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

This is a discussion on Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record - Linux ; Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > And before you mention Actiontec: sources were > > available from Actiontec prior to SFLC sued Verizon. > > The complaint against Verizon is dated December 6, 2007: > > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 230

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

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


    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > > And before you mention Actiontec: sources were
    > > available from Actiontec prior to SFLC sued Verizon.

    >
    > The complaint against Verizon is dated December 6, 2007:
    >
    >
    > This article says that the Actiontec FIOS router was available
    > in January of 2007:
    >
    >
    > Looking for http://opensource.actiontec.com/ on the WaybackMachine
    > shows that as late as Aug 2007 the software available on the site
    > contained sources for a Dual PC Modem, but not for a FIOS router:
    >
    > August 2007:
    >
    > Current:
    >
    >
    > So it doesn't look to me as if the FIOS router firmware was
    > available before the lawsuit was filed. Do you have a URL or
    > other evidence that shows something different?


    Try this.

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/07/1953217
    ^^^^^^^^

    -------
    Looking on Actiontec's "Support: Open Source" website
    (http://opensource.actiontec.com/index.html [actiontec.com]), I see the
    following:

    GPL Code Download is available for the following Actiontec products:
    Wireless Broadband Router Model MI424WR

    The following is the portion of the Actiontec source code for the
    MI424WR Products.

    List of modules:

    busybox-0.50
    Release Date Filename
    11/27/2007 actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr.tar.gz

    Hmmm... looks like Actiontec is at least attempting to honor the
    license. I haven't researched what's in the tarball, but at least it's
    there.

    So, again, why is SFLC suing Verizon?
    -------

    Then if you still have doubts go and ask Actiontec when did first appear
    on web site. (The latest wayback-archived version of the site is of
    08/22/2007.)

    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.)

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

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/07/1953217


    Ouch. It took me a while to realize that the referenced
    date is Decmember 7, not July 12!

    Anyway, the WaybackMachine doesn't have anything from the
    Actiontec source page after August 22, 2007, and Actiontec
    had not yet posted the FIOS sources by then. It's clear
    from my previous post that Verizon and Actiontec were out
    of compliance with the GPL for most of 2007. Actiontec
    had remedied the situation by December 7, but we don't
    know on what date that actually happened.

    There's not a lot of time between August 22 and December 7,
    and it's easily possible that even if Actiontec had come into
    compliance before SFLC filed their suit, SFLC might not have
    noticed. That would explain why the suit was quickly dropped.

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

    Hyman Rosen wrote:

    > The proof will be, once the case is over, whether the defendants properly
    > make available the sources of the GPLed software that they are distributing.
    > That most likely will be the case, because quoting from the complaint:


    Each time the SFLC has filed a suit, GPL'd source code has appeared. This
    correlation proves your hypothesis Hymen.

    Every day an SFLC suit was filed, little children died in the Sudan. This
    correlation proves the SFLC is killing little children.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack


    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or
    the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
    -- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre
    Trials,' December 1770



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

    * rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >
    >> The proof will be, once the case is over, whether the defendants properly
    >> make available the sources of the GPLed software that they are distributing.
    >> That most likely will be the case, because quoting from the complaint:

    >
    > Each time the SFLC has filed a suit, GPL'd source code has appeared. This
    > correlation proves your hypothesis Hymen.
    >
    > Every day an SFLC suit was filed, little children died in the Sudan. This
    > correlation proves the SFLC is killing little children.


    Well, at least we know that rjack doesn't know jack about causation.

    --
    The story so far:
    In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot
    of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
    -- Douglas Adams, HHGG #2, (The Restaurant at the End of the Universe).

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

    Linonut wrote:
    > * rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >>
    >>> The proof will be, once the case is over, whether the defendants properly
    >>> make available the sources of the GPLed software that they are
    >>> distributing. That most likely will be the case, because quoting from the
    >>> complaint:

    >> Each time the SFLC has filed a suit, GPL'd source code has appeared. This
    >> correlation proves your hypothesis Hymen.
    >>
    >> Every day an SFLC suit was filed, little children died in the Sudan. This
    >> correlation proves the SFLC is killing little children.

    >



    > Well, at least we know that rjack doesn't know jack about causation.
    >


    Sure I do.

    Every time (with 100% correlation) when the S.F.L.C. files a plaintiff's GPL
    case in the S.D.N.Y., this action causes the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss
    his pointless lawsuit without the court ever reviewing the legal status of the
    GPL or any of plaintiff's copyright claims.

    This is not just conjectural since the court docket provides independent
    evidence for confirmation (contrast with self-serving claims).

    In the last three years, Moglen and Ravicher together have received over
    $1,000,000 in compensation from public charitable contributions as S.F.L.C.
    officers.

    I know enough about causation to conclude that this will cause pockets to grow
    fat. I also know that a negative finding by the court concerning the
    enforceability of the GPL would cause this revenue stream to suddenly cease.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

    -- The hardest part of fleecing a sucker is convincing him to show his gratitude
    for getting screwed --





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

    rjack wrote:
    > Each time the SFLC has filed a suit, GPL'd source code has appeared.
    > This correlation proves your hypothesis
    >
    > Every day an SFLC suit was filed, little children died in the Sudan.
    > This correlation proves the SFLC is killing little children.


    It is reasonable to believe that when a court action is filed
    to accomplish a specific purpose, and when the court action is
    over, that purpose has been accomplished, that the court action
    was instrumental in accomplishing the purpose.

    It is fine if you choose not to believe that, but you will find
    it difficult to convince anyone else.

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

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > Man oh man. Hyman Rosen managed to find out that SFLC wants scripts...
    > yet "PRAYER FOR RELIEF" doesn't mention scripts.


    Of course not. The prayer for relief is simply asking the
    defendant to stop illegally distributing the plaintiff's
    software, and to compensate everyone for having done so.

    The only license the defendant has for distributing this
    software requires that sources, including scripts, be
    distributed or made available with it. Since the defendant
    is not doing that, he is not distributing under this license,
    and therefore is distributing illegally.

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

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > Release Date Filename
    > 11/27/2007 actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr.tar.gz
    >
    > Hmmm... looks like Actiontec is at least attempting to honor the
    > license. I haven't researched what's in the tarball, but at least it's
    > there.
    >
    > So, again, why is SFLC suing Verizon?


    Actiontec and Verizon spent at least most of a year illegally
    distributing copyrighted software without a license. Why shouldn't
    the SFLC have sued them?

    As I said before, it appears that Actiontec's compliance and the
    SFLC's suit happened very close together, and a reasonable
    interpretation (which, of course, will not be yours) is that the
    two events crossed. This is also the reasonable interpretation of
    why the SFLC then quickly dismissed the suit.

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

    rjack writes:

    > Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >
    >> The proof will be, once the case is over, whether the defendants
    >> properly make available the sources of the GPLed software that they
    >> are distributing. That most likely will be the case, because quoting
    >> from the complaint:

    >
    > Each time the SFLC has filed a suit, GPL'd source code has
    > appeared. This correlation proves your hypothesis Hymen.
    >
    > Every day an SFLC suit was filed, little children died in the
    > Sudan. This correlation proves the SFLC is killing little children.


    And I have no doubt that Terekhov and you would hail anybody suing the
    SFLC for murder, and be calling any judge thinking otherwise "drunk",
    "mad" or similar.

    --
    David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

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

    On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:27:09 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:


    > You have not provide an instance where after the SFLC ended a


    Hyman,
    Are you related to Moses Rosen?
    I had a friend with that name who I believe had a son named Hyman and a
    daughter named Hedy.

    Just asking.
    Shalom!

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

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

    rjack wrote:
    > Uhhhh. What settlements. The imaginary ones?


    The settlements it reaches in its cases.

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

    rjack wrote:
    > That's right. I'm gonna' let *you* provide the *verifiable evidence*
    > for *your* claims of settlements.


    I'm not going to do that. It's enough for me to provide reasonable
    inferences to counter the absurd claims that you and Terekhov make.
    There's no chance that either of you will change your minds. The
    point is to prevent lurkers, assuming that there still are any, from
    taking your statements at face value.

    It's also obvious that should there have been such an instance, you
    and Terekhov would be trumpeting it all over the place, as he tries
    a bit with the Verizon case.

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

    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > rjack wrote:
    >> That's right. I'm gonna' let *you* provide the *verifiable evidence*
    > > for *your* claims of settlements.

    >
    > I'm not going to do that.


    That's right neither you nor the S.F.L.C. have ever produced any verifiable
    evidence for any legal claims and you never will.

    The upcoming appellate decision concerning Jacobsen v. Katzer in the Court of
    Appeals for the Federal Circuit will end the question of GPL enforceability once
    and for all. Until then blather and bluster as you will. I suppose there are
    still a few gullible souls out there.

    > It's enough for me to provide reasonable
    > inferences to counter the absurd claims that you and Terekhov make.
    > There's no chance that either of you will change your minds. The
    > point is to prevent lurkers, assuming that there still are any, from
    > taking your statements at face value.
    >
    > It's also obvious that should there have been such an instance, you
    > and Terekhov would be trumpeting it all over the place, as he tries
    > a bit with the Verizon case.


    Sincerely,
    Rjack

    Have a nice day!
    _ _
    |_| |_|
    | | /^^^\ | |
    _| |_ (| "o" |) _| |_
    _| | | | _ (_---_) _ | | | |_
    | | | | |' | _| |_ | `| | | | |
    | | / \ | |
    \ / / /(. .)\ \ \ /
    \ / / / | . | \ \ \ /
    \ \/ / ||Y|| \ \/ /
    \__/ || || \__/
    () ()
    || ||
    ooO Ooo

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

    * rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > _ _
    > |_| |_|
    > | | /^^^\ | |
    > _| |_ (| "o" |) _| |_
    > _| | | | _ (_---_) _ | | | |_
    > | | | | |' | _| |_ | `| | | | |
    > | | / \ | |
    > \ / / /(. .)\ \ \ /
    > \ / / / | . | \ \ \ /
    > \ \/ / ||Y|| \ \/ /
    > \__/ || || \__/
    > () ()
    > || ||
    > ooO Ooo


    Your best argument yet.

    --
    acme-cannon (3.1415) unstable; urgency=low
    * Added safety to prevent operator dismemberment, closes: bug #98765,
    bug #98713, #98714.
    * Added manpage. closes: #98725.
    -- Wile E. Coyote Sun, 31 Jan 1999 07:49:57 -0600

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

    Linonut wrote:
    > * rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> _ _ |_| |_| | | /^^^\
    >> | | _| |_ (| "o" |) _| |_ _| | | | _ (_---_) _ | | | |_ | |
    >> | | |' | _| |_ | `| | | | | | | / \ | | \
    >> / / /(. .)\ \ \ / \ / / / | . | \ \ \ / \ \/ / ||Y||
    >> \ \/ / \__/ || || \__/ () () || || ooO Ooo

    >
    > Your best argument yet.
    >


    Many thanks. Trolls need love too!

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

    “The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling”,
    Sunday, December 14 2003 @ 09:06 PM EST -- Pamela Jones at Groklaw

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

    In article ,
    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > The SFLC continues to file cases on behalf of their clients,
    > who can therefore be assumed to be satisfied with the service
    > they are receiving.


    What's puzzling is that rjack appears to be right about one very
    important thing, though. Doing a search of copyright registrations, I
    can't find one for Busybox (or for anything else by the people listed in
    the lawsuits as the copyright owners).

    It also doesn't appear the Busybox counts as a non-US Berne work, and so
    registration is a prerequisite to suit.

    Can anyone explain what is going on here? Is the search at
    www.copyright.gov not up to date? Are the defendants not bothering to
    check because they just assume the work must have been registered? Is
    Busybox actually a non-US Berne work?



    --
    --Tim Smith

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

    rjack writes:

    > Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >> rjack wrote:
    >>> That's right. I'm gonna' let *you* provide the *verifiable evidence*
    >> > for *your* claims of settlements.

    >>
    >> I'm not going to do that.

    >
    > That's right neither you nor the S.F.L.C. have ever produced any
    > verifiable evidence for any legal claims and you never will.
    >
    > The upcoming appellate decision concerning Jacobsen v. Katzer in the
    > Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will end the question of GPL
    > enforceability once and for all.


    Pffft. Like all previous decisions did. I don't expect anything new.
    You trumpet about the inevitability of the outcomes all the time, and
    then bluster about incompetence of the judges afterwards.

    --
    David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

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

    On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:45:59 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >> The SFLC continues to file cases on behalf of their clients,
    >> who can therefore be assumed to be satisfied with the service
    >> they are receiving.

    >
    > What's puzzling is that rjack appears to be right about one very
    > important thing, though. Doing a search of copyright registrations, I
    > can't find one for Busybox (or for anything else by the people listed in
    > the lawsuits as the copyright owners).
    >
    > It also doesn't appear the Busybox counts as a non-US Berne work, and so
    > registration is a prerequisite to suit.
    >
    > Can anyone explain what is going on here? Is the search at
    > www.copyright.gov not up to date? Are the defendants not bothering to
    > check because they just assume the work must have been registered? Is
    > Busybox actually a non-US Berne work?


    I'm surprised Fisher Price hasn't squawked about the name.
    Their's is Busy Box (2 words) though I think?

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

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

    Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article , Hyman Rosen
    > wrote:
    >> The SFLC continues to file cases on behalf of their clients, who can
    >> therefore be assumed to be satisfied with the service they are receiving.

    >
    > What's puzzling is that rjack appears to be right about one very important
    > thing, though. Doing a search of copyright registrations, I can't find one
    > for Busybox (or for anything else by the people listed in the lawsuits as the
    > copyright owners).
    >
    > It also doesn't appear the Busybox counts as a non-US Berne work, and so
    > registration is a prerequisite to suit.
    >
    > Can anyone explain what is going on here? Is the search at www.copyright.gov
    > not up to date? Are the defendants not bothering to check because they just
    > assume the work must have been registered? Is Busybox actually a non-US
    > Berne work?
    >
    >
    >

    From the S.F.L.C. suits:

    "6. Plaintiffs are authors and developers of the BusyBox computer program, and
    the owners of copyrights in that computer program."


    Here is a list of BusyBox developers from the BusyBox site. Who owns what
    copyrights in the BusyBox source code?
    __________________________________________________ _____________________________

    The following login accounts currently exist on busybox.net. (I.E. these people
    can commit patches into subversion for the BusyBox, uClibc, and buildroot projects.)
    aldot :Bernhard Fischer
    andersen :Erik Andersen - uClibc and BuildRoot maintainer.
    bug1 :Glenn McGrath
    davidm avid McCullough
    gkajmowi :Garrett Kajmowicz - uClibc++ maintainer
    jbglaw :Jan-Benedict Glaw
    jocke :Joakim Tjernlund
    landley :Rob Landley - BusyBox maintainer
    lethal :Paul Mundt
    mjn3 :Manuel Novoa III
    osuadmin suadmin
    pgf :Paul Fox
    pkj :Peter Kjellerstedt
    prpplague avid Anders
    psm :Peter S. Mazinger
    russ :Russ Dill
    sandman :Robert Griebl
    sjhill :Steven J. Hill
    solar :Ned Ludd
    timr :Tim Riker
    tobiasa :Tobias Anderberg
    vapier :Mike Frysinger

    The following accounts used to exist on busybox.net, but don't anymore so I
    can't ask /etc/passwd for their names. Rob Wentworth asked Google and recovered
    the names:

    aaronl :Aaron Lehmann
    beppu :John Beppu
    dwhedon avid Whedon
    erik :Erik Andersen
    gfeldman :Gennady Feldman
    jimg :Jim Gleason
    kraai :Matt Kraai
    markw :Mark Whitley
    miles :Miles Bader
    proski :Pavel Roskin
    rjune :Richard June
    tausq :Randolph Chung
    vodz :Vladimir N. Oleynik

    http://busybox.net/FAQ.html#who
    __________________________________________________ ___________________________


    How does one untangle all the interwoven source code from literally years of
    derivative and collective patches submitted by over thirty different
    programmers? The plaintiffs must identify only their own original works of
    authorship in the BusyBox source code in order to claim ownership of the
    copyrights.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or
    the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
    -- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre
    Trials,' December 1770

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

    rjack writes:

    >Here is a list of BusyBox developers from the BusyBox site. Who owns what
    >copyrights in the BusyBox source code?


    Apparently no defendant has so far questioned the plaintiffs' ownership
    of the copyright, so the question above is irrelevant to the lawsuits
    and to this discussion.
    --
    Rahul
    http://rahul.rahul.net/

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast