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

Rahul Dhesi wrote:[color=blue]
>
> rjack <robjack@insightbb.com> writes:
>[color=green]
> >Here is a list of BusyBox developers from the BusyBox site. Who owns what
> >copyrights in the BusyBox source code?[/color]
>
> 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.[/color]

SFLC complaints are to be dismissed automatically (due to lack of
jurisdiction).

SFLC does dismiss complaints automatically before defendants file any
response to the complaint and any ruling from judge (actually before
having him a chance to even read the GPL and complaint).

regards,
alexander.

--
[url]http://gng.z505.com/index.htm[/url]
(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.)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=blue]
> SFLC complaints are to be dismissed automatically (due to lack of
> jurisdiction).
>
> SFLC does dismiss complaints automatically before defendants file any
> response to the complaint and any ruling from judge (actually before
> having him a chance to even read the GPL and complaint).[/color]

And afterwards, the GPLed software is found to be available as required.
Some people think this is a coincidence completely unrelated to the suit.

Hyman Rosen wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=green]
> > SFLC complaints are to be dismissed automatically (due to lack of
> > jurisdiction).
> >
> > SFLC does dismiss complaints automatically before defendants file any
> > response to the complaint and any ruling from judge (actually before
> > having him a chance to even read the GPL and complaint).[/color]
>
> And afterwards, the GPLed software is found to be available as required.[/color]

How come that Verizon still doesn't make GPLed software available "as
required" Hyman?

Note that Verizon makes GPLed binaries available on its own website.

[url]http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp[/url]
[url]http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html[/url]

regards,
alexander.

--
[url]http://gng.z505.com/index.htm[/url]
(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.)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=blue]
> How come that Verizon still doesn't make GPLed software available "as
> required" Hyman?[/color]

I guess that the plaintiffs decided that having the manufacturer
of the routers comply with the GPL was good enough for them, because
it would be difficult to explain in court that Verizon was not
complying with the GPL given this availability. But that's just a
guess.

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> SFLC does dismiss complaints automatically before defendants file any
>> response to the complaint and any ruling from judge (actually before
>> having him a chance to even read the GPL and complaint).[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>And afterwards, the GPLed software is found to be available as required.
>Some people think this is a coincidence completely unrelated to the suit.[/color]

There is, however, one interesting question.

The terms of a settlement are kept confidential if they would embarrass
or harm a settling party.

I wonder who would be embarrassed or harmed in these cases if the terms
of the settlements became public.

There is definitely something philosophically contadictory about a
closed-source settlement intended to preserve the open-source-ness of
software.

Somebody wants to hide something. Who -- the defendants or the SFLC?
It's hard to tell.
--
Rahul
[url]http://rahul.rahul.net/[/url]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:[color=blue]
> Somebody wants to hide something. Who -- the defendants or the SFLC?
> It's hard to tell.[/color]

Why do you think anyone is hiding anything? For example,
<http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/17/busybox-verizon/>
says
"As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit
and reinstate Actiontec's and its customer's rights to distribute
BusyBox under the GPL, Actiontec has agreed to appoint an Open
Source Compliance Officer within its organization to monitor and
ensure GPL compliance, to publish the source code for the version
of BusyBox it previously distributed on its Web site, and to
undertake substantial efforts to notify previous recipients of
BusyBox from Actiontec and its customers, including Verizon, of
their rights to the software under the GPL. The settlement also
includes an undisclosed amount of financial consideration paid to
the plaintiffs by Actiontec."

I guess you can be enough of a nosey parker to want to know exactly
how much was paid, but otherwise there isn't anything secret about
the settlement terms.

Hyman Rosen wrote:[color=blue]
> Rahul Dhesi wrote:[color=green]
>> Somebody wants to hide something. Who -- the defendants or the SFLC? It's
>> hard to tell.[/color]
>
> Why do you think anyone is hiding anything? For example,
> <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/17/busybox-verizon/> says "As a
> result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and reinstate
> Actiontec's and its customer's rights to distribute BusyBox under the GPL,
> Actiontec has agreed to appoint an Open Source Compliance Officer within its
> organization to monitor and ensure GPL compliance, to publish the source code
> for the version of BusyBox it previously distributed on its Web site, and to
> undertake substantial efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox from
> Actiontec and its customers, including Verizon, of their rights to the
> software under the GPL. The settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of
> financial consideration paid to the plaintiffs by Actiontec."
>
> I guess you can be enough of a nosey parker to want to know exactly how much
> was paid, but otherwise there isn't anything secret about the settlement
> terms.[/color]

The New York Enquirer

Extra! Extra!
Flying pigs sighted in Southern Federal District of New York!

Miracle in New York!
Although no independently verifiable evidence of record, plaintiffs face-saving
blog posts prove their claims after case is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice!


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

rjack wrote:[color=blue]
> Although no independently verifiable evidence of record, plaintiffs
> face-saving blog posts prove their claims after case is voluntarily
> dismissed with prejudice![/color]

It is independently verifiable through the WaybackMachine and
other websites that Verizon was distributing the Actiontec FIOS
router as early as January 2007, while the source code for the
firmware was not being distributed by Actiontec as late as August
of 2007. It is independently verifiable that after the lawsuit,
that source code was available from Actiontec.

It appears from other postings that Actiontec may have started
making the sources available very shortly before the suit was
filed, which would explain why the suit was so quickly dismissed.

It is the purpose of the SFLC lawsuits to bring illegal
distribution of GPLed code to a halt, either by preventing
distribution or by having the distribution come into compliance.
As we have seen, in each case where the SFLC has filed suit,
after the suit was ended, distribution has come into compliance
with the GPL. Therefore the conclusion must be that they are
succeeding in attaining their goals.

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
[color=blue]
>Rahul Dhesi wrote:[color=green]
>> Somebody wants to hide something. Who -- the defendants or the SFLC?
>> It's hard to tell.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Why do you think anyone is hiding anything? For example,
><http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/17/busybox-verizon/>
>says[/color]

[press release omitted]
[color=blue]
>I guess you can be enough of a nosey parker to want to know exactly
>how much was paid, but otherwise there isn't anything secret about
>the settlement terms.[/color]

The announcement you quoted I'm sure presents some of the highlights of
the actual agreement, but might omit important details. Without looking
at the settlement, we do not know what those details are and how
important they are.

I'm inclined to think that at least one of the parties would be harmed
or embarrassed if the settlement became public -- otherwise they would
have just posted it, on or near the same web page where the complaint
was posted.

[url]http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/[/url]
[url]http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/verizon.pdf[/url]
--
Rahul
[url]http://rahul.rahul.net/[/url]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:[color=blue]
> I'm inclined to think that at least one of the parties would be harmed
> or embarrassed if the settlement became public -- otherwise they would
> have just posted it, on or near the same web page where the complaint
> was posted.
>
> [url]http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/[/url]
> [url]http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/verizon.pdf[/url][/color]

Except that complaints have to be very formal because they're
filed with a court. A settlement is a private agreement between
parties, and it can be as formal or informal as they want. In
any case, there is no reason that the fine details need to be
made public, and the general tendency of lawyers is to keep
things quiet, because what you don't say can't hurt you.

Yet another complaint.

[url]http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jul/21/busybox/extreme-networks.pdf[/url]

Now, this is interesting:

------
17. On March 12, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs sent Defendant
their requirements for settling the dispute, which included that
Defendant: comply with the License; appoint an Open Source Compliance
Officer; notify prior recipients of infinging products of their rights
under the License; and compensate Plaintiffs.

18. On June 25, 2008, after a series of communications between the
parties regarding other of Plaintiffs’ requirements for settlement,
Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiffs.

19. On June 26, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs again notified
Defendant that its continued distribution of the Program was in
violation of the License and an infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights.
Plaintiffs’ counsel requested a call to discuss the matter further.

20. Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s June 26 notice, and
continues to distribute the Infringing Products and Firmware in
violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
------

<chuckles>

regards,
alexander.

--
[url]http://gng.z505.com/index.htm[/url]
(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.)

Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:

[url]http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx[/url]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Yet another complaint.
>
> [url]http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jul/21/busybox/extreme-networks.pdf[/url]
>
> Now, this is interesting:
>
> ------
> 17. On March 12, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs sent Defendant
> their requirements for settling the dispute, which included that
> Defendant: comply with the License; appoint an Open Source Compliance
> Officer; notify prior recipients of infinging products of their rights
> under the License; and compensate Plaintiffs.
>
> 18. On June 25, 2008, after a series of communications between the
> parties regarding other of Plaintiffs’ requirements for settlement,
> Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiffs.
>
> 19. On June 26, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs again notified
> Defendant that its continued distribution of the Program was in
> violation of the License and an infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights.
> Plaintiffs’ counsel requested a call to discuss the matter further.
>
> 20. Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s June 26 notice, and
> continues to distribute the Infringing Products and Firmware in
> violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
> ------
>
> <chuckles>
>[/color]

regards,
alexander.

--
[url]http://gng.z505.com/index.htm[/url]
(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.)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:
>
> [url]http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx[/url]
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > Yet another complaint.
> >
> > [url]http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jul/21/busybox/extreme-networks.pdf[/url][/color][/color]

The piece of **** above is signed

-----
Respectfully submitted,
SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC.
By:
Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337)
...
-----

It appears that someone named "Aaron Williamson" has a domain*** and a
blog:

[url]http://www.copiesofcopies.org[/url]
[url]http://www.copiesofcopies.org/webl/[/url]
[url]http://www.copiesofcopies.org/webl/?page_id=2[/url]

-----
copiesofcopies :: webl

Aaron Williamson gives you what-for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About

This is the personal webl of Aaron Williamson, and it isn’t legal
advice.

FAQ

Q: What is a “webl”?

A: It is a convenient abbreviation of the term “weblog.”
-----

Now, this is really interesting entry:

-----
A telling admission

May 28th, 2008

Today I was admitted to practice before the District Court for the
Southern District of New York and assigned my requested attorney bar
code: AW1337. I will be pwning n00bs briefly, meaning both “in the near
future” and “by virtue of briefs, which are things that lawyers file.”

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 at 3:53 am and is
filed under i am a lawyer.
-----

I just wonder how long will it take until some GPL defendant decides
that "enough is enough" and initiates disbarrment of the entire SFLC
gang including Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337).
[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > Now, this is interesting:
> >
> > ------
> > 17. On March 12, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs sent Defendant
> > their requirements for settling the dispute, which included that
> > Defendant: comply with the License; appoint an Open Source Compliance
> > Officer; notify prior recipients of infinging products of their rights
> > under the License; and compensate Plaintiffs.
> >
> > 18. On June 25, 2008, after a series of communications between the
> > parties regarding other of Plaintiffs’ requirements for settlement,
> > Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiffs.
> >
> > 19. On June 26, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs again notified
> > Defendant that its continued distribution of the Program was in
> > violation of the License and an infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights.
> > Plaintiffs’ counsel requested a call to discuss the matter further.
> >
> > 20. Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s June 26 notice, and
> > continues to distribute the Infringing Products and Firmware in
> > violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
> > ------
> >
> > <chuckles>
> >[/color]
>[/color]

regards,
alexander.

--
[url]http://gng.z505.com/index.htm[/url]
(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.)

***) Whois Record

Domain ID:D149411650-LROR
Domain Name:COPIESOFCOPIES.ORG
Created On:15-Oct-2007 16:23:39 UTC
Last Updated On:09-Apr-2008 00:24:25 UTC
Expiration Date:15-Oct-2010 16:23:39 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:GODA-038672170
Registrant Name:Aaron Williamson
Registrant Street1:460 15th St.
Registrant Street2:Apt. 8
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Brooklyn
Registrant State/Province:New York
Registrant Postal Code:11215
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.7737278363
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email: [email]aaronkwilliamson@yahoo.com[/email]
Admin ID:GODA-238672170
Admin Name:Aaron Williamson
Admin Street1:460 15th St.
Admin Street2:Apt. 8
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Brooklyn
Admin State/Province:New York
Admin Postal Code:11215
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.7737278363
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email: [email]aaronkwilliamson@yahoo.com[/email]
Tech ID:GODA-138672170
Tech Name:Aaron Williamson
Tech Street1:460 15th St.
Tech Street2:Apt. 8
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Brooklyn
Tech State/Province:New York
Tech Postal Code:11215
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.7737278363
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email: [email]aaronkwilliamson@yahoo.com[/email]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I just wonder how long will it take until some GPL defendant decides that
> "enough is enough" and initiates disbarrment of the entire SFLC gang
> including Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337).
>[/color]

Alexander,

We must give credit where credit is due. The S.F.L.C. attorneys are *consistent*
and we may *always* count on them. They have filed six consecutive incompetent
pleadings in the Southern District of New York. Six complaints that fail to
comply with the jurisdictional requirements set forth by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit involving copyright infringement
complaints. To wit:

"It [The Copyright Act] provides that 'no action for infringement of the
copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or
registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this
title.' . . . Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is not up for debate
in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we have squarely held that it is".; In
re Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation 509 F.3d 116 (2nd
Cir. 2007).

Just one more reason why Americans distrust lawyers. The S.F.L.C. lawyers
need not fear the court's rebuke though. The one (and probably only) thing they
learned in law school was how to file a motion for voluntary dismissal --
conveniently preventing the court from reviewing their moronic, incompetent
pleadings.

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

Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=blue]
> Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:
> [url]http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx[/url][/color]

So when did this page appear? And do they actually honor
requests for the source? If they do, I would once again
assume that a grabber has come around to meeting the license
requirements once a suit was filed, and that we will thus
soon see another dismissal, which you will proclaim as a
defeat and everyone else will regard as a victory.

Hyman Rosen wrote:[color=blue]
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=green]
>> Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:
>> [url]http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx[/url][/color]
>
> So when did this page appear? And do they actually honor
> requests for the source? If they do, I would once again
> assume that a grabber has come around to meeting the license
> requirements once a suit was filed, and that we will thus
> soon see another dismissal, which you will proclaim as a[/color]

[color=blue]
> defeat and everyone else will regard as a victory.[/color]

Uhhhhhh....! "Everyone" is plural. Contrast with "I".

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

-- A quorum of one saves much time and effort --

rjack wrote:[color=blue]
> The S.F.L.C. attorneys are *consistent* and we may *always*
> count on them. They have filed six consecutive incompetent
> pleadings in the Southern District of New York.[/color]

In any of these cases, is there an instance where the
source code of the GPLed software was not available
once the case was over? If not, then the SFLC has done
its work successfully.

Over and over again, you appear to miss the point of a
lawsuit. It is to achieve an objective. That objective
is to make distributors of GPLed software comply with
the requirements of the license. After each suit filed
by the SFLC, this has happened.

Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=blue]
> May 28th, 2008
> Today I was admitted to practice[/color]

And your point is what, exactly? Public interest groups often
hire interns and people just starting out in the profession.
The group gets relatively cheap labor, and the employee gets
experience.

For all your wailing and gnashing of teeth, it isn't even as
if these distributors are trying to hide some great secret that
they've incorporated into their software. They're just too lazy
to comply with the license until someone gets their attention
with a two-by-four. When you do business, there's a bunch of
stuff you just have to do - filings, taxes, bills, and so on.
Honoring software licenses is one of them. These are the same
kind of companies that get raided by the BSA and are discovered
to be using illegal copies of non-free software. It's a mindset.

Rjack wrote:[color=blue]
> Hyman Rosen wrote:[color=green]
>> defeat and everyone else will regard as a victory.[/color]
> Uhhhhhh....! "Everyone" is plural. Contrast with "I".[/color]

I don't understand what you mean. Do you believe that
"We will thus soon see another dismissal,
which you will proclaim as a defeat and
everyone else will regard as a victory."
is not grammatically correct? Why not?

* Hyman Rosen peremptorily fired off this memo:
[color=blue]
> rjack wrote:[color=green]
>> The S.F.L.C. attorneys are *consistent* and we may *always*
> > count on them. They have filed six consecutive incompetent
>> pleadings in the Southern District of New York.[/color]
>
> In any of these cases, is there an instance where the
> source code of the GPLed software was not available
> once the case was over? If not, then the SFLC has done
> its work successfully.
>
> Over and over again, you appear to miss the point of a
> lawsuit. It is to achieve an objective. That objective
> is to make distributors of GPLed software comply with
> the requirements of the license. After each suit filed
> by the SFLC, this has happened.[/color]

rjack is wearing green-colored glasses.

--
"How many boxes will it sell?"
-- Hypothetical discussion in a Microsoft feature team