Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record - Linux ; Tim Smith writes: > In article , > thufir wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:16:24 +0100, Mark Kent wrote: >> >> >> But, if you've just got a router sitting in your window which you >> >> purchased ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 230

Thread: Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

  1. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Tim Smith writes:

    > In article ,
    > thufir wrote:
    >> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:16:24 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
    >>
    >> >> But, if you've just got a router sitting in your window which you
    >> >> purchased on e-bay and are reselling, surely you, retailer, are not on
    >> >> the hook? Just the manufacturer, I'd think.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> > That's not my understanding. The GPL is reasonably clear on this, if
    >> > you distribute the software in binary form, such as on flash in a
    >> > router, then you must also make the source available to anyone who wants
    >> > it.

    >>
    >>
    >> Wouldn't this "first sale" provision take effect? I don't recall the
    >> terminology, but it's been mentioned in this thread.

    >
    > Mark Kent makes use of an extensive kill file. There's a good chance he
    > has all the people who actually are reasonably familiar with the First
    > Sale doctrine (and its equivalent under European law) kill filed. Net
    > result: Mark often enters threads late and clueless.


    Mark Kent also "advocates" killfiling entire server sources. You too can
    enter his killfile and take another 3000000 people with you by simply
    pointing out his lies and bull****.

  2. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:02:43 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > Net
    > result: Mark often enters threads late and clueless.


    Mark Kent is obviously clueless no matter what the circumstances are.

    I wouldn't depend upon him to be able to put batteries in a flashlight
    without screwing it up.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  3. Re: Could someone *please* explain morality to Smith?

    On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:37:20 +0100, Homer wrote:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    >> * Tim Smith temporarily uncloaked for Homer's edification/annoyance
    >> :

    >
    > Bastard


    Someone should explain it to you [homer] who believes everything should be
    free for the taking and that laws you disagree with are irrelevant.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  4. Homerian Logic

    In article ,
    "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
    > Someone should explain it to you [homer] who believes everything should be
    > free for the taking and that laws you disagree with are irrelevant.


    Not only irrelevant: he seems to believe it is immoral for someone to
    know what those laws are!

    Here's an example of how he thinks, which is so unusual I think it
    deserves a name: Homerian Logic. In this imaginary exchange, H is using
    Homerian Logic. N is a normal person:

    H: The capital of Italy is Turin.

    N: Look's like you made a mistake there, H. The capital of Italy is
    Rome.

    H: [Goes off on some obscure political rant about how Turin is the
    legitimate capital, and its move to Florence, and later Rome, was
    the work of capitalists, or the Church, or something, trying to
    exploit the people. Accuses N of supporting that illegitimate
    usurping of Turing's rightful position, and calls N immoral and/or
    unethical].

    The essence of Homerian Logic is that if in some way the world in
    reality does not match the way Homer thinks it should be, anyone who
    actually understands the reality must *agree* with the reality.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  5. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Homer espoused:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Hyman Rosen spake thusly:
    >> Mark Kent wrote:

    >
    >>> That's not my understanding. The GPL is reasonably clear on this,
    >>> if you distribute the software in binary form, such as on flash in
    >>> a router, then you must also make the source available to anyone
    >>> who wants it.

    >>
    >> You are forgetting that accepting the GPL is voluntary. If you choose
    >> not to accept the GPL, then you are limited by what copyright law
    >> normally permits. Copyright law in the U.S. permits you to resell
    >> copies of legally acquired copyrighted works, without license or
    >> permission required from the copyright holder.

    >
    > Rubbish.
    >
    > The GPL is a license, not a contract, therefore you are bound by that
    > license irrespective of whether or not you agree to it, otherwise you
    > are in violation of that license.


    I've no idea where people pull these ideas from. Isn't it great, the
    idea that you could buy a film or a CD and decide not to agree to the
    licence, and just put it online and distribute it if you felt like it?



    >
    >
    > 9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
    >
    > You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a
    > copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring
    > solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a
    > copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than
    > this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered
    > work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this
    > License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you
    > indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
    >
    >
    > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
    >
    > As for the requirement of US law that copyrights must be registered
    > /first/ before one can enforce them, this "requirement" is in violation
    > of international copyright treaties:
    >
    > [quote]
    > The Berne Convention was developed at the instigation of Victor Hugo as
    > the Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale. Thus it was
    > influenced by the French "right of the author" (droit d'auteur), which
    > contrasts with the Anglo-Saxon concept of "copyright" which only dealt
    > with economic concerns. Under the Convention, copyrights for creative
    > works are automatically in force upon their creation without being
    > asserted or declared. An author need not "register" or "apply for" a
    > copyright in countries adhering to the Convention. As soon as a work is
    > "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its
    > author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work and to
    > any derivative works, unless and until the author explicitly disclaims
    > them or until the copyright expires. Foreign authors are given the same
    > rights and privileges to copyrighted material as domestic authors in any
    > country that signed the Convention.
    >
    > ...
    >
    > The United States initially refused to become party to the Convention
    > since it would have required major changes in its copyright law,
    > particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of general requirement
    > for registration of copyright works and elimination of mandatory
    > copyright notice. This led to the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952
    > to accommodate the wishes of the United States. But on March 1, 1989,
    > the U.S. "Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988" came into force
    > and the United States became a party to the Berne Convention, making the
    > Universal Copyright Convention obsolete.
    > [quote]
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_C...Artistic_Works
    >
    > And as for the First Sale doctrine, there is nothing in the GPL that
    > attempts to prevent you from reselling the software, but equally there
    > is nothing in the First Sale doctrine that contradicts the GPL's
    > requirement that you also pass on the source code, since it is not about
    > your rights as a seller, but about the "buyer's" rights as a new
    > licensee to that software (access to the source). The software is Free
    > (freedom), regardless of how often, or in what manner, it is sold.
    >



    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


  6. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    In article ,
    Mark Kent wrote:
    > >>> That's not my understanding. The GPL is reasonably clear on this,
    > >>> if you distribute the software in binary form, such as on flash in
    > >>> a router, then you must also make the source available to anyone
    > >>> who wants it.
    > >>
    > >> You are forgetting that accepting the GPL is voluntary. If you choose
    > >> not to accept the GPL, then you are limited by what copyright law
    > >> normally permits. Copyright law in the U.S. permits you to resell
    > >> copies of legally acquired copyrighted works, without license or
    > >> permission required from the copyright holder.

    > >
    > > Rubbish.
    > >
    > > The GPL is a license, not a contract, therefore you are bound by that
    > > license irrespective of whether or not you agree to it, otherwise you
    > > are in violation of that license.

    >
    > I've no idea where people pull these ideas from. Isn't it great, the
    > idea that you could buy a film or a CD and decide not to agree to the
    > licence, and just put it online and distribute it if you felt like it?


    You are a little confused, Mark, as to what we are discussing.

    To put it in book terms, which may be clearer to those who are a little
    confused about technology, what we are talking about is buying a book,
    and then reselling that particular copy of the book. What you seem to
    think we are talking about is buying a book, making copies, and selling
    those copies.

    The former is legal in the US, and the UK, and the rest of Europe, and
    pretty much most of the world. The latter is illegal in most of the
    world.

    Software works the same way. You buy a router. It contains software in
    flash memory. You may sell that router, *WITHOUT* needing permission
    under copyright law from the owner of the copyright on that software.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  7. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record


    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    > ROFL!
    >
    > Yet another delay ("07/16/2008 3 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge
    > Richard M. Berman from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 7/14/08") AND blog
    > announcement of yet another "settlement."
    >
    > (from PACER... final order is not yet available on PACER as of
    > 07/24/2008 13:55:26 ET)


    07/28/2008 4 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of
    the F.R.C.P., without prejudice, and without costs to any party. Clerk
    to close this case. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/28/08) (cd)
    (Entered: 07/28/2008)

    The track record is sorta getting better! LOL.

    1. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
    2. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
    3. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
    4. Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice.
    5. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.

    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.)

  8. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    "Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this
    action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)"

    WOW!

    Am I blind or is the court's clerk got concerned regarding (missing)
    Registration of busybox copyright(s)?

    U.S. District Court
    United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    (Foley Square)
    CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-06426-PKC

    Anderson et al v. Extreme Networks, Inc.
    Assigned to: Judge P. Kevin Castel
    Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
    Date Filed: 07/17/2008
    Jury Demand: None
    Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
    Jurisdiction: Federal Question

    Plaintiff

    Erik Anderson
    an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson
    Software Freedom Law Center, Inc
    1995 Broadway, 17th Fl.
    New York, NY 10023
    212 580 0800
    Fax: (212)-580-0898
    Email: aaronw@softwarefreedom.org
    LEAD ATTORNEY
    ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

    Daniel Ben Ravicher
    Software Freedom Law Center, Inc
    1995 Broadway, 17th Fl.
    New York, NY 10023
    (212)-580-0800
    Fax: (212)-580-0898
    Email: ravicher@softwarefreedom.org
    LEAD ATTORNEY
    ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

    Plaintiff

    Rob Landley
    an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson
    (See above for address)
    LEAD ATTORNEY
    ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

    Daniel Ben Ravicher
    (See above for address)
    LEAD ATTORNEY
    ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


    V.

    Defendant
    Extreme Networks, Inc.
    a California Corporation


    Date Filed # Docket Text
    07/17/2008 1 COMPLAINT against Extreme Networks, Inc.. (Filing Fee $
    350.00, Receipt Number 657053)Document filed by Erik Anderson, Rob
    Landley.(rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    07/17/2008 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Extreme Networks, Inc.. (rdz)
    (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    07/17/2008 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck is so designated. (rdz)
    (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    07/17/2008 Case Designated ECF. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    07/21/2008 Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the
    filing of this action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    07/23/2008 2 ORDER SCHEDULING INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial
    Conference set for 9/12/2008 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl
    Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge P. Kevin Castel. (Signed by
    Judge P. Kevin Castel on 7/23/08) (tro) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    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.)

  9. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:36:26 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:


    > To put it in book terms, which may be clearer to those who are a little
    > confused about technology, what we are talking about is buying a book,
    > and then reselling that particular copy of the book. What you seem to
    > think we are talking about is buying a book, making copies, and selling
    > those copies.
    >
    > The former is legal in the US, and the UK, and the rest of Europe, and
    > pretty much most of the world. The latter is illegal in most of the
    > world.
    >
    > Software works the same way. You buy a router. It contains software in
    > flash memory. You may sell that router, *WITHOUT* needing permission
    > under copyright law from the owner of the copyright on that software.




    Common sense often makes good law.
    William O. Douglas


    http://home.att.net/~midnightflyer/supreme.html



    -Thufir

  10. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > The track record is sorta getting better! LOL.


    The track record is that after each case ends, the
    GPLed source code is available.

  11. Re: Could someone *please* explain morality to Smith?

    [Copied from Google]

    Verily I say unto thee, that Tim Smith spake thusly:
    > In article <278ql5-38a.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer
    > wrote:


    > Berne is concerned with what countries have to do in regard to the
    > works of people from OTHER countries. They are free under Berne to
    > have more stringent requirements on their own people.
    >
    > If you don't like that, fine. If you think it is immoral that Berne
    > works that way, fine.


    Yes I do think it's immoral, but I don't think that immorality can be
    attributed to Berne, since it is not that treaty which is denying US
    citizens the automatic right to redress copyright infringement. Berne's
    only fault is that its scope is not far reaching enough, it is *US law*
    that is prohibiting the automatic right to redress.

    > But that *IS* how it works.


    I believe you, but I just happen to think it's morally wrong and wholly
    contradictory too, since in effect the US is actually providing less
    protection to its own citizens than foreigners. It is utterly ridiculous
    that I, as a UK citizen, have the automatic right to pursue litigation
    for copyright infringement in the US, without first being required to
    register that copyright in the US, but a US citizen cannot do the same
    in his own country.

    > The other kind is a treaty that regulates how the government deals
    > with foreigners. Berne is an example of this second kind of treaty.


    The fact remains that US law, as it pertains to its own citizens, does
    not follow the same principles as the Berne Convention, and is therefore
    a violation of it in the moral sense, if not in the actual legal scope
    of that treaty. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for me to have
    assumed that a country that signs up to a treaty does so because it
    believes in its principles, and is therefore prepared to afford its own
    citizens the same rights as others covered by that same treaty. But
    apparently that is exactly the case in the US. This is gross hypocrisy,
    a violation of citizens rights (again, in the /moral/ sense), and in
    total contradiction to the core principles of the treaty that they
    signed up to.

    >> And thanks again for "explaining" how morally corrupt you are.

    >
    > I see. Accurately telling you what the law *is* (as opposed to what
    > you wish it was) is a sign of moral corruption?


    Yes, because you are more interested in pedantry than morals. Not every
    every law is ethical, Smith. Surely even you understand that much. 90%
    of everything I dissent against is a matter of laws that I contend are
    unethical - your response to that is to mindlessly chant the letter of
    the law and thereby conclude that I am somehow wrong. You interpret my
    criticisms purely in the language of the law, but that is wholly
    inappropriate given that I am /challenging/ the law (in this case US
    copyright law). That which is a "violation" in the moral sense, may not
    be interpreted as a violation in the legal sense, if the law that makes
    that interpretation is itself immoral.

    > You made a statement of law: that US law's requirement that you must
    > register in order to sue over a US origin work violates Berne. As a
    > matter of objective fact, you are wrong. There was no question of
    > morality involved.


    Not in your mind, certainly.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | By bucking Microsoft for open source, says Gunderloy, "I'm no
    | longer contributing to the eventual death of programming."
    | ~ http://www.linux.com/feature/142083
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    21:40:43 up 221 days, 18:16, 5 users, load average: 0.44, 0.30, 0.19

  12. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record


    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    > "Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this
    > action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)"
    >
    > WOW!
    >
    > Am I blind or is the court's clerk got concerned regarding (missing)
    > Registration of busybox copyright(s)?
    >
    > U.S. District Court
    > United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    > (Foley Square)
    > CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-06426-PKC
    >
    > Anderson et al v. Extreme Networks, Inc.
    > Assigned to: Judge P. Kevin Castel
    > Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
    > Date Filed: 07/17/2008
    > Jury Demand: None
    > Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
    > Jurisdiction: Federal Question
    >
    > Plaintiff
    >
    > Erik Anderson
    > an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson
    > Software Freedom Law Center, Inc
    > 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl.
    > New York, NY 10023
    > 212 580 0800
    > Fax: (212)-580-0898
    > Email: aaronw@softwarefreedom.org
    > LEAD ATTORNEY
    > ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
    >
    > Daniel Ben Ravicher
    > Software Freedom Law Center, Inc
    > 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl.
    > New York, NY 10023
    > (212)-580-0800
    > Fax: (212)-580-0898
    > Email: ravicher@softwarefreedom.org
    > LEAD ATTORNEY
    > ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
    >
    > Plaintiff
    >
    > Rob Landley
    > an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson
    > (See above for address)
    > LEAD ATTORNEY
    > ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
    >
    > Daniel Ben Ravicher
    > (See above for address)
    > LEAD ATTORNEY
    > ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
    >
    >
    > V.
    >
    > Defendant
    > Extreme Networks, Inc.
    > a California Corporation
    >
    >
    > Date Filed # Docket Text
    > 07/17/2008 1 COMPLAINT against Extreme Networks, Inc.. (Filing Fee $
    > 350.00, Receipt Number 657053)Document filed by Erik Anderson, Rob
    > Landley.(rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    > 07/17/2008 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Extreme Networks, Inc.. (rdz)
    > (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    > 07/17/2008 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck is so designated. (rdz)
    > (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    > 07/17/2008 Case Designated ECF. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    > 07/21/2008 Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the
    > filing of this action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    > 07/23/2008 2 ORDER SCHEDULING INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial
    > Conference set for 9/12/2008 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl
    > Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge P. Kevin Castel. (Signed by
    > Judge P. Kevin Castel on 7/23/08) (tro) (Entered: 07/23/2008)


    07/31/2008 3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Extreme Networks, Inc. served on
    7/22/2008, answer due 8/11/2008. Service was accepted by Perla Ibarra,
    Receptionist. Document filed by Erik Anderson; Rob Landley. (Williamson,
    Aaron) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
    08/08/2008 4 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER,
    defendant Extreme Networks has until 9/5/08 to answer the complaint.
    Extreme Networks, Inc. answer due 7/17/2008. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin
    Castel on 8/7/08) (cd) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
    08/25/2008 5 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel from
    Daniel B. Ravicher dated 8/21/08 re: Counsel requests an adjournment of
    the pretrial conference currently scheduled for September 12, 2008, to
    another date at the courts earliest convenience. ENDORSEMENT: The
    initial pretrial conference is adjourned to October 3, 2008 at 12:45
    p.m., ( Initial Conference set for 10/3/2008 at 12:45 PM before Judge P.
    Kevin Castel.) (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 8/25/08) (mme)
    (Entered: 08/25/2008)
    09/04/2008 6 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER, Extreme
    Networks, Inc. answer due 9/19/2008. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on
    9/4/08) (cd) (Entered: 09/04/2008)

    Boring.

    Extend time, extend time... time and time again. Case and case again.
    (With all cases thus far being closed following voluntarily dismissal
    notice filed by the SFLC.)

    When will the SFLC's GPL court enforcement come in existence?

    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.)

  13. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > Boring.
    > Extend time, extend time... time and time again. Case and case again.
    > (With all cases thus far being closed following voluntarily dismissal
    > notice filed by the SFLC.)
    > When will the SFLC's GPL court enforcement come in existence?


    After each case has ended, the GPLed sources became available.
    The GPL enforcement is already in existence.

  14. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record


    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    [...]
    > The GPL enforcement is already in existence.


    I said *court* enforcement, Hyman.

    There was no court order to date (World Wide) enforcing the GPL, to my
    knowledge.

    Here's English language comprehension exercise for you that might help.

    http://ia301337.us.archive.org/1/ite...en_moglen.html

    Given (Eben Moglen says):

    "... private agreement can substantially oust public law institutions
    ...."

    Questions:

    1. "private agreement"

    Is this known under the term "contract" or not?

    2. "can substantially oust public law institutions"

    Is this humble objection (to "substantially oust public law
    institutions") ought to result in substantially unenforceable contract
    or not?

    What do you think, 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.)

  15. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > I said *court* enforcement, Hyman.


    Courts enforce things when the parties cannot come to
    agreement on their own. So far that hasn't happened.
    Well, except in the JMRI case, where the appeals court
    said that the plaintiffs could go ahead with their
    claims of copyright infringement.

    > There was no court order to date (World Wide)
    > enforcing the GPL, to my knowledge.


    There are no world-wide courts, to my knowledge.

    > When will the SFLC's GPL court enforcement come in
    > existence?


    When one of their defendants decides not to come into
    voluntary compliance with the GPL.

  16. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Verizon, Hyman.

    http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp

    Where is a mention of the GPL and/or source code?

    I'm tired of you playing this "advocate" game.

    Verizon was a defendant. (Dismissed by the SFLC *with prejudice* against
    their own client Plaintiffs.)

    "When one of their defendants... "

    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.)

  17. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > Verizon, Hyman.


    The company which manufactures the routers for Verizon makes
    the GPLed sources available. They were not doing so for a
    substantial period of time after they began distributing the
    routers and before the SFLC filed its case.

    The URL for downloading contains "/actiontec gateway/" as
    part of its name, so it's quite possible that the software
    comes directly from Actiontec rather than Verizon. In any
    event, the BusyBox developers seem to have decided that
    having the manufacturer provide the GPLed sources is
    sufficiently in compliance with the GPL that they chose not
    to pursue Verizon. As the copyright holders, that is their
    privilege.

    > I'm tired of you playing this "advocate" game.


    You can't begin to imagine how tired we are of you.

  18. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record


    Hyman Rosen wrote:

    [... it's quite possible ...]

    :-)

    "Nothing is Impossible."

    > You can't begin to imagine how tired we are of you.


    Who is "we", Hyman? You're a speaker for ...

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
    (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
    be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
    too, whereas GNU cannot.)

  19. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Hyman Rosen writes:

    >In any event, the BusyBox developers seem to have decided that having
    >the manufacturer provide the GPLed sources is sufficiently in
    >compliance with the GPL that they chose not to pursue Verizon. As the
    >copyright holders, that is their privilege.


    We should be careful to not draw too broad a conclusion. The BusyBox
    copyright holders are not pursuing a copyright lawsuit against Verizon
    but we don't know the reasons.

    Maybe they wish to conserve their litigation funds and they carefully
    pick the most cost-effective battles. Or maybe Verizon is sufficiently
    in compliance as you speculated (although it seems to not be). Or maybe
    they have discussed the matter with Verizon, and Verizon agreed to take
    corrective steps in the near future. Or maybe they made some other
    agreement with Verizon that benefits both parties. Or maybe they are
    simply biding their time, and think that a small win now against one
    defendant will help a bigger win later against another. They are not
    obliged to sue everybody all at once. There could be other reasons that
    I overlooked that might occur to you if you gave this more thought
    instead of jumping to a single conclusion.

    You don't have the whole story and neither do I.
    --
    Rahul
    http://rahul.rahul.net/

  20. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > Who is "we", Hyman? You're a speaker for ...


    I just thought I couldn't possibly be the only one.
    Let's see if anyone else chimes in.

    Oh, by the way, the J.K. Rowling decision should be
    interesting (and dismaying) reading for GPL uber-
    advocates who favor the FSF view that just looking
    at GPL code funny makes something a derivative work.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast