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

This is a discussion on Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record - Linux ; Rahul Dhesi wrote: > > 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 230

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

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


    Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    >
    > 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.


    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.

    --
    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:
    > 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).


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

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


    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > > 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).

    >
    > And afterwards, the GPLed software is found to be available as required.


    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.

    http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
    http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner...now-about.html

    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.)

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

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > How come that Verizon still doesn't make GPLed software available "as
    > required" Hyman?


    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.

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

    Hyman Rosen writes:

    >> 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).


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


    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
    http://rahul.rahul.net/

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

    Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    > Somebody wants to hide something. Who -- the defendants or the SFLC?
    > It's hard to tell.


    Why do you think anyone is hiding anything? For example,

    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.

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

    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    >> Somebody wants to hide something. Who -- the defendants or the SFLC? It's
    >> hard to tell.

    >
    > Why do you think anyone is hiding anything? For example,
    > 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.


    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

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

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


    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.

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

    Hyman Rosen writes:

    >Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    >> Somebody wants to hide something. Who -- the defendants or the SFLC?
    >> It's hard to tell.


    >Why do you think anyone is hiding anything? For example,
    >
    >says


    [press release omitted]

    >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.


    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.

    http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...ec/07/busybox/
    http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...ox/verizon.pdf
    --
    Rahul
    http://rahul.rahul.net/

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

    Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    > 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.
    >
    > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...ec/07/busybox/
    > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...ox/verizon.pdf


    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.

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

    Yet another complaint.

    http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...e-networks.pdf

    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.
    ------



    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.)

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

    Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:

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

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    > Yet another complaint.
    >
    > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...e-networks.pdf
    >
    > 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.
    > ------
    >
    >
    >


    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 -- "A telling admission" by AaronWilliamson (AW1337)


    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    > Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:
    >
    > http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx
    >
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > >
    > > Yet another complaint.
    > >
    > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...e-networks.pdf


    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:

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

    -----
    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).

    > >
    > > 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.
    > > ------
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >


    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.)

    ***) Whois Record

    Domain ID149411650-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: aaronkwilliamson@yahoo.com
    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: aaronkwilliamson@yahoo.com
    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: aaronkwilliamson@yahoo.com

  14. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- "A telling admission" by AaronWilliamson (AW1337)

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    > 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).
    >


    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



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

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


    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.

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

    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >> Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:
    >> http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx

    >
    > 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.


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

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

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

  17. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- "A telling admission" by AaronWilliamson (AW1337)

    rjack wrote:
    > 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.


    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.

  18. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- "A telling admission" by AaronWilliamson (AW1337)

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > May 28th, 2008
    > Today I was admitted to practice


    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.

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

    Rjack wrote:
    > Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >> defeat and everyone else will regard as a victory.

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


    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?

  20. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- "A telling admission" by Aaron Williamson (AW1337)

    * Hyman Rosen peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > rjack wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    > 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.


    rjack is wearing green-colored glasses.

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast