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: > > Do you have a link, Hyman? > > > TFTP Listing of /GPL/ at ftp.supermicro.com > Parent Directory > > Jul 08 2008 12:02 74165878 ipmi_ppc_opensrc.tgz > Jul 17 2008 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 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:
    > > Do you have a link, Hyman?

    >
    >
    > TFTP Listing of /GPL/ at ftp.supermicro.com
    > Parent Directory
    >
    > Jul 08 2008 12:02 74165878 ipmi_ppc_opensrc.tgz
    > Jul 17 2008 11:17 10212 lib_smc_usb_lcd_linux.tgz
    >
    > Brand spanking new files.


    :-)

    How did you get that link, Hyman?

    regards,
    alexander. (still downloading...)

    --
    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:
    > How did you get that link, Hyman?


    I wen to , used the menu
    to click on Support/Downloads and noticed the link
    "Supermicro FTP Site" under "Additional Resources".

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


    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > > How did you get that link, Hyman?

    >
    > I wen to , used the menu
    > to click on Support/Downloads and noticed the link
    > "Supermicro FTP Site" under "Additional Resources".


    Now please go out of home and ask 100 guys on the street what does "FTP
    Site" (short of "GPL") mean. Please let me know about your findings in
    this respect.

    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

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Alexander Terekhov

    wrote
    on Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:38:38 +0200
    <4889127E.8A1C7AAA@web.de>:
    >
    > Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >>
    >> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >> > How did you get that link, Hyman?

    >>
    >> I wen to , used the menu
    >> to click on Support/Downloads and noticed the link
    >> "Supermicro FTP Site" under "Additional Resources".

    >
    > Now please go out of home and ask 100 guys on the street what does "FTP
    > Site" (short of "GPL") mean. Please let me know about your findings in
    > this respect.
    >
    > regards,
    > alexander.
    >


    Then ask them what HTML and HTTP mean as well.
    Good luck with either one. ;-)

    The good news: the link is ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/,
    and browsers do understand this link. Firefox in
    particular shows a nicely formatted, if rather large
    and somewhat disorganized, list of directories.

    The bad news: Uh...where is that thing I'm looking for, again? :-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
    A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

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

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > Now please go out of home and ask 100 guys on the street what does "FTP
    > Site" (short of "GPL") mean.


    100 guys on the street, or a hundred guys on the street
    who have an interest in the source code? Of the latter,
    all of them know what an FTP site is.

    In any case, I didn't do any more searching to see if
    there's a better access route. But it didn't take me
    more than a few seconds to find this one.

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

    In article ,
    c.c.eiftj@XReXXSFLCX.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
    > The SFLC says it differently. Their GPL enforcement always seeks some
    > sort of penalty for the offender that goes far beyond simply making GPL
    > sources available. Otherwise future defendants would have no incentive
    > to not violate the GPL in the first place.


    Note that if the settlement is secret, it doesn't provide very much
    incentive. So, it seems unlikely that the SFLC would want to keep
    settlements secret.

    How about the defendants? Haven't many of them been public companies?
    A large settlement would show up in their public financial records, so
    isn't going to stay secret for long. Thus, I doubt they are going to
    worry too much about keeping it secret from the start.

    Thus, I suspect that the settlements are for little or no cash.
    Plaintiff may talk about large potential damages (statutory damages for
    bad faith infringement could get rather staggering rather fast...) to
    make the defendant come to their senses, but I don't think anyone would
    agree to that in settlement.

    (I'm assuming statutory damages would be available, because I'm assuming
    the copyrights have been registered. I can't find that registration,
    but I don't claim to be a good copyright registration searcher. I
    assume they have been registered, because if not, every defendant so far
    would have filed an answer to the complaint pointing that out, and the
    court would have immediately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The
    first time, the court would have been amused at the plaintiff
    overlooking such a basic thing. But aren't they filling subsequent
    suits in the same court? The court is not going to be amused the second
    time the same plaintiff brings forth essentially the same case with the
    same flaw. We'd be seeing sanctions by now, probably. Thus, I infer
    that the copyrights must be registered).
    --
    --Tim Smith

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

    On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:49:13 +0000, Rahul Dhesi wrote:

    > thufir writes:
    >
    >>To my understanding, the buyer does have the right, under the GPL, to
    >>the source. After, the GPL is targeted, you could say, at buyers to
    >>protect copyright owners.

    >
    >>If no buyer has rights to the source, then that would make the GPL
    >>pointless, which, I suppose is your argument?

    >
    > "Rights to the source" is not a useful phrase, as it does not
    > distinguish between the right to ask for the source (which the buyer
    > has), the right to redistribute the source once the source is available
    > (which the buyer has), and the right to enforce the seller's obligation
    > to provide the source (which the copyright owner has but the buyer does
    > not).



    The buyer can ask for the source but, ultimately, has now way of
    enforcing anybody to produce it? Seems pointless.



    -Thufir

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

    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.


    -Thufir

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

    Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article ,
    > c.c.eiftj@XReXXSFLCX.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
    >> The SFLC says it differently. Their GPL enforcement always seeks some
    >> sort of penalty for the offender that goes far beyond simply making GPL
    >> sources available. Otherwise future defendants would have no incentive
    >> to not violate the GPL in the first place.

    >
    > Note that if the settlement is secret, it doesn't provide very much
    > incentive. So, it seems unlikely that the SFLC would want to keep
    > settlements secret.
    >
    > How about the defendants? Haven't many of them been public companies?
    > A large settlement would show up in their public financial records, so
    > isn't going to stay secret for long. Thus, I doubt they are going to
    > worry too much about keeping it secret from the start.
    >
    > Thus, I suspect that the settlements are for little or no cash.
    > Plaintiff may talk about large potential damages (statutory damages for
    > bad faith infringement could get rather staggering rather fast...) to
    > make the defendant come to their senses, but I don't think anyone would
    > agree to that in settlement.
    >
    > (I'm assuming statutory damages would be available, because I'm assuming
    > the copyrights have been registered. I can't find that registration,
    > but I don't claim to be a good copyright registration searcher. I
    > assume they have been registered, because if not, every defendant so far
    > would have filed an answer to the complaint pointing that out, and the
    > court would have immediately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The
    > first time, the court would have been amused at the plaintiff
    > overlooking such a basic thing. But aren't they filling subsequent
    > suits in the same court? The court is not going to be amused the second
    > time the same plaintiff brings forth essentially the same case with the
    > same flaw. We'd be seeing sanctions by now, probably. Thus, I infer
    > that the copyrights must be registered).


    The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow a district court to review the terms of
    their preempted, unenforceable GPL license on the merits. The fat revenue stream
    from charitable funds flowing into SFLC's attorneys' pockets would suddenly
    cease if their one of their crackpot complaints was ever reviewed by the court.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

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


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

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > (I'm assuming statutory damages would be available, because I'm assuming the
    > copyrights have been registered. I can't find that registration, but I don't
    > claim to be a good copyright registration searcher. I assume they have been
    > registered, because if not, every defendant so far would have filed an
    > answer to the complaint pointing that out, and the court would have
    > immediately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The first time, the court
    > would have been amused at the plaintiff overlooking such a basic thing. But
    > aren't they filling subsequent suits in the same court? The court is not
    > going to be amused the second time the same plaintiff brings forth
    > essentially the same case with the same flaw. We'd be seeing sanctions by
    > now, probably. Thus, I infer that the copyrights must be registered).


    ASS-U-ME will make an *ASS out of *U* and *ME*.


    FN4. See, e.g., Haan Crafts Corp. v. Craft Masters, Inc., 683 F.Supp. 1234, 1242
    (N.D.Ind.1988) ("[A] lawsuit for copyright infringement cannot be filed unless
    plaintiff has a registered copyright.... This is a jurisdictional requirement
    which must be satisfied before a federal court can entertain a copyright
    infringement claim."); Demetriades v. Kaufmatin, 680 F.Supp. 658, 661
    (S.D.N.Y.1988) ("Receipt of an actual certificate of registration or denial of
    same is a jurisdictional requirement, and this court cannot prejudge the
    determination to be made by the Copyright Office."); Dodd v. Fort Smith Special
    School District No. 100, 666 F.Supp. 1278, 1282 (W.D.Ark.1987) ("Under the
    Copyright Act ... registration of the copyright, while not a prerequisite to
    having a protectable interest, is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the
    initiation of an infringement suit in federal court."); Quincy Cablesystems,
    Inc. v. Sully's Bar, Inc., 650 F.Supp. 838, 850 (D.Mass.1986) ("Copyright
    registration under 411(a) is a condition precedent to filing an infringement
    action."); Wales Industrial, Inc. v. Hasbro Bradley, Inc., 612 F.Supp. 510, 515
    (S.D.N.Y.1985) ("Registration of a copyright claim is a jurisdictional
    prerequisite to a suit for infringement."); Conan Properties, Inc. v. Mattel,
    Inc., 601 F.Supp. 1179, 1182 (S.D.N.Y.1984) ("Without registration of the
    copyrights the suit is barred and absent an allegation that the copyrights have
    been registered the complaint is defective."); Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592
    F.Supp. 1195, 1197 (S.D.N.Y.1984) ("Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 411(a) ... it has
    been held repeatedly that ownership of a copyright Registration is a
    jurisdictional prerequisite to an action for infringement."); and International
    Trade Management, Inc. v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 39, 553 F.Supp. 402, 403
    (1982) ("A suit for copyright infringement is conditioned on obtaining (or being
    denied) a certificate of registration."); M.G.B. HOMES, INC., v. AMERON HOMES
    903 F.2d 1486 (United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990)

    Sincerely
    Rjack

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

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

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > SFLC to the World: Victory!


    Before case begins: Defendants in violation of GPL.
    After case ends: Defendants make GLPed sources available.

    Victory indeed.

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

    rjack wrote:
    > The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow a district court to review the
    > terms of their preempted, unenforceable GPL license on the merits. The
    > fat revenue stream from charitable funds flowing into SFLC's attorneys'
    > pockets would suddenly cease if their one of their crackpot complaints
    > was ever reviewed by the court.


    Before the SFLC files its cases the defendants are in violation
    of the GPL. After the cases end, the GPLed source code is available.
    Since the SFLC is accomplishing the purpose for which it exists,
    there is no reason for the revenue stream to dry up.

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

    * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Alexander Terekhov
    >>
    >>> > How did you get that link, Hyman?
    >>>
    >>> I wen to , used the menu
    >>> to click on Support/Downloads and noticed the link
    >>> "Supermicro FTP Site" under "Additional Resources".

    >>
    >> Now please go out of home and ask 100 guys on the street what does "FTP
    >> Site" (short of "GPL") mean. Please let me know about your findings in
    >> this respect.

    >
    > Then ask them what HTML and HTTP mean as well.
    > Good luck with either one. ;-)
    >
    > The good news: the link is ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/,
    > and browsers do understand this link.


    The good new is that, if you start using Free software, you're more
    likely to encounter terms like FTP and SSH, if you've been unlucky
    enough to miss them in your usage of proprietary software (CuteFTP
    anyone?).

    > The bad news: Uh...where is that thing I'm looking for, again? :-)


    ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/GPL/

    Try this:

    $ wget -c -r -N -nH -np ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/GPL/

    I'm doing it right now, and I'm not even a customer. It's a slow site,
    though (under 50K/s), so I'm going to abort it.

    --
    fortune: cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.

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

    * Hyman Rosen peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >> Now please go out of home and ask 100 guys on the street what does "FTP
    >> Site" (short of "GPL") mean.

    >
    > 100 guys on the street, or a hundred guys on the street
    > who have an interest in the source code? Of the latter,
    > all of them know what an FTP site is.
    >
    > In any case, I didn't do any more searching to see if
    > there's a better access route. But it didn't take me
    > more than a few seconds to find this one.


    A surprising number of FTP sites can be found by prepending "ftp://ftp."

    --
    A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.
    -- George Eliot

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

    Snipped misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss,

    * rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > ASS-U-ME will make an *ASS out of *U* and *ME*.
    >
    > FN4. See, e.g., Haan Crafts Corp. v. Craft Masters, Inc., 683 F.Supp. 1234, 1242
    > (N.D.Ind.1988) ("[A] lawsuit for copyright infringement cannot be filed unless
    > plaintiff has a registered copyright.... This is a jurisdictional requirement
    > which must be satisfied before a federal court can entertain a copyright
    > infringement claim."); Demetriades v. Kaufmatin, 680 F.Supp. 658, 661
    > (S.D.N.Y.1988) ("Receipt of an actual certificate of registration or denial of
    > same is a jurisdictional requirement, and this court cannot prejudge the
    > determination to be made by the Copyright Office."); Dodd v. Fort Smith Special
    > School District No. 100, 666 F.Supp. 1278, 1282 (W.D.Ark.1987) ("Under the
    > Copyright Act ... registration of the copyright, while not a prerequisite to
    > having a protectable interest, is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the
    > initiation of an infringement suit in federal court."); Quincy Cablesystems,
    > Inc. v. Sully's Bar, Inc., 650 F.Supp. 838, 850 (D.Mass.1986) ("Copyright
    > registration under 411(a) is a condition precedent to filing an infringement
    > action."); Wales Industrial, Inc. v. Hasbro Bradley, Inc., 612 F.Supp. 510, 515
    > (S.D.N.Y.1985) ("Registration of a copyright claim is a jurisdictional
    > prerequisite to a suit for infringement."); Conan Properties, Inc. v. Mattel,
    > Inc., 601 F.Supp. 1179, 1182 (S.D.N.Y.1984) ("Without registration of the
    > copyrights the suit is barred and absent an allegation that the copyrights have
    > been registered the complaint is defective."); Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592
    > F.Supp. 1195, 1197 (S.D.N.Y.1984) ("Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 411(a) ... it has
    > been held repeatedly that ownership of a copyright Registration is a
    > jurisdictional prerequisite to an action for infringement."); and International
    > Trade Management, Inc. v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 39, 553 F.Supp. 402, 403
    > (1982) ("A suit for copyright infringement is conditioned on obtaining (or being
    > denied) a certificate of registration."); M.G.B. HOMES, INC., v. AMERON HOMES
    > 903 F.2d 1486 (United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990)
    >
    > Sincerely
    > Rjack
    >
    > -- The hardest part of fleecing a sucker is convincing him to express his
    > gratitude for getting screwed --


    Idiot.

    --
    Johnson's law:
    Systems resemble the organizations that create them.

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


    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > > SFLC to the World: Victory!

    >
    > Before case begins: Defendants in violation of GPL.
    > After case ends: Defendants make GLPed sources available.


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

    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


    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >
    > rjack wrote:
    > > The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow a district court to review the
    > > terms of their preempted, unenforceable GPL license on the merits. The
    > > fat revenue stream from charitable funds flowing into SFLC's attorneys'
    > > pockets would suddenly cease if their one of their crackpot complaints
    > > was ever reviewed by the court.

    >
    > Before the SFLC files its cases the defendants are in violation
    > of the GPL. After the cases end, the GPLed source code is available.


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

    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.)

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

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >>> SFLC to the World: Victory!

    >> Before case begins: Defendants in violation of GPL.
    >> After case ends: Defendants make GLPed sources available.

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


    Before the case, for most of 2007, neither Actiontec nor Verizon
    made the sources for the FIOS router firmware avaialable. After
    the case, the sources are available from Actiontec.

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


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


    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > > Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > >> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > >>> SFLC to the World: Victory!
    > >> Before case begins: Defendants in violation of GPL.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    > >> After case ends: Defendants make GLPed sources available.

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

    >
    > Before the case, for most of 2007, neither Actiontec nor Verizon
    > made the sources for the FIOS router firmware avaialable. After
    > the case, the sources are available from Actiontec.


    Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant.

    After the case ends: Defendant is still in violation of the GPL.
    After the case ends: Defendant still doesn't make GPL'd sources
    available.
    After the case ends: Defendant can now violate alleged plaintiffs'
    copyrights in Busybox with impunity due to dismissal WITH PREJUDICE
    against plaintiffs.

    What a great victory for the GPL and plaintiffs.

    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.)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast