarled, tangled combination of patches and derivative
>>  source modules that defies categorization. No one will *ever* 
>> successfully register "Busybox a single computer program" because 
>> the original authorship of the code is impossible to untangle.
> 
> Unfortunately for you, copyright law makes no provision allowing the
>  copying and distribution of copyrighted works without permission on
>  grounds of complexity of ownership.

The broken GPL gives the defendants permission to copy and distribute.
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, copyright law does not allow
registration of works you don't own.

You can spin but you can't win.

Sincerely,
RJack :)



0
Reply RJack 6/25/2010 8:34:55 PM

On 6/25/2010 4:34 PM, RJack wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> If the defendants believe and wish to assert that they are not
>> distributing BusyBox, they are free to do so.
> Have you read the defendants Answers to Complaint?

Not with any great attention. It's not interesting at early
stages because such responses throw up a screen of every
possible legal argument, plausible or not, in order to make
work for the other side and so as not to foreclose on any
avenue of defense. If they have made such a claim, and do not
choose to settle, then it will be up to the plaintiffs to
prove that the defenses are invalid.

> The *broken* GPL.

The GPL is not broken. No one who wishes to comply with its
terms has any trouble doing so. It is those who wish to benefit
from GPLed software without honoring its terms who complain
most about it. There is no need to worry about the opinios of
parasites. GPLv3 did go to great lengths to accommodate the
needs of free software developers who wish to use GPLed code
in projects licensed under incompatible licenses.

> This is manifestly true since he already has fraudulently
> registered a version of Busybox that he doesn't own -- which is
> contrary to copyright law.

His registration of BusyBox is legal since it is a derivative
work he has created. If the defendants believe otherwise, they
may claim that, and then the plaintiffs will need to demonstrate
this.

> The broken GPL gives the defendants permission to copy and distribute.
> Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, copyright law does not allow
> registration of works you don't own.

The GPL is not broken, and gives permission to copy and
distribute only in compliance with its terms. Erik Andersen
is an owner of copyright in BusyBox under the terms specified
in US copyright law, and thus may sue if BusyBox is copied and
distributed without permission. Usenet cranks believe that they
may accept permissions without accepting requirements; belief
in insane ideas is after all the hallmark of a crank. But the
beliefs of cranks do not translate into law, as Daniel Wallace
discovered.
0
Reply Hyman 6/25/2010 9:01:29 PM

(a sorta response to the idiotic SFLC motion)

RJack wrote:
> 
> The SFLC's PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR
> DEFAULT JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST
> DEFENDANT WESTINGHOUSE DIGITAL ELECTRONICS,
> LLC states:

Case 1:09-cv-10155-SAS Document 128 Filed 06/29/2010:

"...

On April 2, 2010, Westinghouse, a California limited liability company,
now known as Mora Electronics, LLC ("Mora"), executed a General
Assignment (the "General Assignment"). Under the General Assignment,
Mora assigned all of its assets (excluding real property leasehold
interest and interests under agreements with labor unions or trade
associations) to the Credit Management Association of California ("the
CMA"), a California corporation, in trust, for the benefit of Mora�s
creditors.1

The CMA has determined that it will not provide a defense in this
action. Consequently, the CMA has provided to plaintiff the attached
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bulletin No. 1.2 The Bulletin provides information on the General
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Assignment and informs potential creditors, such as plaintiff, how to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
seek participation in the distribution of assets of Mora.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Michael Joncich of the CMA has informed the subject attorneys that they
are not authorized to represent Westinghouse, Mora or the CMA in
connection with this case. Mr. Joncich also terminated the services of
the subject attorneys and revoked their authority to act on behalf of
Westinghouse.3 The New York Rules of Professional Conduct and Local
Rules of the Southern District of New York govern the termination of a
lawyer�s services. Specifically, Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(b)(3)
states that �a lawyer shall withdraw from the representation of a client
when... the lawyer is discharged.� (Rules of Prof�l Conduct R. 1.16
(2009).) Notwithstanding, under subsection (d) of the same rule as well
as under Local Rule 1.4,

1 Declaration of Jay R. Campbell of Motion to Withdraw (�Campbell
Decl.�) at � 2, 3.
2 Campbell Decl.., Attachment A.
3 Campbell Decl. at � 5. Case 1:09-cv-10155-SAS Document 128 Filed
06/29/2010 Page 2 of 4

an attorney must obtain leave of the court in order to withdraw. (L.R.
Civ. 1.4 (2009).) In light of the termination of their authority and
services, Renner Otto and Kane Kessler now come before this court and
seek to withdraw as counsel for defendant Westinghouse in compliance
with the above rules.

Counsel has added Mr. Joncich�s email to the CM/ECF system so that he
will receive notices from the court in the above captioned case.

Renner Otto and Kane Kessler respectfully request that the Court enter
an Order allowing them to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Westinghouse
Digital Electronics, LLC. No party would suffer prejudice by this
withdrawal.

Dated: June 29, 2010 in Cleveland, Ohio
Respectfully submitted,
/s/_Kyle B. Fleming____________
Kyle B. Fleming (KF-2327)
Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP
1621 Euclid Ave., 19th Floor
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
(216) 621-1113
Sarah Bawany Yousuf (SBY-0305)
Kane Kessler, P.C.
1350 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019
(212) 541-6222
Attorneys for Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC"

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.)
0
Reply terekhov (1920) 6/30/2010 4:26:39 PM

The (almost) most idiotic SFLC response so far. . .

The SFLC has filed a Memorandum *opposing* the Motion to Withdraw by
Westinghouse counsel. This, despite the fact that Westinghouse and it's
successors in interest have declared that they will not defend against
the suit and have withdrawn all authorization for legal counsel to
act. Apparently the SFLC believes it can *force* a defendant to appear
in a civil action even after the defendant has declared his intention to
default.

WHERE DID THESE SFLC GUYS GET THEIR LAW DEGREES? A Wheaties (Breakfast
of Champions) box top? Groklaw?

ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack


-- �The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't
Falling� -- Pamela Jones at Groklaw
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851

-- "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://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/463/463.F3d.749.05-1172.html


0
Reply user7 (4036) 7/3/2010 2:01:17 PM

SFLC gang 'won' $90,000 + attorneys fees and costs and expenses against
LONG INSOLVENT AND ASSETS-DISSOLVED DEFENCELESS defendant on default.

Congrats to Eben Moglen and his underlings.

LOL.

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.)
0
Reply terekhov (1920) 7/28/2010 12:41:03 PM

On 7/28/2010 8:41 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> SFLC gang 'won' $90,000 + attorneys fees and costs and expenses
> against LONG INSOLVENT AND ASSETS-DISSOLVED DEFENCELESS defendant on
> default.
>
> Congrats to Eben Moglen and his underlings.
>
> LOL.
>
> 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.)


This judgment is not surprising. Judge Scheindlin is considered a
national expert on electronic discovery sanctions. She takes a very 
harsh view of parties who do not respond to discovery orders.
http://www.mttlr.org/voleleven/scheindlin.pdf

This is certainly a Pyrrhic default judgment for the SFLC. Since
Westinghouse no longer exists, the injunction is unenforceable against
Westinghouse. Getting a default judgment *granted* is one thing. Getting
a default judgment *enforced* is a whole 'nuther matter. The SFLC will
have to file in the California state court system to determine the true
successors in interest to Westinghouse in an attempt to collect the
fruits of their brilliant legal work.

Sincerely,
RJack :)


0
Reply user7 (4036) 7/28/2010 3:00:33 PM

RJack wrote:
[...]
> a default judgment *enforced* is a whole 'nuther matter. The SFLC will
> have to file in the California state court system to determine the true
> successors in interest to Westinghouse in an attempt to collect the
> fruits of their brilliant legal work.

Good luck to the SFLC.

http://www.articlealley.com/article_1045510_19.html

"The ABC Option. In many states, another option that may be available to
companies in financial trouble is an assignment for the benefit of
creditors (or "general assignment for the benefit of creditors" as it is
sometimes called). The ABC is an insolvency proceeding governed by state
law rather than federal bankruptcy law."

http://wineindustryinsight.com/?p=7735

"In California, an assignment agreement does not require a court
filing."

http://bankruptcy.cooley.com/2008/03/articles/the-financially-troubled-compa/assignments-for-the-benefit-of-creditors-simple-as-abc/

"In California, making an ABC does not require a public court filing.
Some other states, however, do require a court filing to initiate or
complete an ABC."

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.)
0
Reply terekhov (1920) 7/29/2010 5:36:29 PM

On 7/28/2010 8:41 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> SFLC gang 'won' $90,000 + attorneys fees and costs and expenses
> against LONG INSOLVENT AND ASSETS-DISSOLVED DEFENCELESS defendant on
>  default.
>
> Congrats to Eben Moglen and his underlings.
>
> LOL.
>

Uh... PJ over at Groklaw says the default judgment against Westeren
Digital proves, "Of course, to collect the money, the plaintiffs must
apply to bankruptcy court as a creditor, and you know from watching the
SCO case what can happen to creditors in a bankruptcy case, but if you
are one of the other defendants, one thing you know for sure now: the
GPL has teeth, it is enforceable in a court of law, and if you violate
it, it can cost you. Remember when you are choosing a license, you want
one that you know is enforceable in court."
http://www.groklaw.net/index.php

What bankruptcy court? Yeah... GREAT BIG TEETH. ROFL.

Judge Scheindlin awarded $47,010 for 54.2 hours work at $550 per hour to
the SFLC for attorney fees in the default judgment against Western
Digital Inc.

With nine defendants with *prestigious* law firms still in initial
discovery and long after Western Digital Inc. ceased to exist, there is
well over $500,000 in attorney fees at stake right now. Before any
future summary judgment can be ruled upon, probably one million dollars
in attorney fees will be at stake.

This is gonna' be an expensive lawsuit for the SFLC to lose. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply user7 (4036) 8/3/2010 10:24:06 PM

On 8/3/2010 6:24 PM, RJack wrote:

The District court must dismiss the SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY, INC.
from the Best Buy litigation:

"The Copyright Act authorizes only two types of claimants to sue
for copyright infringement: (1) owners of copyrights, and (2) persons
who have been granted exclusive licenses by owners of copyrights.[Note 3]

[Note 3] ... We do not believe that the Copyright Act permits holders of
rights under copyrights to choose third parties to bring suits on their
behalf. While F.R.Civ.P. 17(a) ordinarily permits the real party in
interest to ratify a suit brought by another party, see Urrutia Aviation
Enterprises v. B.B. Burson & Associates, Inc., 406 F.2d 769, 770 (5th
Cir.1969); Clarkson Co. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 441 F.Supp. 792
(N.D.Calif.1977), the Copyright Law is quite specific in stating that
only the "owner of an exclusive right under a copyright" may bring suit.
17 U.S.C. Sec. 501(b) (Supp. IV 1980)."; Eden Toys Inc v. Florelee
Undergarment Co Inc, 697 F.2d 27 (2nd Cir 1983).

I think it may have slipped Erik Andersen's mind that the SFLC can
represent him pro bone (for free) in the Best Buy litigation but
if the suit fails Erik is going to personally be on the hook for
nine defendants' attorney fees. I wonder if the SFLC will represent
him in bankruptcy court.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply user7 (4036) 8/4/2010 9:57:32 PM

On 8/4/2010 5:57 PM, RJack wrote:
> if the suit fails

None of them have failed yet.
0
Reply Hyman 8/4/2010 10:05:57 PM

On 8/4/2010 6:05 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 8/4/2010 5:57 PM, RJack wrote:
>> if the suit fails
>
> None of them have failed yet.

Yeah... yet. (Grin) Not... yet.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 8/5/2010 12:31:25 AM

Ha ha.

The GPL girl still can't grok that the copyright statute has absolutely
nothing to do with "enforcement" of copyright licensing contracts, but
admits that there are no conditions precedent in the GPL. 

Well, at least some progress...

LOL.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100803132055210

(from comments)

-----
Let's Think This Through 

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 04 2010 @ 02:23 PM EDT 

The only thing this cases teaches is that it is costly to ignore a
court's
discovery orders *regardless* of the subject matter of the case. Judge
Scheindlin is considered a national expert on electronic discovery and
sanctions.

This Judge Scheindlin ruling is what should concern GPL advocates:

n52. "Plaintiffs bring claims for "Contract Failure of Condition"
against each defendant. The Court is not familiar with this term. I 
assume "Contract Failure of Condition" is a claim for breach of a 
condition precedent." Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan 
Stanley & Co., et al., 1:2008cv07508, SDNY, (2008). -- Judge Shira 
A. Scheindlin. http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/AbuDhabi.pdf

I promise you Judge Scheindlin will view the "conditions" of the GPL
license very differently from the FSF and SFLC's interpretation of
"conditions" to a copyright license grant.
-----

-----
Let's Think This Through 

Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 04 2010 @ 07:56 PM EDT 

Um. You are quoting from a case [PDF] that had nothing to do with the
GPL. It was a fraud and breach of contract case, among other things,
having nothing to do with software.

You don't enforce the GPL with contract law. 

So your comment makes no sense, not to put too fine a point on it. You
enforce the GPL exclusively with copyright law, and there is no issue of
breach of a condition precedent.

Do you know what that means? Here's what condition precedent means: 

condition precedent n. 1) in a contract, an event which must take place
before a party to a contract must perform or do their part. 2) in a deed
to real property, an event which has to occur before the title (or other
right) to the property will actually be in the name (vest) of the party
receiving title. Examples: if the ship makes it to port, the buyer
agrees to pay for the freight on the ship and unload it; when daughter
Gracella marries she shall then have full title to the property. 

There are no conditions precedent in the GPL. None. And there's no
breach of contract. It's all about copyright law. So what is it you are
saying? There's no connection at all to the GPL or what is being
discussed in the BestBuy case. 
-----
 
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.)
0
Reply Alexander 8/5/2010 10:54:44 AM

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:24:06 -0400, RJack wrote:

> On 7/28/2010 8:41 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> SFLC gang 'won' $90,000 + attorneys fees and costs and expenses against
>> LONG INSOLVENT AND ASSETS-DISSOLVED DEFENCELESS defendant on
>>  default.
>>
>> Congrats to Eben Moglen and his underlings.
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>>
> Uh... PJ over at Groklaw says the default judgment against Western
> Digital proves, "Of course, to collect the money, the plaintiffs must

that would be westinghouse digital. westinghouse is that company from the 
last century that makes heavy electric equipment.

western digital makes disk drives and is not a part of this issue.
0
Reply voodoo 8/6/2010 1:13:02 AM

On 8/5/2010 9:13 PM, voodoo wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:24:06 -0400, RJack wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2010 8:41 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>> SFLC gang 'won' $90,000 + attorneys fees and costs and expenses
>>> against LONG INSOLVENT AND ASSETS-DISSOLVED DEFENCELESS defendant
>>> on default.
>>>
>>> Congrats to Eben Moglen and his underlings.
>>>
>>> LOL.
>>>
>>>
>> Uh... PJ over at Groklaw says the default judgment against Western
>> Digital proves, "Of course, to collect the money, the plaintiffs
>> must
>
> that would be westinghouse digital. westinghouse is that company from
> the last century that makes heavy electric equipment.
>
> western digital makes disk drives and is not a part of this issue.

You are correct. It is Westinghouse Digital. There is certainly strong
grounds to appeal the default judgment by Westinghouse's successors in
interest. Here is a summary of the default judgment law of the Second
Circuit, which controls the Westinghouse case:

"At an inquest, the complaint's factual allegations must be accepted as
true except as they relate to damages.  See Au Bon Pain Corp. v. Artect,
Inc., 653 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1981). In addition, the plaintiff is
entitled to all reasonable inferences from the evidence presented. See
id. ...

A court must evaluate whether a basis for damages exists in a
circumstance where a judgment by default is rendered, and a plaintiff
must establish the quantum of damages in a post-default inquest, "unless
the amount is liquidated or susceptible of mathematical computation."
Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974) (citations omitted).
"[U]nless the amount of damages [is] absolutely certain, the court is
required to make an independent determination of the sum to be awarded."
  S.E.C. v. Writ. Dynamics, Inc., 515 F.2d 801, 814 (2d Cir. 1975). A
court should not award damages if the evidence presented by a plaintiff,
at an inquest, does not adequately provide a reasonable basis for
determining damages.  See In re Crazy Eddie Litigation, 948 F. Supp.
1154, 1160 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (citation omitted)."
http://www.josephnyc.com/blog/?blogID=765

The damages suffered for code released under the GPL is zero since
the GPL requires licensing "at no cost to all third parties". Hence the
statutory damages award against Westinghouse are wildly
disproportionate. Statutory copyright damages must bear some rational
relationship to actual damages suffered.

Sincerely,
RJack :)



0
Reply user7 (4036) 8/6/2010 4:00:31 AM

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:00:31 -0400, RJack wrote:

> On 8/5/2010 9:13 PM, voodoo wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:24:06 -0400, RJack wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/28/2010 8:41 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>>> SFLC gang 'won' $90,000 + attorneys fees and costs and expenses
>>>> against LONG INSOLVENT AND ASSETS-DISSOLVED DEFENCELESS defendant on
>>>> default.
>>>>
>>>> Congrats to Eben Moglen and his underlings.
>>>>
>>>> LOL.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Uh... PJ over at Groklaw says the default judgment against Western
>>> Digital proves, "Of course, to collect the money, the plaintiffs must
>>
>> that would be westinghouse digital. westinghouse is that company from
>> the last century that makes heavy electric equipment.
>>
>> western digital makes disk drives and is not a part of this issue.
> 
> You are correct. It is Westinghouse Digital. There is certainly strong
> grounds to appeal the default judgment by Westinghouse's successors in
> interest.

How long have they got to start the appeal process?
0
Reply voodoo 8/6/2010 6:03:36 AM

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

>> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:24:06 -0400, RJack wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/28/2010 8:41 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>>> SFLC gang 'won' $90,000 + attorneys fees and costs and expenses
>>>> against LONG INSOLVENT AND ASSETS-DISSOLVED DEFENCELESS defendant
>>>> on default.
>>>>
>>>> Congrats to Eben Moglen and his underlings.

Well, that means that they don't have to pay the court costs and fees
connected with this defendant.  Quite substantial.

> You are correct. It is Westinghouse Digital. There is certainly strong
> grounds to appeal the default judgment by Westinghouse's successors in
> interest.

"Successor in interest" means you inherit the good along with the bad.
"I did not bother to defend myself" is not strong grounds for appeal.

[...]

> The damages suffered for code released under the GPL is zero since the
> GPL requires licensing "at no cost to all third parties". Hence the
> statutory damages award against Westinghouse are wildly
> disproportionate. Statutory copyright damages must bear some rational
> relationship to actual damages suffered.

With that kind of argumentation, robbing a charity should never result
in statutory damages since the goods were not to be sold for profit
anyway.  Or you could burn down a storehouse, and there would not be
"actual" damages for any items that were not already preordered.

The GPL requires licensing "at no cost to all third parties" for stuff
plaintiffs _received_ under the GPL.  But the plaintiffs are suing for
those parts they wrote themselves and copyrighted themselves.

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 8/6/2010 7:38:08 AM

On 8/6/2010 3:38 AM, David Kastrup wrote:

> The GPL requires licensing "at no cost to all third parties" for
> stuff plaintiffs _received_ under the GPL.  But the plaintiffs are
> suing for those parts they wrote themselves and copyrighted
> themselves.


So... the plaintiffs deliberately lied in the pleadings when they
claimed they licensed their code under the GPL? That's not good.
Perhaps it was the Artistic License which Hyman believes is
interchangeable with the GPL?

When you make stuff up, you should attempt to at least be consistent
in your fantasizing DAK. Your fantasies are leading you down the yellow
brick road to Hyman Rosen's World.

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

Sincerely,
RJack :)

0
Reply RJack 8/6/2010 10:12:37 AM

On 8/6/2010 2:03 AM, voodoo wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:00:31 -0400, RJack wrote:
>
>> On 8/5/2010 9:13 PM, voodoo wrote:
>>> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:24:06 -0400, RJack wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/28/2010 8:41 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>>>> SFLC gang 'won' $90,000 + attorneys fees and costs and
>>>>> expenses against LONG INSOLVENT AND ASSETS-DISSOLVED
>>>>> DEFENCELESS defendant on default.
>>>>>
>>>>> Congrats to Eben Moglen and his underlings.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Uh... PJ over at Groklaw says the default judgment against
>>>> Western Digital proves, "Of course, to collect the money, the
>>>> plaintiffs must
>>>
>>> that would be westinghouse digital. westinghouse is that company
>>>  from the last century that makes heavy electric equipment.
>>>
>>> western digital makes disk drives and is not a part of this
>>> issue.
>>
>> You are correct. It is Westinghouse Digital. There is certainly
>> strong grounds to appeal the default judgment by Westinghouse's
>> successors in interest.
>


> How long have they got to start the appeal process?

I doubt they'll appeal. The attorney fees for our modern day legal
robber barons are too much to justify an appeal.

The SFLC's Dan Ravicher filed a series of copyright cases which he moved
to voluntarily dismiss without a stipulated settlement (he failed to
plead any copyright registrations). For this the court thinks he's worth
$550 per hour.

Sincerely,
RJack :)



0
Reply user7 (4036) 8/6/2010 10:35:52 AM

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> On 8/6/2010 3:38 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> The GPL requires licensing "at no cost to all third parties" for
>> stuff plaintiffs _received_ under the GPL.  But the plaintiffs are
>> suing for those parts they wrote themselves and copyrighted
>> themselves.
>
>
> So... the plaintiffs deliberately lied in the pleadings when they
> claimed they licensed their code under the GPL?

Huh?  I don't see anything in the above that could lead a sane person to
that conclusion.

> They're coming to take me away, HA HA
> They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
> To the funny farm
> Where life is beautiful all the time
> And I'll be happy to see
> Those nice, young men
> In their clean, white coats
> And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

Of course.  So what lead _you_ to that conclusion?

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 8/6/2010 11:09:29 AM

On 8/6/2010 7:09 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> a sane person

Yeah, well, that makes sense, doesn't it? :-)
0
Reply Hyman 8/6/2010 2:21:37 PM

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 8/6/2010 7:09 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> > a sane person
> 
> Yeah, well, that makes sense, doesn't it? :-)

How much one must pay to Eric Andersen for his alleged contributions to
the BusyBox publicly available under the GPL, you retard?

"22. Mr. Andersen has distributed BusyBox since on or about November 4,
1999. He
distributes BusyBox in source code form, the human-readable form of a
computer program that a
programmer must have in order to make changes to the program. Mr.
Andersen distributes
BusyBox under a copyright license entitled the �GNU General Public
License, Version 2� (�the
License�). A copy of the License is attached to this Complaint as
Exhibit A."

Didn't YOU claim that ALL contributions coming in touch with the GPL'd
work fall under the GPL and hence must be licensed "at no cost to all
third parties"?

Stop being utter moron 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.)
0
Reply Alexander 8/6/2010 4:20:46 PM

On 8/6/2010 12:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> How much one must pay to Eric Andersen for his alleged
 > contributions to the BusyBox publicly available under the GPL

Nothing at all, as long as one has not violated his copyright
by failing to honor the conditions of the GPL when copying and
distributing work on which he holds copyright.

> Didn't YOU claim that ALL contributions coming in touch with the GPL'd
> work fall under the GPL and hence must be licensed "at no cost to all
> third parties"?

No. All work copied and distributed as part of a combined work which
includes components licensed under the GPL must be licensed under the
GPL as well, except when the GPL permits otherwise through the aggregate
work exception. Derivative works of works licensed under the GPL may
only be copied and distributed if they are licensed under the GPL.

It's all very basic stuff and not especially difficult to understand
and follow, except for people who are looking for ways to avoid the
obligations of the GPL while still copying and distributing GPLed
work.

For the non-thieves, simply think of a GPLed component as a short
story. Permission to include it in an anthology is similar to
permission needed to include GPLed code as part of a larger linked
program. Permission to adapt it into a novel is similar to permission
needed to modify GPLed code.

And permission to dynamically link to it is similar to permission
needed to list it in a bibliography, which is to say none.
0
Reply Hyman 8/6/2010 4:39:00 PM

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:

> On 8/6/2010 12:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> How much one must pay to Eric Andersen for his alleged
>> contributions to the BusyBox publicly available under the GPL
>
> Nothing at all, as long as one has not violated his copyright
> by failing to honor the conditions of the GPL when copying and
> distributing work on which he holds copyright.

He has the freedom to offer different conditions for code copyrighted by
him alone.  He also has the freedom to sell a copy of the combined work
for whatever amount he wants while obeying the conditions of the GPL.

Whether or not he exercises that option is his own choice.

-- 
David Kastrup
0
Reply David 8/6/2010 5:06:36 PM

On 8/6/2010 12:39 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 8/6/2010 12:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> How much one must pay to Eric Andersen for his alleged
>> contributions to the BusyBox publicly available under the GPL
>
> Nothing at all, as long as one has not violated his copyright by
> failing to honor the conditions of the GPL when copying and
> distributing work on which he holds copyright.
>
>> Didn't YOU claim that ALL contributions coming in touch with the
>> GPL'd work fall under the GPL and hence must be licensed "at no
>> cost to all third parties"?
>

> No. All work copied and distributed as part of a combined work which
> includes components licensed under the GPL must be licensed under the
> GPL as well, except when the GPL permits otherwise through the
> aggregate work exception. Derivative works of works licensed under
> the GPL may only be copied and distributed if they are licensed under
> the GPL.
>

The above mentioned claim is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301 and is legally
unenforceable.

> It's all very basic stuff and not especially difficult to understand
> and follow, except for people who are looking for ways to avoid the
> obligations of the GPL while still copying and distributing GPLed
> work.


Basic stuff made up by the FSF and stuff that is legally unenforceable.


> For the non-thieves, simply think of a GPLed component as a short
> story. Permission to include it in an anthology is similar to
> permission needed to include GPLed code as part of a larger linked
> program. Permission to adapt it into a novel is similar to
> permission needed to modify GPLed code.

The thieves are GPL licensors who try to steal other folks copyrights
with an illegal license.

> And permission to dynamically link to it is similar to permission
> needed to list it in a bibliography, which is to say none.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 8/6/2010 8:21:20 PM

On 8/6/2010 4:21 PM, RJack wrote:
> The above mentioned claim is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301 and is legally
> unenforceable.

17 USC 301 is the law which says that states may not make their
own laws equivalent to copyright. It has nothing at all to do
with the GPL, since the GPL is a license that grants additional
permissions otherwise forbidden by federal copyright law.

> Basic stuff made up by the FSF and stuff that is legally unenforceable.

All licenses are "made up" by their creators. The license is not
enforceable, but copyright is. The license grants permissions
that would not otherwise be available under plain copyright law,
but it grants those permissions only provided the conditions it
specifies are met.

> The thieves are GPL licensors who try to steal other folks copyrights
> with an illegal license.

The license is legal, and its acceptance is voluntary, so it
cannot steal anything. No one can ever be forced to accept the
GPL, but also no one (aside from the copyright holder) may copy
and distribute GPL-covered works without accepting it. The only
"stealing" comes from people who want to copy and distribute
GPL-covered works without accepting the conditions which permit
that.
0
Reply Hyman 8/9/2010 3:30:04 PM

On 8/9/2010 11:30 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 8/6/2010 4:21 PM, RJack wrote:
>> The above mentioned claim is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301 and is
>> legally unenforceable.
>
> 17 USC 301 is the law which says that states may not make their own
> laws equivalent to copyright. It has nothing at all to do with the
> GPL, since the GPL is a license that grants additional permissions
> otherwise forbidden by federal copyright law.
>
>> Basic stuff made up by the FSF and stuff that is legally
>> unenforceable.
>
> All licenses are "made up" by their creators. The license is not
> enforceable, but copyright is. The license grants permissions that
> would not otherwise be available under plain copyright law, but it
> grants those permissions only provided the conditions it specifies
> are met.
>
>> The thieves are GPL licensors who try to steal other folks
>> copyrights with an illegal license.
>
> The license is legal, and its acceptance is voluntary, so it cannot
> steal anything. No one can ever be forced to accept the GPL, but
> also no one (aside from the copyright holder) may copy and
> distribute GPL-covered works without accepting it. The only
> "stealing" comes from people who want to copy and distribute
> GPL-covered works without accepting the conditions which permit
> that.

Under the criminal statutes, the crime of "attempted conversion" is an
attempt to exert unauthorized control over others property.

Using the GPL is attempting to seize control over all downstream third
parties' *exclusively owned* copyrights -- that *is* attempting to steal
in ever sense of the word.

Sincerely,
RJack :)








0
Reply RJack 8/9/2010 7:53:23 PM

On 8/9/2010 3:53 PM, RJack wrote:
> Under the criminal statutes, the crime of "attempted conversion" is an
> attempt to exert unauthorized control over others property.
>
> Using the GPL is attempting to seize control over all downstream third
> parties' *exclusively owned* copyrights -- that *is* attempting to steal
> in ever sense of the word.

The GPL cannot seize anything. The GPL is a license that can
only be accepted voluntarily by someone choosing to copy and
distribute a covered work. No downstream third party exclusive
owner of copyrights can ever be forced to yield control of them.

The only attempt to exert unauthorized control over someone
else's property comes from the thieves and moochers who wish
to copy and distribute GPL-covered code without honoring the
license of that code. Fortunately, copyright law prevents them
from being able to do so.
0
Reply Hyman 8/9/2010 7:58:47 PM

On 8/9/2010 3:58 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 8/9/2010 3:53 PM, RJack wrote:
>> Under the criminal statutes, the crime of "attempted conversion" is
>> an attempt to exert unauthorized control over others property.
>>
>> Using the GPL is attempting to seize control over all downstream
>> third parties' *exclusively owned* copyrights -- that *is*
>> attempting to steal in ever sense of the word.
>
> The GPL cannot seize anything. The GPL is a license that can only be
> accepted voluntarily by someone choosing to copy and distribute a
> covered work. No downstream third party exclusive owner of copyrights
> can ever be forced to yield control of them.
>
> The only attempt to exert unauthorized control over someone else's
> property comes from the thieves and moochers who wish to copy and
> distribute GPL-covered code without honoring the license of that
> code. Fortunately, copyright law prevents them from being able to do
> so.

Which court has said this about your vaunted GPL?

RJack :)
0
Reply RJack 8/9/2010 8:06:04 PM

On 8/9/2010 4:06 PM, RJack wrote:
> Which court has said this about your vaunted GPL?

The CAFC has said it about the Artistic License in the
JMRI case, and the GPL has similar enough features that
it is reasonable to assume the same outcome.

In Progress v. MySQL, the court said

<http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510>
     With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MYSQL has
     not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
     merits or irreparable harm. Affidavits submitted by the parties'
     experts raise a factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini
     program is a derivative or an independent and separate work
     under GPL � 2. After hearing, MySQL seems to have the better
     argument here, but the matter is one of fair dispute. Moreover,
     I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the
     Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the breach.

indicating by context that the GPL is a meaningful license and the
arguments were to be about its details, not about its validity.
0
Reply Hyman 8/9/2010 8:26:36 PM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 118292 articles. 12 followers. Post

124 Replies
596 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 15


  • Permalink
  • submit to reddit
  • Email
  • Follow


Reply:

Similar Artilces:

[News] Big Milestone and Big Money for GPL Superstar OpenBravo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Open source manufacturing ERP gets 600,000 downloads ,----[ Quote ] | Open source web-based ERP developer OpenBravo, which has now received $12m of | second round growth funding, is claiming huge growth, particularly among | manufacturing SMEs. `---- http://www.mcsolutions.co.uk/article/14243/Open-source-manufacturing-ERP-gets-600000-downloads-.aspx Success story for Free software. New release for AGPLv3-licensed project: New Funambol Open Source Software Enables BlackBerry for the Mass Market ,----[ Quote ] | Funambol, the leading provid...

Links for Big Steel
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_cracker_jacks_made_of On 1/13/13 9:04 PM, owl wrote: > http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_cracker_jacks_made_of > I am Malcom X! Big Steel <"The One77"@one77.net> wrote: <lies> You don't have anything better to do. You don't have a job, and Soul Train's not on anymore except in reruns. On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 03:35:41 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > Big Steel <"The One77"@one77.net> wrote: > <lies> > > You don't have anything better to do. You don't have ...

Linked Resource for Eclipse Too Big!?
Has anyone ever tried to create a folder in a Java Project in Eclipse and link it to a pre-existing directory with source code? I am attempting to do so but I keep getting out of memory errors. This particular directory has about 60 directorys contaiing C++ executables, libraries and Java code. I have bumped up the memory using command line to 1GB of memory. When I attempt to link eclipse attempts to read in the entire directory. After about 30 minutes it comes back saying it has failed. The log indicates an out of memory error. Does anybody have any suggestions to get around this problem? I w...

Big Sites Hoard Links
Technology Research News June 23, 2003 The Internet is scale-free, meaning it is made up of a few nodes, or servers, that have many links, and many nodes with only a few links. It is also a small-world network-you can get to any node via only a few links among adjoining nodes. University of London researchers have uncovered another clue about the Internet's structure-the rich-club phenomenon. Large, well-connected nodes have more links to each other than to smaller nodes, and smaller nodes have more links to the larger nodes than to each other. http://www.technologyreview....

The big blow will begin
Going offline in a bit. I will be dusting out Resartus, adding a 4.3GB drive to put my D: on (partition with Tool and files), installing the Plextor internally on a Passplay, and daring the lightning, which will fry my buttocks again... remember, the butt-hole is the safest orifice to get hit by lightning. Enjoy the tingle, heh. -John in NY (state, not city) I just got back up a few minutes ago. I bought a can of cheap "Blow Off" as Ace Hardware does not carry or have the ability to order "Airjet". Blow Off has the unfortunate problem with chilling...

big crash on link (vo27a)
.... have a real problem. I've started getting an error window I've never seen when linking an app. Something about a driver and a physical memory dump, and the system has halted to avoid damage. It lists one filename: savrt.sys, which seems to be part of Norton Anti-Virus. No choice but to turn the PC off. It was only annoying until today when it became destructive, as I couldn't even start VO27a. Got the audio to go along with the failure, too upset now to remember what it is, but maybe someone else has unfortunately heard that song too. Had to uninstall and rei...

Oracle Linked Tables
I have installed the Oracle 10g client on my pc, setup net manager connection so I can connect to the database, and created the ODBC entry. When I link the tables, all I get is one letter for each table name (I believe it is the first letter of the user name). I get a long list of "c", "d", I don't get the actual table names. If I use the Oracle net manager connection in Visual Studio .Net 2003 to view the tables, it works fine. This seems to be a problem only with Access 97. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks. Darryl D.Bennett wrote: > When I link the t...

animated linking problem (big problem)
hi guys i'm working on a transformer for my animation for an assignment and have linked up bits and bods but i have a huge problem now. when i rotate some objects they seem to scal them selves in strange ways. i heard thtis can be fixed by using reset rotation and reset scale but i've had little success , can anyone help? Did you use Scale transformation to change the objects? Try "Reset XForm" in the Utilities tab. This will trap the scale transformation into the object's modify stack as a "XForm" modifier. Do not alter object's with Scal...

archive (big format) ??? Is static linking possible??
I just downloaded the newest version of openssl from IBM, to my AIX 5.3 system. It contained libssl.a and libcrypto.a. For whatever reason, I did a "file" on them and got this response: file libssl.a libcrypto.a libcrypto.a: archive (big format) libssl.a: archive (big format) What I'd like to know is "what is big format" ??? Here's an example (snippet of the output) of its contents: ar -w libssl.a .BIO_ssl_shutdown libssl.so.0.9.8 .BIO_ssl_copy_session_id libssl.so.0.9.8 .BIO_new_buffer_ssl_connect libssl.so.0.9....

[News] VMware Has Big Debt to the GNU GPL (Linux)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 VMWare's filesystem clustering cracked open ,----[ Quote ] | VMWare has also released the modifications to GPL/LGPL-licensed components | used in their products, but has fallen short of actually open sourcing their | ESX hypervisor, the crown jewel of the VMWare stack." `---- http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow/?p=9540 Recent: VMWare delivers open source client ,----[ Quote ] | VMWare has delivered a virtual client system under the Lesser GPL, VMWare | View Open Client. | | Both the code and support are already available on GoogleCode...

[News] Drupal Shows How GPL Makes Big Business, Success
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 New CEO, New Drupal CMS Offerings for Acquia ,----[ Quote ] | Acquia launched a year ago with $7 million in venture capital with the aim of | providing a commercially supported version of Drupal. Since then, Acquia's | release of Drupal includes the core CMS components while adding in additional | modules and testing. `---- http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3808941 Michael Jackson using Drupal ,----[ Quote ] | Not only is there a new tour, but MichaelJackson.com, the official site for | fans of the King of Pop, has j...

[News] [Rival] Big Blow for Proprietary Software: Now Transferable?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Court smacks Autodesk, affirms right to sell used software ,----[ Quote ] | A federal district judge in Washington State handed down an important | decision this week on shrink-wrap license agreements and the First Sale | Doctrine. The case concerned an eBay merchant named Timothy Vernor who has | repeatedly locked horns with Autodesk over the sale of used copies of its | software. Autodesk argued that it only licenses copies of its software, | rather than selling them, and that therefore any resale of the software | constitutes copyright i...

Melhor Site de Downloads [ BIG SITE AND LINKS FASTED]
www.forumgratiz.com.br www.forumgratiz.com.br www.forumgratiz.com.br Download de : Filmes Games XXX Programas Isso e muito ++ totalmente gratis http://www.forumgratiz.com.br/forumb/index.php?act=3Dreg http://www.forumgratiz.com.br/forumb/index.php?act=3Dreg http://www.forumgratiz.com.br/forumb/index.php?act=3Dreg Somente Registrados Podem Ver os T=F3picos Por Favor Votem Tamb=E9m http://www.topinho.com/index.php?a=3Din&u=3Djeanma= rtins http://www.topinho.com/index.php?a=3Din&u=3Djeanmartins http://www.topinho.com/index.php?a=3Din&u=3Djeanmartins Pois o Site Sobrevive disso. ..=...

[News] Drupal Shows That the GNU GPL Means Big Business
Open Source Drupal Goes Commercial With Acquia ,----[ Quote ] | The open source Drupal content management system is going commercial thanks | to a new company, called Acquia, that's led by Dries Buytaert, the founder of | the Drupal project. The new effort is aiming to bring a commercially | supported version of Drupal to business users and could well end up shaking | up the entire content management marketplace. `---- http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3731476 Drupal goes commercial ,----[ Quote ] | Drupal is currently distributed under a GPL2 licence and Buytaer...

Big GPL copyright enforcement win in Paris Court of Appeals
begin{quote} An education organization in France has successfully sued a software vendor for failing to comply with the open source General Public License. The ruling is significant because it demonstrates that software recipients, and not just developers, can launch GPL enforcement cases in France. By Ryan Paul | Last updated September 24, 2009 2:01 PM CT The Free Software Foundation France (FSF France) is jubilant about a recent court ruling that has affirmed the validity of the open source GNU General Public License (GPL) under French copyright law. This successful GPL enforcement...

[News] Another Big Blow to DRM as Music Industry Gives Up
Music industry set to abandon DRM shocka ,----[ Quote ] | Surprise, surprise, surprise. After all the lawsuits we've been | reporting about, all the fiasco's we've been through (Microsoft | incompatible trio MSN-Plays For Sure-Zune), and now, it seems | that music industry executives are finally thinking with their | senses and not with their ill-fated techno-paranoid logic. `---- http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37410 I suppose that the Microsoft-0wn3d BBC (and Channel4) will soon provide decent options for Linux as well. Nothing that's DRM-infected because ...

Web-Linked Cameras Let Parents Play Big Brother
By Doug Young TAIPEI, June 6 (Reuters) - Big Brother is getting a whole lot of little siblings. New surveillance cameras allow anyone with a broadband Internet connection to keep a 24-hour watch on nearly anything from anywhere. Want to monitor your house from the office? Connect one of the cameras to an Ethernet or wireless computer network at home, then navigate your browser to a Web site linked to an Internet address assigned to the camera. These Internet protocol (IP) cameras, made by companies including Cisco Systems Inc's (NASDAQ:CSCO) Linksys unit and Sweden's ...

[News] Another Big Blow to Microsoft in the UK (Schools and Free Software)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Open source trumps Microsoft in UK schools ,----[ Quote ] | MICROSOFT has suffered further set-backs in the UK education sector this week | after Becta, the government procurement quango, reformed its purchasing | regime to break the software giant's hold on education, and launched a | programme to get schools to adopt open source software. | | At least three open source software suppliers submitted tenders to Becta | yesterday for the £270,000 Schools Open Source Project. The winner will spend | two years building a community o...

Melhor Site de Downloads [ BIG SITE AND LINKS FASTED] #2
www.forumgratiz.com.br www.forumgratiz.com.br www.forumgratiz.com.br Download de : Filmes Games XXX Programas Isso e muito ++ totalmente gratis http://www.forumgratiz.com.br/forumb/index.php?act=3Dreg http://www.forumgratiz.com.br/forumb/index.php?act=3Dreg http://www.forumgratiz.com.br/forumb/index.php?act=3Dreg Somente Registrados Podem Ver os T=F3picos Por Favor Votem Tamb=E9m http://www.topinho.com/index.php?a=3Din&u=3Djeanma= rtins http://www.topinho.com/index.php?a=3Din&u=3Djeanmartins http://www.topinho.com/index.php?a=3Din&u=3Djeanmartins Pois o Site Sobrevive disso. ..=...

Big Win for GNU/Linux in India, Major Blow to the Abusive Monopolist
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 BOSS to shut out Windows ,----[ Quote ] | After a request from the Union Ministry of Comm-unications and Information | Technology, the state government’s Information Technology department has | decided to say goodbye to Microsoft Windows. | | According to a government order dated Nove-mber 9, the IT department would use | the BOSS (Bharat Operating Sys-tem Solutions) operating system, which is a | free and open source computer operating system dev-eloped by the National | Resource Centre for Free/Open Source Soft-ware of India. | | All sys...

Re: Web-Linked Cameras Let Parents Play Big Brother
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> posted on that vast internet thingie: > These Internet protocol (IP) cameras, made by companies including > Cisco Systems Inc's (NASDAQ:CSCO) Linksys unit and Sweden's Axis > Communications (SWED:AXIS), function as stand-alone servers that > stream video over the Web. Panasonic has a nice selection as well indoor and outdoor wired and wireless. We just added them to our product line. I couldn't believe it! A camera with a http server AND a smtp after pop email server built in! It is hard to keep up with all ...

[News] [Rival] Microsoft Scrambles to Hide Big Blow: Employment Issues
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Microsoft hiring freeze? From recession to depression ,----[ Quote ] | Confusion arises over Microsoft's hiring plans. The company issued a memo | that hinted at a freeze, one employee said, but a spokesperson denies a | freeze. `---- http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/33590#comment-190558 Microsoft institutes hiring freeze ,----[ Quote ] | Microsoft has instituted a hiring freeze, likely spurred by the worsening | economic conditions in the U.S., according to a source close to the company. `---- http://www.networkworld.com...

[News] [Rival] Big Blow to Microsoft: Several More Appeals Against OOXML Arrive
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Now There are Two: Brazil Appeals OOXML Adoption ,----[ Quote ] | Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT), the National Body | representing Brazil, today filed an appeal to the approval of OOXML by | ISO/IEC, bringing the current total of appeals to two, with as many as two | additional appeals to come, based upon what I have heard from private | sources. `---- http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080529150227123 Brazil Appeals OOXML Too! Asks Approval Be Reconsidered ,----[ Quote ] | S...

How can I link my Big 'GO' control to the VI RUN Button
I am trying to make a Big GO control that sits on my Front Panel the same as the Run Icon on the toolbar. How can I link the 2 functions? Also is there a way to get the 'enter' key&nbsp;to do the same thing? &nbsp; I have an application where the user will need to make multiple adjustments to the test bed and then run the&nbsp;VI to capture a sample of data after each adjustment. I thought a big mouse target like a 'Big GO Button' would be best. &nbsp; Thanks in advance! &nbsp; Phil ...