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: > > 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 So once again you want me to prove ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 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:
    > > 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


    So once again you want me to prove something?

    The latest (as of now) google's cached version is of 5 Jul 2008 05:33:37
    GMT. Go check it yourself.

    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 -- "A telling admission" byAaronWilliamson (AW1337)


    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >
    > 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.


    None of those mirrors of out-dated busybox and other GPL'd source code
    that nobody really cares about comply with the FSF/SFLC view on
    "complete corresponding source code" regarding "Infringing Products"
    being made available by defendants. Furthermore, SFLC had to dismiss
    WITH PREJUDICE (Verizon must have threatened sanctions unless they
    dismiss their moronic complaint WITH PREJUDICE) without Verizon making
    any source code available in spite of making available GPL'd binary code
    for downloading FROM ITS OWN HOST (without any browser redirection).

    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.)

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

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > None of those mirrors of out-dated busybox and other GPL'd source code
    > that nobody really cares about comply with the FSF/SFLC view on
    > "complete corresponding source code" regarding "Infringing Products"
    > being made available by defendants.


    It is false that "nobody really cares about" the source code
    for these GPLed products; the copyright holders care, which
    is why they are bringing suit.

    The source code has to correspond to the binaries being
    distributed; if the binaries are of out-dated versions then
    the sources must be for those out-dated versions. Since these
    are the versions present on the router, a user of the software
    who wanted to run, examine, modify, and distribute them would
    want to start with those versions, and that is why the GPL
    requires that the source for those versions be made available.

    The "complete corresponding source code" has to build into
    an installable binary. You say that defendants do not comply.
    In what way?

    > Furthermore, SFLC had to dismiss WITH PREJUDICE (Verizon must
    > have threatened sanctions unless they dismiss their moronic
    > complaint WITH PREJUDICE) without Verizon making any source code
    > available in spite of making available GPL'd binary code for
    > downloading FROM ITS OWN HOST (without any browser redirection).


    As I said, you cannot know simply by looking at a URL what the
    web server is doing. The web server parses the entire URL and
    it may certainly decide to base its actions on a piece of it,
    and fetch data from some arbitrary location and serve it. It is
    suggestive that the URL contains "actiontec gateway" within it,
    but we can't really know.

    We do know that for most of 2007 neither Actiontec nor Verizon
    was in compliance, and that after the suit ended, GPLed source
    code for the FIOS router firmaware is available from Actiontec.
    Presumably this satisfies the copyright holders sufficiently that
    they no longer care to pursue further action against Verizon.

    You infer that SFLC "had to" dismiss the case and that they were
    "threatened" by Verizon, but I don't see why anyone else should
    subscribe to this interpretation.

  4. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- "A telling admission" byAaronWilliamson(AW1337)


    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    [...]
    > requires that the source for those versions be made available.


    Read the complaint you idiot. The claimed unresolved issue is

    "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."

    > The "complete corresponding source code" has to build into
    > an installable binary. You say that defendants do not comply.
    > In what way?


    Do you own research and post here your findings, stupid.

    [... you cannot know ... what the web server is doing ...]

    Man oh man.

    Newsflash: After dismissing the case against Verizon WITH PREJUDICE,
    SFLC files the same case against Verizon's *web server* -- thinking
    machine (AI) comes true!!!

    Go to clinic, 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.)

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

    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > 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?


    I was objecting to your use of the pronoun "everyone". On what day was the
    election held that empowered you to speak for "everyone"? (U.S. population
    300,000,000) Do you have a list of the antecedent electors names? (Beside you
    and Linonut and Hasler that is)

    Sincerely
    Rjack

    --- "Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits
    on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition
    on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights, . . ."; Allen v.
    Wright 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) ---

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

    rjack wrote:
    > I was objecting to your use of the pronoun "everyone". On what day was
    > the election held that empowered you to speak for "everyone"?


    It's the "isolating we" :-)

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

    On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:31:50 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:

    > 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.



    If it's an action tek router, sold to an importer exporter, and then to
    another middleman, and then to a retailer, to whom do you go for the
    source code? presumably, just action tek.

    Dunno if that totally applies here, but seems reasonable.



    -Thufir

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

    thufir writes:

    >> 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.


    >If it's an action tek router, sold to an importer exporter, and then to
    >another middleman, and then to a retailer, to whom do you go for the
    >source code? presumably, just action tek.


    I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the buyer of the
    router, the right to get source code from somewhere. I don't think it does.
    All is does is require everybody distributing the router to others to also give
    recipients the source code, which is not quite the same thing as giving you the
    right to demand it.

    So where would you get the source code? From anywhere where it's available.
    --
    Rahul
    http://rahul.rahul.net/

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

    On 2008-07-22, Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    > thufir writes:
    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    >>If it's an action tek router, sold to an importer exporter, and then to
    >>another middleman, and then to a retailer, to whom do you go for the
    >>source code? presumably, just action tek.

    >
    > I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the buyer of the
    > router, the right to get source code from somewhere. I don't think it does.


    THAT is EXACTLY what the GPL provides for.

    Any binary that is a derivative of any GPL work cannot be distributed
    without also providing the source along with that binary. The sort of
    hardware we're talking about right now is precisely the sort of hardware
    that gave RMS trouble to begin with.

    It is EXACTLY THIS SITUATION that the GPL was crafted to deal with.

    > All is does is require everybody distributing the router to others to also give
    > recipients the source code, which is not quite the same thing as giving you the
    > right to demand it.
    >
    > So where would you get the source code? From anywhere where it's available.


    No. Whomever distributes the software is on the hook for providing the source.

    You can force people to walk the chain all the way back to the manufacturer,
    but they are still ultimately on the hook for using someone elses work without
    proper authorization.

    --
    Sophocles wants his cut. |||
    / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

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

    JEDIDIAH writes:

    >You can force people to walk the chain all the way back to the manufacturer,
    >but they are still ultimately on the hook for using someone elses work without
    >proper authorization.


    Ultimately the GPL depends on copyright law, so unless you own the
    copyright, you are in no position to make anybody to do anything.
    --
    Rahul
    http://rahul.rahul.net/

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

    On 2008-07-22, Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    > JEDIDIAH writes:
    >
    >>You can force people to walk the chain all the way back to the manufacturer,
    >>but they are still ultimately on the hook for using someone elses work without
    >>proper authorization.

    >
    > Ultimately the GPL depends on copyright law, so unless you own the
    > copyright, you are in no position to make anybody to do anything.


    You make it sound like RMS isn't the rabid chiuiaua that he is...

    --
    Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
    attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
    the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
    events not in their control.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

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

    Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    > thufir writes:
    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    >> If it's an action tek router, sold to an importer exporter, and
    >> then to another middleman, and then to a retailer, to whom do you
    >> go for the source code? presumably, just action tek.

    >
    > I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the
    > buyer of the router, the right to get source code from somewhere. I
    > don't think it does. All is does is require everybody distributing
    > the router to others to also give recipients the source code, which
    > is not quite the same thing as giving you the right to demand it.
    >

    The GPL is a purported third party donee beneficiary contract:

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.

    The seller of the router, when he distributes it to a buyer purportedly
    promises to license the code to "all third parties". The irony is that
    the GPL specifically excludes the *parties* to the contract (the
    distributors) since the class "all third parties" does not include the
    contracting parties.

    The "parties" to the GPL contract have no legal right to complain about
    all third parties not receiving the code. Legal standing doctrine
    clearly states that a plaintiff in a lawsuit cannot claim injuries
    suffered by "all third parties".

    > So where would you get the source code? From anywhere where it's
    > available.


    Sincerely,
    Rjack

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

    Rjack wrote:
    > The GPL is a purported third party donee beneficiary contract:
    > b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    > part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    > parties under the terms of this License.


    Notice that "licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties"
    does not mean that there is any obligation to deliver anything to
    them. It only means that third parties have license to the software
    such that they are permitted to do anything they want with it as
    long as they too follow the GPL.

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

    Rjack wrote:
    > The seller of the router, when he distributes it to a buyer purportedly
    > promises to license the code to "all third parties". The irony is that
    > the GPL specifically excludes the *parties* to the contract (the
    > distributors) since the class "all third parties" does not include the
    > contracting parties.


    There's no irony at all. The seller already has a license,
    and the buyer is getting one with the software. The third-
    parties language is there to prevent the seller from imposing
    license fees on third parties which could constrain the buyer
    from distributing the software as he wished, under the terms
    of the GPL.

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

    Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    > I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the buyer of the
    > router, the right to get source code from somewhere.


    It does, unless the chain of GPL licensing is somehow broken,
    perhaps through the use of the First Sale Doctrine.

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

    Rjack wrote:
    > The "parties" to the GPL contract have no legal right to complain about
    > all third parties not receiving the code.


    Yes they do. The "source to all third parties" is one option that
    the GPL offers for conveying a non-source form of the software.
    This option comes in the form of a written offer valid for all
    third parties that the distributor must send along with the
    software. It is this lack of a written offer which the copyright
    holder can complain about.

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

    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > Rjack wrote:
    >> The GPL is a purported third party donee beneficiary contract:
    >> b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    >> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    >> part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    >> parties under the terms of this License.

    >
    > Notice that "licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties"
    > does not mean that there is any obligation to deliver anything to
    > them.


    True. No distribution no problem. So what? Presumably some authors do want their
    code to be distributed though.

    > It only means that third parties have license to the software
    > such that they are permitted to do anything they want with it as
    > long as they too follow the GPL.


    The trouble is you can't write a copyright license that controls "all third
    parties" as long "as they follow the GPL". Congress specifically forbid this
    situation with 17 USC sec. 301.

    Sincerely
    Rjack


    -- "[I]f an extra element is required instead of or in addition to the acts of
    reproduction, performance, distribution or display in order to constitute a
    state-created cause of action, there is no preemption, provided that the extra
    element changes the nature of the action so that it is qualitatively different
    from a copyright infringement claim." Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283
    (United States Court Of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2004) --






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

    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    >> I think you folks are assuming that the GPL somehow gives you, the buyer of
    >> the router, the right to get source code from somewhere.

    >
    > It does, unless the chain of GPL licensing is somehow broken, perhaps through
    > the use of the First Sale Doctrine.


    There is no such thing as a "chain of licensing" under the GPL. The GPL is a
    nonexclusive license and there is no such thing as "sub-licensing" under a
    nonexclusive license. The best you can do is a "transfer of contractual
    interest". You can't transfer ownership of copyrights with a nonexclusive
    license and you can't license what you don't own.

    Sincerely
    Rjack

    Sec. 101 definitions.
    A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment, mortgage, exclusive
    license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or hypothecation of a copyright or
    of any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, whether or not it is
    limited in time or place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license.
    (Copyright Act of 1976)


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

    rjack wrote:
    > The trouble is you can't write a copyright license that controls "all
    > third parties" as long "as they follow the GPL". Congress specifically
    > forbid this situation with 17 USC sec. 301.


    That's the federal preemption clause. What does that
    have to do with anything? Who says anything about
    controlling anyone? The distributor is licensing the
    code to all third parties under the terms of the GPL.
    The third parties can take it or leave it.

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

    * rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > The trouble is you can't write a copyright license that controls "all third
    > parties" as long "as they follow the GPL". Congress specifically forbid this
    > situation with 17 USC sec. 301.


    Tell it to IBM lawyers (for example). Their copyright is appended to a
    GPL notice in many Linux kernel modules. Roughly 870 C and assembler files.
    Sample:

    /*
    * Kernel Probes (KProbes)
    *
    * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
    * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
    * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
    * (at your option) any later version.
    *
    * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
    * GNU General Public License for more details. *
    * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
    * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
    * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
    *
    * Copyright (C) IBM Corporation, 2002, 2004


    --
    Ask not for whom the telephone bell tolls...
    if thou art in the bathtub, it tolls for thee.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast