[News] GPL Policing Still Running Well (2 More Lawsuits) - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] GPL Policing Still Running Well (2 More Lawsuits) - Linux ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 SFLC Files Another Round of GPL Violation Lawsuits on Behalf of BusyBox Developers ,----[ Quote ] | The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that it has filed two | more copyright infringement ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: [News] GPL Policing Still Running Well (2 More Lawsuits)

  1. [News] GPL Policing Still Running Well (2 More Lawsuits)

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    SFLC Files Another Round of GPL Violation Lawsuits on Behalf of BusyBox
    Developers

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that it has filed two
    | more copyright infringement lawsuits, on behalf of two principal developers
    | of BusyBox, alleging violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL). The
    | defendants in this new round of lawsuits are Bell Microproducts, Inc. and
    | Super Micro Computer, Inc.
    `----

    http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...un/10/busybox/

    Violate the GPL at your own risk

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | “When companies are contacted by SFLC or anyone else about a GPL violation,
    | they need to respond by taking good faith steps toward compliance. If they do
    | not, lawsuits like these are the predictable consequences.”
    `----

    http://practical-tech.com/operating-...your-own-risk/


    Recent:

    Compro Technology accused of GPL violation

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | An eagle-eyed user of the Linux Kernel Mailing List archive, going by the
    | name of Jo Shields (who many of you may know), has accused Compro Technology
    | of violating the General Public License (GPL).
    `----

    http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=13430


    First Understand the GPL! (Then Comply!)

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Do your homework! Document yourself from Warren's case with MEPIS from 2006,
    | when he also misunderstood the requirements of GPLv2 and «thought» he only
    | had to be able to provide somehow «only the modified sources»!
    |
    | No. The GPL requires (section 3) you to be able to: (i) either provide the
    | FULL, COMPLETE sources; (ii) or come with a written offer (valid for at least
    | 3 years! can you guarantee that?) that you can provide the FULL, COMPLETE
    | sources. You can charge for the cost of physically making and sending
    | CDs/DVDs, if this is the case.
    `----

    http://beranger.org/index.php?page=d...he-gpl-then-co


    The GPL Wins Again - Welte vs. Skype Technologies SA (Germany)

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Well, today was the hearing, and Welte reports that one of the judges told
    | Skype's lawyer that if a copyright owner wants a publisher to publish his
    | book in a green envelope, it might seem odd to the publisher, but he can't
    | publish without the green envelope. In short, don't touch the GPL code if you
    | don't follow the requirements of the license.
    |
    | Like it or lump it. I think that's how one would translate into English the
    | judge's mindset.
    `----

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...80508212535665


    Related:

    Another GPL Lawsuit is Settled

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Third lawsuit over open source license violations is now closed. This time,
    | it's a 'learning experience.'
    `----

    http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news...PL+Lawsuit.htm


    BusyBox and Xterasys Settle GPL Lawsuit

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | BusyBox has just successfully settled its GPL ligitation against Xterasys.
    | Xterasys has agreed to stop all binary distribution of BusyBox until the
    | Software Freedom Law Center confirms that it has published complete source
    | code on its web site. *
    `----

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...71217142920618


    BusyBox Developers, SFLC Sue Verizon for GPL Infringement

    ,----[ Quote
    | The same two principal developers already successfully sued Monsoon Media,
    | and they have litigation pending against Xterasys Corporation and High-Gain
    | Antennas, LLC. Here is the press release from the Software Freedom Law Center
    | on the Verizon suit, followed by the complaint as text. *
    `----

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...07120713435029


    Verizon Being Sued for GPL Infringement

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | According to the SFLC, Verizon can be added to the list of companies
    | infringing on the GPL. They filed a lawsuit in New York yesterday (pdf)
    | alleging that the company is handing out routers using the GPL'd
    | software 'BusyBox' without accompanying source code. * *
    `----

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?s...53217&from=rss


    Second Round of GPL Infringement Lawsuits Filed on Behalf of BusyBox Developers

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that it has filed two
    | more copyright infringement lawsuits on behalf of its clients, two principal
    | developers of BusyBox, alleging violation of the GNU General Public License
    | (GPL). The defendants in the lawsuits are Xterasys Corporation and High-Gain
    | Antennas, LLC. BusyBox is a lightweight set of standard Unix utilities
    | commonly used in embedded systems and is open source software licensed under
    | GPL version 2. * * *
    `----

    http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...ov/20/busybox/


    Is the Monsoon settlement a missed opportunity?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Certainly more was hoped for from the first US GPL lawsuit. “This case is
    | very important because it will establish what type of remedies (either
    | contract or copyright) are available to licensors for breach of the GPLv2,”
    | wrote Mark Radcliffe at the time the complaint was filed. *
    |
    | However, for those looking for legal precedent, all may not be lost. “Stay
    | tuned, however, as this is likely not the last lawsuit we will see here in
    | the U.S. to enforce the terms of the GPL,” notes Haislmaier. *
    `----

    http://blogs.the451group.com/opensou...d-opportunity/


    Do Microsoft's EULAs have any real legal basis?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | "Microsoft has no special exemption from the sale of goods act." Well,
    | no, probably not - but it might still be selling you "services"
    | instead of "goods". But the real point to remember is that it doesn't
    | matter a jot what the "logical" position is, it is what the courts
    | decide that matters.
    |
    | As far as I know, no one has tested Microsoft's EULAs in a UK court
    | and, until someone does, Microsoft will just go on assuming that they
    | work. And I don't fancy the risk of taking on Microsoft's expensive
    | lawyers in court myself...
    `----

    http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/0...icrosoft_eula/


    BusyBox Developers and Monsoon Multimedia Agree to Dismiss GPL Lawsuit

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Monsoon Multimedia today jointly
    | announced that an agreement has been reached to dismiss the GPL enforcement
    | lawsuit filed by SFLC on behalf of two principal developers of BusyBox. *
    `----

    http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...on-settlement/


    And Just Like That, The Games End — First Ever GPL Lawsuit Dismissed

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | In the agreement to dismiss the lawsuit, the SFLC is reporting that Monsoon
    | Multimedia 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 Monsoon Multimedia of their rights to the software under the GPL. * *
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | Stay tuned, however, as this is likely not the last lawsuit we will see here
    | in the U.S. to enforce the terms of the GPL.
    `----

    http://thinkingopen.wordpress.com/20...uit-dismissed/


    SFLC: Setting Legal Precedent Not the Goal of GPL Case

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Software Freedom Law Center co-founder Dan Ravicher says the Center’s
    | copyright infringement case against Monsoon Multimedia on behalf of the *
    | creators of BusyBox is not about setting legal precedent for the use and
    | interpretation of the GNU General Public License. *
    `----

    http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/osb/?p=241


    GPL defenders say: See you in court

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The license also requires anyone distributing GPL software, in an executable
    | form that a computer can run, to make the complete source code available. One
    | example: Cisco Systems subsidiary Linksys, which *shares the GPL software
    | used in its wireless networking equipment. *
    `----

    http://www.news.com/GPL-defenders-sa...3-6210837.html


    First U.S. GPL lawsuit heads for quick settlement

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The first U.S. GPL-related lawsuit appears to be headed for a quick
    | out-of-court settlement. Monsoon Multimedia admitted today that it had
    | violated the GPLv2 (GNU General Public License version 2), and said it will
    | release its modified BusyBox code in full compliance with the license. *
    `----

    http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3761924232.html


    New Method To Detect and Prove GPL Violations

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | "A paper to be presented at the upcoming academic conference Automated
    | Software Engineering describes a new method to detect code theft and could be
    | used to detect GPL violations in particular. While the co-called birthmarking *
    | method is demonstrated for Java, it is general enough to work for other
    | languages as well..." *
    `----

    http://developers.slashdot.org/artic...48253&from=rss


    German Court convicted Skype of violating the GPL

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | German district court Munich has convicted Skype of violating the GPL. One of
    | the VoIP telephones sold by Skype run Linux, but the GPL text was not handed
    | out together with the phone, although the GPL requires that. *
    `----

    http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/0...#comment-27057


    German GPL defender claims legal victory
    *
    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Open-source programmer Harald Welte said Thursday he won a civil court
    | case in Germany centered on the General Public License (GPL). The license
    | governs many open-source projects and permits anyone to use software
    | covered by it, but requires that companies incorporating GPL software
    | make the underlying source code available.
    `----

    http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-611...3453&subj=news


    gpl-violations.org project prevails in court case on GPL violation by D-Link

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | D-Link Germany GmbH, a subsidiary of D-Link Corporation, Taiwan R.O.C.,
    | distributed DSM-G600, a network attached storage (NAS) device which uses a
    | Linux-based Operating System. *However, this distribution was incompliant
    | with the GNU General Public License (GPL) which covers the Linux Kernel and
    | many other software programs used in the product.
    `----

    http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060...frankfurt.html


    Wallace's Appeal Firmly Rejected - GPL Has Nothing to Fear [pdf]

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | PJ: "Just so you know, Daniel Wallace's appeal of the ruling
    | against him in his pro se quest to overthrow the GPL on antitrust
    | grounds, one of SCO's daydreams too, has been firmly rejected by
    | the appeals court, as I knew it would be."
    `----

    http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceAppealRejected.pdf


    Would Dostoevsky Use the GPL?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | I get nervous whenever large software shops talk up the virtues of a license
    | with fewer protections of developer and user rights. In the linked articles
    | above, there is talk of permissive licenses being the path of least
    | resistance, with the premise that it's "easier" to gravitate towards them. My
    | question is - easier for whom? Easier for the developers or easier for the
    | companies who wish to make use of it without those annoying obligations to
    | the greater free software ecosystem? As is often mentioned by others smarter
    | than me, a scenario where developers gravitate towards permissive licenses
    | makes it easier for companies to avoid community reciprocity. * * * *
    `----

    http://tinosc.blogspot.com/2007/09/w...y-use-gpl.html
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIT37bU4xAY3RXLo4RAj13AJ9tAy/1uVIvOLhFcelsDv8qeRwUXgCfSZKV
    xtEOeYA3HhrAm1mGpNBc6Y4=
    =2eWs
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  2. Re: [News] GPL Policing Still Running Well (2 More Lawsuits)


    Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > SFLC Files Another Round of GPL Violation Lawsuits on Behalf of BusyBox
    > Developers
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that it has filed two
    > | more copyright infringement lawsuits, on behalf of two principal developers
    > | of BusyBox, alleging violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL). The
    > | defendants in this new round of lawsuits are Bell Microproducts, Inc. and
    > | Super Micro Computer, Inc.
    > `----
    >
    > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...un/10/busybox/


    "All of the previous lawsuits have resulted in out-of-court settlements
    requiring the defendants to distribute source code in compliance with
    the GPL."

    Eh? The previous lawsuit against Verizon resulted in voluntary dismissal
    WITH PREJUDICE against plaintiffs (meaning that defendant Verizon may
    now violate Busybox copyrights and breach the GPL covering said
    copyrights with impunity -- plaintiffs lost the case WITH PREJUDICE --
    res judicata and all that). The announced "settlement" with
    NON-DEFENDANT Actiontec is in no way affecting Verizon. To wit, Verizon
    is still breaching the GPL:
    . "GPL Policing
    Still Running Well". LOL.

    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: [News] GPL Policing Still Running Well (2 More Lawsuits)


    "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
    news:484FB133.543B1EB1@web.de...
    >
    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> SFLC Files Another Round of GPL Violation Lawsuits on Behalf of BusyBox
    >> Developers
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >> | The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that it has
    >> filed two
    >> | more copyright infringement lawsuits, on behalf of two principal
    >> developers
    >> | of BusyBox, alleging violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
    >> The
    >> | defendants in this new round of lawsuits are Bell Microproducts, Inc.
    >> and
    >> | Super Micro Computer, Inc.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...un/10/busybox/

    >
    > "All of the previous lawsuits have resulted in out-of-court settlements
    > requiring the defendants to distribute source code in compliance with
    > the GPL."
    >
    > Eh? The previous lawsuit against Verizon resulted in voluntary dismissal
    > WITH PREJUDICE against plaintiffs (meaning that defendant Verizon may
    > now violate Busybox copyrights and breach the GPL covering said
    > copyrights with impunity -- plaintiffs lost the case WITH PREJUDICE --
    > res judicata and all that). The announced "settlement" with
    > NON-DEFENDANT Actiontec is in no way affecting Verizon. To wit, Verizon
    > is still breaching the GPL:
    > . "GPL Policing
    > Still Running Well". LOL.
    >

    The Jacobsen v. Katzer appeal contains an amicus brief from a consortium of
    OSS interests, for reference:

    http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket...-1/ccc_brf.pdf

    Interestingly, the judge said no to their request to argue orally:

    http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/cafc-pi-1/37.pdf

    The brief, though, seems to frame the decision as the death blow to OSS
    licenses in general on the issue of their being enforcable only on
    contractual terms, which is seen as impossibly difficult. Maybe the
    appellate court in northern California will put the GPL and others out of
    their misery soon.


  4. Re: [News] GPL Policing Still Running Well (2 More Lawsuits)

    On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:04:19 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> SFLC Files Another Round of GPL Violation Lawsuits on Behalf of BusyBox
    >> Developers
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>| The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that it has filed two
    >>| more copyright infringement lawsuits, on behalf of two principal developers
    >>| of BusyBox, alleging violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL). The
    >>| defendants in this new round of lawsuits are Bell Microproducts, Inc. and
    >>| Super Micro Computer, Inc.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...un/10/busybox/

    >
    > "All of the previous lawsuits have resulted in out-of-court settlements
    > requiring the defendants to distribute source code in compliance with
    > the GPL."
    >
    > Eh? The previous lawsuit against Verizon resulted in voluntary dismissal
    > WITH PREJUDICE against plaintiffs (meaning that defendant Verizon may
    > now violate Busybox copyrights and breach the GPL covering said
    > copyrights with impunity -- plaintiffs lost the case WITH PREJUDICE --
    > res judicata and all that). The announced "settlement" with
    > NON-DEFENDANT Actiontec is in no way affecting Verizon. To wit, Verizon
    > is still breaching the GPL:
    > . "GPL Policing
    > Still Running Well". LOL.
    >
    > regards,
    > alexander.


    Facts always seem to be a problem with Roy Schestowitz.
    He avoids them like the plague.


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

  5. Re: [News] GPL Policing Still Running Well (2 More Lawsuits)

    amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
    > news:484FB133.543B1EB1@web.de...
    >>
    >> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> SFLC Files Another Round of GPL Violation Lawsuits on Behalf of BusyBox
    >>> Developers
    >>>
    >>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>> | The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that it has
    >>> filed two
    >>> | more copyright infringement lawsuits, on behalf of two principal
    >>> developers
    >>> | of BusyBox, alleging violation of the GNU General Public License
    >>> (GPL). The
    >>> | defendants in this new round of lawsuits are Bell Microproducts,
    >>> Inc. and
    >>> | Super Micro Computer, Inc.
    >>> `----
    >>>
    >>> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...un/10/busybox/

    >>
    >> "All of the previous lawsuits have resulted in out-of-court settlements
    >> requiring the defendants to distribute source code in compliance with
    >> the GPL."
    >>
    >> Eh? The previous lawsuit against Verizon resulted in voluntary dismissal
    >> WITH PREJUDICE against plaintiffs (meaning that defendant Verizon may
    >> now violate Busybox copyrights and breach the GPL covering said
    >> copyrights with impunity -- plaintiffs lost the case WITH PREJUDICE --
    >> res judicata and all that). The announced "settlement" with
    >> NON-DEFENDANT Actiontec is in no way affecting Verizon. To wit, Verizon
    >> is still breaching the GPL:
    >> . "GPL Policing
    >> Still Running Well". LOL.
    >>

    > The Jacobsen v. Katzer appeal contains an amicus brief from a consortium
    > of OSS interests, for reference:
    >
    > http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket...-1/ccc_brf.pdf
    >
    > Interestingly, the judge said no to their request to argue orally:
    >
    > http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/cafc-pi-1/37.pdf
    >
    > The brief, though, seems to frame the decision as the death blow to OSS
    > licenses in general on the issue of their being enforcable only on
    > contractual terms, which is seen as impossibly difficult. Maybe the
    > appellate court in northern California will put the GPL and others out
    > of their misery soon.


    Maybe someone will put you out of yours soon...

  6. Re: [News] GPL Policing Still Running Well (2 More Lawsuits)

    Rick writes:

    >
    > Maybe someone will put you out of yours soon...


    Why does Rick constantly wish harm on people? Not only that but now he
    thinks that parents and family do not need a body to grieve properly? Is
    there no end to his knowledge and spite?

  7. Re: [News] GPL Policing Still Running Well (2 More Lawsuits)

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:59:25 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Rick writes:
    >
    >>
    >> Maybe someone will put you out of yours soon...

    >
    > Why does Rick constantly wish harm on people? Not only that but now he
    > thinks that parents and family do not need a body to grieve properly? Is
    > there no end to his knowledge and spite?


    Poor Rick.
    He can't argue a point so he resorts to hostile comments.
    I think he needs anger management classes.

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

  8. Re: [News] GPL Policing Still Running Well (2 More Lawsuits)

    * Rick peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >> "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
    >>>

    >> The Jacobsen v. Katzer appeal contains an amicus brief from a consortium
    >> of OSS interests, for reference:
    >>
    >> http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket...-1/ccc_brf.pdf
    >>
    >> Interestingly, the judge said no to their request to argue orally:
    >>
    >> http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/cafc-pi-1/37.pdf
    >>
    >> The brief, though, seems to frame the decision as the death blow to OSS
    >> licenses in general on the issue of their being enforcable only on
    >> contractual terms, which is seen as impossibly difficult. Maybe the
    >> appellate court in northern California will put the GPL and others out
    >> of their misery soon.

    >
    > Maybe someone will put you out of yours soon...


    These guys are pigs, pure and simple. They want everything to be owned.
    They want copyright only for commercial products, it seems.

    As far as their interpretation goes, it sounds to me like amiscum and
    Cherenkhov took "artistic license".

    --
    Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very
    efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning.
    -- Bill Gates, TIME magazine Vol. 149, No. 2 (13 January 1997)

  9. Re: [News] GPL Policing Still Running Well (2 More Lawsuits)


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:r7y4k.4381$Nr.127@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
    >* Rick peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>> "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
    >>>>
    >>> The Jacobsen v. Katzer appeal contains an amicus brief from a consortium
    >>> of OSS interests, for reference:
    >>>
    >>> http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket...-1/ccc_brf.pdf
    >>>
    >>> Interestingly, the judge said no to their request to argue orally:
    >>>
    >>> http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/cafc-pi-1/37.pdf
    >>>
    >>> The brief, though, seems to frame the decision as the death blow to OSS
    >>> licenses in general on the issue of their being enforcable only on
    >>> contractual terms, which is seen as impossibly difficult. Maybe the
    >>> appellate court in northern California will put the GPL and others out
    >>> of their misery soon.

    >>
    >> Maybe someone will put you out of yours soon...

    >
    > These guys are pigs, pure and simple. They want everything to be owned.
    > They want copyright only for commercial products, it seems.
    >
    > As far as their interpretation goes, it sounds to me like amiscum and
    > Cherenkhov took "artistic license".
    >

    Spoken like a true OSStrich who can't stand to read the bad news! Maybe it
    will just go away.


  10. Re: [News] GPL Policing Still Running Well (2 More Lawsuits)

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, amicus_curious

    wrote
    on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:25:21 -0400
    <4852d7b5$0$22918$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>:
    >
    > "Linonut" wrote in message
    > news:r7y4k.4381$Nr.127@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
    >>* Rick peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>> "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
    >>>>>
    >>>> The Jacobsen v. Katzer appeal contains an amicus brief from a consortium
    >>>> of OSS interests, for reference:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket...-1/ccc_brf.pdf
    >>>>
    >>>> Interestingly, the judge said no to their request to argue orally:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/cafc-pi-1/37.pdf
    >>>>
    >>>> The brief, though, seems to frame the decision as the death blow to OSS
    >>>> licenses in general on the issue of their being enforcable only on
    >>>> contractual terms, which is seen as impossibly difficult. Maybe the
    >>>> appellate court in northern California will put the GPL and others out
    >>>> of their misery soon.
    >>>
    >>> Maybe someone will put you out of yours soon...

    >>
    >> These guys are pigs, pure and simple. They want everything to be owned.
    >> They want copyright only for commercial products, it seems.
    >>
    >> As far as their interpretation goes, it sounds to me like amiscum and
    >> Cherenkhov took "artistic license".
    >>

    > Spoken like a true OSStrich who can't stand to read the bad news! Maybe it
    > will just go away.
    >


    Presumably everything should be owned. The alternative
    leads to some rather nasty environmental damage, obviously
    -- check out some of the pictures of East Germany just
    after reunification, for example.

    Clearly once Microsoft recovers from the initial shock
    that someone out there donated excellent software for
    ready public consumption (and for free), they will take
    that software, own it, and maintain it, improving the
    experience for their customer base. Maybe.

    Of course unlike Soviet-era power plants, automobiles,
    tractors, and apartment complexes, software can be readily
    taken by anyone who needs it, and given something like the
    GPL and code repositories such as Sourceforge and Google,
    one can donate one's resources to fixing and improving it;
    this makes software a rather communistic enterprise in
    the freeware world, in a very real sense.

    This also makes Google, who is financed by capital
    advertisers, something of a rather strange anomaly.
    Perhaps Microsoft should initiate merger talks with Google
    rather than Yahoo!?

    In any event, the only way a software license can be enforced
    is by complicity by the device upon which it runs.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129:
    void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... }
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  11. Re: [News] GPL Policing Still Running Well (2 More Lawsuits)

    Linonut espoused:
    > * Rick peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>> "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
    >>>>
    >>> The Jacobsen v. Katzer appeal contains an amicus brief from a consortium
    >>> of OSS interests, for reference:
    >>>
    >>> http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket...-1/ccc_brf.pdf
    >>>
    >>> Interestingly, the judge said no to their request to argue orally:
    >>>
    >>> http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/cafc-pi-1/37.pdf
    >>>
    >>> The brief, though, seems to frame the decision as the death blow to OSS
    >>> licenses in general on the issue of their being enforcable only on
    >>> contractual terms, which is seen as impossibly difficult. Maybe the
    >>> appellate court in northern California will put the GPL and others out
    >>> of their misery soon.

    >>
    >> Maybe someone will put you out of yours soon...

    >
    > These guys are pigs, pure and simple. They want everything to be owned.
    > They want copyright only for commercial products, it seems.
    >
    > As far as their interpretation goes, it sounds to me like amiscum and
    > Cherenkhov took "artistic license".
    >


    I wouldn't trust either of them to reliably read the introduction to
    the beano, let alone a legal document.

    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


+ Reply to Thread