Big blow to GPL linking nonsense.

[RJack]

The following decision probably settles most questions touching upon
copyright law and dynamically linking to open source code and vice
versa. Simply placing a hook in GPL source code to call independent
proprietary drivers or libraries is fully protected by 17 USC sec. 117.
Simply dynamically calling GPL code doesn't involve copyright questions
at all.

"Other passages of the report, however, describe the right to modify
programs in a manner that goes far beyond concern with compatibility and
strongly suggests that the writers of the CONTU Report envisioned a
loose concept of necessity that would encompass our very issue — the
addition of features so that a program better serves the needs of the
customer for which it was created. The report states:

'Thus, a right to make those changes necessary to enable the use for
which it was both sold and purchased should be provided. The conversion
of a program from one higher-level language to another to facilitate use
would fall within this right, *as would the right to add features to the
program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition.*'

Id. (emphasis added). Without question, the CONTU Report, in the
italicized text, specifically contemplates protection for modifications
adding features, rather than merely securing continued functioning of
what was originally created. The CONTU Report thus persuasively rebuts
Krause's narrow reading of § 117(a)(1), which would authorize only
changes needed to permit the program to function."; Krause v. Titleserv,
Inc., 402 F. 3d 119 (2nd Cir. 2006)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16327862974386079523&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

The CONTU phrase ". . . as would the right to add features to the
program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition" is a
blow to those who would restrict the scope of 17 USC sec. 117.

Recognized copyright authority William Patry (lead copyright attorney
for Google) noted this decision with approval.

[7]

Post by RJack
The following decision probably settles most questions touching upon
copyright law and dynamically linking to open source code and vice
versa. Simply placing a hook in GPL source code to call independent
proprietary drivers or libraries is fully protected by 17 USC sec. 117.
Simply dynamically calling GPL code doesn't involve copyright questions
at all.

Nope.

'Simply placing a hook' is no different
to saying embedding irrespective of how that embedding
was achieved.

Once proprietary code is embedded into GPL'd code
the whole product now has two incompatible licenses.
And you may be violating both licenses.

As for the embedded GPL, you can use it for your own
private use under the terms of the GPL. But you can't distribute
it if it violates the GPL. You can distribute after you
remove the GPL'd code and/or substitute it with your own code,
or remove the embedded proprietary code, or re-license the proprietary
code with one that is compatible with the GPL license.

Post by RJack
"Other passages of the report, however, describe the right to modify
programs in a manner that goes far beyond concern with compatibility and
strongly suggests that the writers of the CONTU Report envisioned a
loose concept of necessity that would encompass our very issue — the
addition of features so that a program better serves the needs of the
'Thus, a right to make those changes necessary to enable the use for
which it was both sold and purchased should be provided. The conversion
of a program from one higher-level language to another to facilitate use
would fall within this right, *as would the right to add features to the
program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition.*'
Id. (emphasis added). Without question, the CONTU Report, in the
italicized text, specifically contemplates protection for modifications
adding features, rather than merely securing continued functioning of
what was originally created. The CONTU Report thus persuasively rebuts
Krause's narrow reading of § 117(a)(1), which would authorize only
changes needed to permit the program to function."; Krause v. Titleserv,
Inc., 402 F. 3d 119 (2nd Cir. 2006)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16327862974386079523&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Post by RJack
The CONTU phrase ". . . as would the right to add features to the
program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition" is a
blow to those who would restrict the scope of 17 USC sec. 117.
Recognized copyright authority William Patry (lead copyright attorney
for Google) noted this decision with approval.

[RJack]

Post by RJack
The following decision probably settles most questions touching
upon copyright law and dynamically linking to open source code and
vice versa. Simply placing a hook in GPL source code to call
independent proprietary drivers or libraries is fully protected by
17 USC sec. 117. Simply dynamically calling GPL code doesn't
involve copyright questions at all.

Nope.
'Simply placing a hook' is no different to saying embedding
irrespective of how that embedding was achieved.
Once proprietary code is embedded into GPL'd code the whole product
now has two incompatible licenses. And you may be violating both
licenses.
As for the embedded GPL, you can use it for your own private use
under the terms of the GPL. But you can't distribute it if it
violates the GPL. You can distribute after you remove the GPL'd code
and/or substitute it with your own code, or remove the embedded
proprietary code, or re-license the proprietary code with one that is
compatible with the GPL license.

Placing (embedding) a "jmp" or "call" instruction to code residing in a
seperate place in memory is trivial requiring only a few bytes and does
not change the creative aspects of a program since it is a purely
functional and utilitarian addition. Purely functional aspects of
a computer program are not protected by copyright due to the dichotomy
of expression and function.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[7]

Post by RJack

Post by RJack
The following decision probably settles most questions touching
upon copyright law and dynamically linking to open source code and
vice versa. Simply placing a hook in GPL source code to call
independent proprietary drivers or libraries is fully protected by
17 USC sec. 117. Simply dynamically calling GPL code doesn't
involve copyright questions at all.

Nope.
'Simply placing a hook' is no different to saying embedding
irrespective of how that embedding was achieved.
Once proprietary code is embedded into GPL'd code the whole product
now has two incompatible licenses. And you may be violating both
licenses.
As for the embedded GPL, you can use it for your own private use
under the terms of the GPL. But you can't distribute it if it
violates the GPL. You can distribute after you remove the GPL'd code
and/or substitute it with your own code, or remove the embedded
proprietary code, or re-license the proprietary code with one that is
compatible with the GPL license.

Placing (embedding) a "jmp" or "call" instruction to code

blearghhh! Technicalities.

Post by RJack
residing in a
seperate place in memory is trivial requiring only a few bytes and does
not change the creative aspects of a program since it is a purely
functional and utilitarian addition. Purely functional aspects of
a computer program are not protected by copyright due to the dichotomy
of expression and function.
Sincerely,
RJack :)

If only you were even close oh stupid 1.

You should consult a software engineer about the numerous methods of
embedding before handing out judicial reviews on public usenet.

[David Kastrup]

Post by RJack

Post by RJack
The following decision probably settles most questions touching
upon copyright law and dynamically linking to open source code and
vice versa. Simply placing a hook in GPL source code to call
independent proprietary drivers or libraries is fully protected by
17 USC sec. 117. Simply dynamically calling GPL code doesn't
involve copyright questions at all.

Nope.
'Simply placing a hook' is no different to saying embedding
irrespective of how that embedding was achieved.
Once proprietary code is embedded into GPL'd code the whole product
now has two incompatible licenses. And you may be violating both
licenses.
As for the embedded GPL, you can use it for your own private use
under the terms of the GPL. But you can't distribute it if it
violates the GPL. You can distribute after you remove the GPL'd code
and/or substitute it with your own code, or remove the embedded
proprietary code, or re-license the proprietary code with one that is
compatible with the GPL license.

Placing (embedding) a "jmp" or "call" instruction to code residing in a
seperate place in memory is trivial requiring only a few bytes and does
not change the creative aspects of a program since it is a purely
functional and utilitarian addition. Purely functional aspects of
a computer program are not protected by copyright due to the dichotomy
of expression and function.

You are confused. Modification even in uncreative ways is not a right
granted by copyright.

But that is not really relevant for the embedding question. Relevant
for the embedding question is whether the resulting application is an
aggregation, or a new work with new aspects. If it is the latter (and
the choice of the word "embedding" strongly suggests that this is what a
judge would consider), then the GPL allows distribution of the changed
work only if the resulting work as a whole is distributed under the GPL.

As always: your legal fantasies loosely based on some phrases you want
to mean something different are not relevant. Let's see a judge apply
them to GPLed works before you wet yourself over them.

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by David Kastrup
You are confused. Modification even in uncreative ways
is not a right granted by copyright.

You're wrong, for computer programs:
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html>
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to
make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of
that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or
adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization
of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that
it is used in no other manner

The courts have given extremely broad latitude as to what an
"essential step in the utilization" means, including addition
of new functionality. The law is pretty much that you can make
any change you want to a legal copy of a program. Nothing in
this gives you the right to make further copies, though.

[amicus_curious]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by David Kastrup
You are confused. Modification even in uncreative ways
is not a right granted by copyright.

<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html>
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to
make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of
that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or
adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization
of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that
it is used in no other manner
The courts have given extremely broad latitude as to what an
"essential step in the utilization" means, including addition
of new functionality. The law is pretty much that you can make
any change you want to a legal copy of a program. Nothing in
this gives you the right to make further copies, though.

But he GPL states "The act of running the Program is not restricted..."
which means that I can run the program as I wish with no restriction. So I,
as a downstream user of Rjack's modified program am authorized to run the
program with no restriction including, as you note by adding the new
functionality as provided by Rjack. The net effect of this is that the
modifications made by Rjack can be kept proprietary and I can use them in
conjunction with the original code to do whatever it is that Rjack thinks is
better than what it previously did.

[Hyman Rosen]

I, as a downstream user of Rjack's modified program

If a copy of the the program has been conveyed without
complying with the requirements of the GPL, the conveyor
has infringed the copyrights of the holders, and will be
enjoined from further such conveyance and may be subject
to other penalties if the infringement was deliberate.

The recipient of the illegally conveyed program has no
right to further convey it, or to do anything else with
it - holders of illegal copies of a work don't get any
rights.

[amicus_curious]

Post by Hyman Rosen

I, as a downstream user of Rjack's modified program

If a copy of the the program has been conveyed without
complying with the requirements of the GPL, the conveyor
has infringed the copyrights of the holders, and will be
enjoined from further such conveyance and may be subject
to other penalties if the infringement was deliberate.

Well, OK, so say that I post some link somewhere saying that you can get the
Busy Box or whatever source from some place that has it. Now you have said
many times that covers the waterfront for using and conveying the GPL
program. So it is legitimately conveyed and subsequently it is legitimately
modified by adding Rjack's proprietary piece to it to form the improved
program. You cannot sue the customer and I don't see where you can sue the
distributor since he has published the link to the source meeting the GPL
requirement

Post by Hyman Rosen
The recipient of the illegally conveyed program has no
right to further convey it, or to do anything else with
it - holders of illegal copies of a work don't get any
rights.

Well, in my scenario that is just what Rjack would want, since the user is
not allowed to further convey Rjack's additions either. It is pretty much
like selling a program that uses some GPL program as a base but not putting
the whole thing under the GPL. Who cares what the user does with the
original GPL program, there isn't any commercial value in that. The key is
being able to obtain the commercial value from the add-on that does
something new.

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by amicus_curious
Well, OK, so say that I post some link somewhere saying that you can get
the Busy Box or whatever source from some place that has it. Now you
have said many times that covers the waterfront for using and conveying
the GPL program. So it is legitimately conveyed and subsequently it is
legitimately modified by adding Rjack's proprietary piece to it to form
the improved program. You cannot sue the customer and I don't see where
you can sue the distributor since he has published the link to the
source meeting the GPL requirement

Sorry, I can't figure out from your description above who the
actors are and what they are doing. The GPL requires that the
conveyor of a covered work provide the source code for the
version of the work being conveyed. The GPL permits changes to
be made without restriction or requirement to a copy of the
work which is not conveyed. Someone may add a non-free piece to
a GPLed work, but may then not convey the combined work. So if
a "customer" wishes to modify a GPLed work, he is allowed to do
so - indeed, I imagine there are any number of companies who
make in-house modifications to GPLed works and never convey
those works, and so never provide the source for their changes.

Remember, the purpose of the GPL is to provide freedom for users
of software. That's why users are permitted to do all of this
without restriction. But in order to provide freedom for all users,
once someone wants to convey a covered work, they must do so under
the terms of the GPL, so that the recipients can share in the same
freedom.

Post by amicus_curious

Post by Hyman Rosen
The recipient of the illegally conveyed program has no
right to further convey it, or to do anything else with
it - holders of illegal copies of a work don't get any
rights.

Well, in my scenario that is just what Rjack would want, since the user
is not allowed to further convey Rjack's additions either. It is pretty
much like selling a program that uses some GPL program as a base but not
putting the whole thing under the GPL. Who cares what the user does with
the original GPL program, there isn't any commercial value in that. The
key is being able to obtain the commercial value from the add-on that
does something new.

As I said, the GPL requires that the someone who conveys a covered
work provide the source to the version being conveyed, so I don't
know what you mean by "selling a program that uses some GPL program
as a base but not putting the whole thing under the GPL". That is an
infringement of the copyright of the base program.

[RJack]

Remember, the purpose of the GPL is to provide freedom for users of
software. That's why users are permitted to do all of this without
restriction. But in order to provide freedom for all users, once
someone wants to convey a covered work, they must do so under the
terms of the GPL, so that the recipients can share in the same
freedom.

Remember. . . LMAO.

Anything Richard Stallman dreams up, including the claim that "a
copyright license is not a contract" is in your credo. Good luck.

History is replete with pseudo Karl Marx's who believed their
belief system would free mankind from their conception of tyranny.
They've all failed dismally. Happy philosophizing.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[David Kastrup]

Post by RJack

Remember, the purpose of the GPL is to provide freedom for users of
software. That's why users are permitted to do all of this without
restriction. But in order to provide freedom for all users, once
someone wants to convey a covered work, they must do so under the
terms of the GPL, so that the recipients can share in the same
freedom.

Remember. . . LMAO.
Anything Richard Stallman dreams up, including the claim that "a
copyright license is not a contract" is in your credo. Good luck.
History is replete with pseudo Karl Marx's who believed their
belief system would free mankind from their conception of tyranny.

Marx offered not as much a belief system as historical predictions (not
as far off the mark as many want to believe, but also not on-spot:
apparently quite a bit of historic inevitability was evitable) and sort
of a call to arms. It was the job of others to make a pseudo-belief
system from that. Somewhat ironically, to the detriment of some of his
predictions.

Post by RJack
They've all failed dismally. Happy philosophizing.

Well, you can't have both. If you choose to count Stallman among
Marxists, obviously they have not "all failed dismally". Free software
is exploding in importance. And if you choose to not count him among
them, what are you yelling about?

[RJack]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by RJack

Post by Hyman Rosen
Remember, the purpose of the GPL is to provide freedom for users
of software. That's why users are permitted to do all of this
without restriction. But in order to provide freedom for all
users, once someone wants to convey a covered work, they must do
so under the terms of the GPL, so that the recipients can share
in the same freedom.

Remember. . . LMAO.
Anything Richard Stallman dreams up, including the claim that "a
copyright license is not a contract" is in your credo. Good luck.
History is replete with pseudo Karl Marx's who believed their
belief system would free mankind from their conception of tyranny.

Marx offered not as much a belief system as historical predictions
(not as far off the mark as many want to believe, but also not
on-spot: apparently quite a bit of historic inevitability was
evitable) and sort of a call to arms. It was the job of others to
make a pseudo-belief system from that. Somewhat ironically, to the
detriment of some of his predictions.

Post by RJack
They've all failed dismally. Happy philosophizing.

Well, you can't have both. If you choose to count Stallman among
Marxists, obviously they have not "all failed dismally". Free
software is exploding in importance.

Yeah... "exploding in importance". I used to read reports about Linus
Torvald's seminars "World Domination 101" ten years ago.

Same old shit, different decade. LMAO.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

Post by David Kastrup
And if you choose to not count him among them, what are you yelling
about?

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[David Kastrup]

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup
Well, you can't have both. If you choose to count Stallman among
Marxists, obviously they have not "all failed dismally". Free
software is exploding in importance.

Yeah... "exploding in importance". I used to read reports about Linus
Torvald's seminars "World Domination 101" ten years ago.

You really should do something about those hallucinations. There were
no such seminars, just a jocular reference. At least it was sort of
jocular in 1991 or 1992 when it was made. People have stopped laughing
about it long since.

Post by RJack
Same old shit, different decade. LMAO.

Well, world domination in internet servers was already achieved in 1999,
according to <URL:http://leb.net/hzo/ioscount/data/r.9904.txt>

And Apache has been serving more than 50% of active websites for a
similar amount of time.

Among the top 500 super computers, GNU/Linux is employed on 78.2%
<URL:http://www.top500.org/stats/list/34/os>.

That's not exactly insignificant...

[RJack]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup
Well, you can't have both. If you choose to count Stallman among
Marxists, obviously they have not "all failed dismally". Free
software is exploding in importance.

Yeah... "exploding in importance". I used to read reports about
Linus Torvald's seminars "World Domination 101" ten years ago.

You really should do something about those hallucinations. There
were no such seminars, just a jocular reference. At least it was
sort of jocular in 1991 or 1992 when it was made. People have
stopped laughing about it long since.

Post by RJack
Same old shit, different decade. LMAO.

Well, world domination in internet servers was already achieved in
1999, according to <URL:http://leb.net/hzo/ioscount/data/r.9904.txt>
And Apache has been serving more than 50% of active websites for a
similar amount of time.

Apache is GPL ? Hmmm.....

Post by David Kastrup
Among the top 500 super computers, GNU/Linux is employed on 78.2%
<URL:http://www.top500.org/stats/list/34/os>.
That's not exactly insignificant...

The Abacus was was the dominant computer operating system in 1810. LMAO.

Let's be neutral and count 'em all since it's a big World:
======================================================================
OS Platform Statistics
Windows XP is the most popular operating system. The Windows family
counts for almost 90%:

2010 Win7 Vista Win2003 WinXP W2000 Linux Mac
April 16.7% 13.2% 1.3% 56.1% 0.5% 4.5% 7.1%
March 14.7% 13.7% 1.4% 57.8% 0.5% 4.5% 6.9%
Feb 13.0% 14.4% 1.4% 58.4% 0.6% 4.6% 7.1%
Jan 11.3% 15.4% 1.4% 59.4% 0.6% 4.6% 6.8

=======================================================================
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[amicus_curious]

Post by RJack

Remember, the purpose of the GPL is to provide freedom for users of
software. That's why users are permitted to do all of this without
restriction. But in order to provide freedom for all users, once someone
wants to convey a covered work, they must do so under the terms of the
GPL, so that the recipients can share in the same freedom.

Remember. . . LMAO.
Anything Richard Stallman dreams up, including the claim that "a
copyright license is not a contract" is in your credo. Good luck.

I think that was Moglen who came up with that. Stallman is not so astute.

Stallman is a odd duck with an odd appearance and a even odder mantra. For
years he shamelessly used the banner of MIT to hide his mere Harvard
undergraduate qualifications. He is a technician run amok and is no true
son of MIT. He is a charlatan to the core and parades his silly image in
front of wannabe dweebs who confuse such shenanigans with technical
urbanity. Linux, Apache, PHP, and even MySQL have a legitimate place in the
world as public domain, generic solutions to many IT needs, but the sideshow
of the GPL and Stallman's musings do not.

[David Kastrup]

Post by amicus_curious
Stallman is a odd duck with an odd appearance and a even odder mantra.
For years he shamelessly used the banner of MIT to hide his mere
Harvard undergraduate qualifications. He is a technician run amok and
is no true son of MIT. He is a charlatan to the core and parades his
silly image in front of wannabe dweebs who confuse such shenanigans
with technical urbanity.

You should count his commits in Emacs (still ongoing) and Gcc (he
designed, wrote and maintained it for a long time, and many of his
extensions and concepts are still alive).

That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...

Post by amicus_curious
Linux, Apache, PHP, and even MySQL have a legitimate place in the
world as public domain, generic solutions to many IT needs, but the
sideshow of the GPL and Stallman's musings do not.

Huh? Neither of these are public domain. Seems like you don't get
anything right.

[RJack]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by amicus_curious
Stallman is a odd duck with an odd appearance and a even odder
mantra. For years he shamelessly used the banner of MIT to hide his
mere Harvard undergraduate qualifications. He is a technician run
amok and is no true son of MIT. He is a charlatan to the core and
parades his silly image in front of wannabe dweebs who confuse such
shenanigans with technical urbanity.

You should count his commits in Emacs (still ongoing) and Gcc (he
designed, wrote and maintained it for a long time, and many of his
extensions and concepts are still alive).
That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...

Post by amicus_curious
Linux, Apache, PHP, and even MySQL have a legitimate place in the
world as public domain, generic solutions to many IT needs, but the
sideshow of the GPL and Stallman's musings do not.

Huh? Neither of these are public domain.

They are close. You just don't understand that fact yet.

Post by David Kastrup
Seems like you don't get anything right.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[David Kastrup]

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup

Post by amicus_curious
Linux, Apache, PHP, and even MySQL have a legitimate place in the
world as public domain, generic solutions to many IT needs, but the
sideshow of the GPL and Stallman's musings do not.

Huh? Neither of these are public domain.

They are close. You just don't understand that fact yet.

You are confusing "facts" and "theories". And your theories are shown
to collide with the real world time and again.

Again: seems like you don't get anything right.

[amicus_curious]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by amicus_curious
Stallman is a odd duck with an odd appearance and a even odder mantra.
For years he shamelessly used the banner of MIT to hide his mere
Harvard undergraduate qualifications. He is a technician run amok and
is no true son of MIT. He is a charlatan to the core and parades his
silly image in front of wannabe dweebs who confuse such shenanigans
with technical urbanity.

You should count his commits in Emacs (still ongoing) and Gcc (he
designed, wrote and maintained it for a long time, and many of his
extensions and concepts are still alive).
That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...

Old stuff and water long ago under the bridge. Sure he could code back when
it wasn't so hard to do, but what has he done lately? In any case, the
charlatan aspect comes from his misuse of the MIT brand that he did not
deserve, for example the use of gnu.MIT.edu before the institute was made
aware of the practice and put an end to it.. He was a grad school drop out
who got a job as a computer operator, pure and simple. He did no research
and he published nothing of the caliber of the AI lab that he claimed
affinity with. He is a silly wannabe.

Post by David Kastrup

Post by amicus_curious
Linux, Apache, PHP, and even MySQL have a legitimate place in the
world as public domain, generic solutions to many IT needs, but the
sideshow of the GPL and Stallman's musings do not.

Huh? Neither of these are public domain. Seems like you don't get
anything right.

That is just hair-splitting pedantry. You can use these programs MOL as you
wish for generic implementation of IT structures. Certainly there are
pitfalls and such, but they are free for the taking in terms of what the
majority of users do with them. That is great for the hobbyist or for the
the freelancer who doesn't need anything else.

[David Kastrup]

Post by amicus_curious

Post by David Kastrup

Post by amicus_curious
Stallman is a odd duck with an odd appearance and a even odder mantra.
For years he shamelessly used the banner of MIT to hide his mere
Harvard undergraduate qualifications. He is a technician run amok and
is no true son of MIT. He is a charlatan to the core and parades his
silly image in front of wannabe dweebs who confuse such shenanigans
with technical urbanity.

You should count his commits in Emacs (still ongoing) and Gcc (he
designed, wrote and maintained it for a long time, and many of his
extensions and concepts are still alive).
That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...

Old stuff and water long ago under the bridge.

More than you ever did or started.

Post by amicus_curious
Sure he could code back when it wasn't so hard to do,

Uh, what?

Post by amicus_curious
but what has he done lately?

Check the commits to Emacs. Do you you even read what you are replying
to?

Post by amicus_curious
In any case, the charlatan aspect comes from his misuse of the MIT
brand that he did not deserve, for example the use of gnu.MIT.edu
before the institute was made aware of the practice and put an end to
it..

Wow, do you get many facts wrong. He _was_ employed by the AI lab. And
he was invited to distribute GNU software from there by the lab
professor. That's not so unusual: there is a _lot_ of software of
interest for students (and the world) distributed by universities.
Dissemination of information is their prime job.

At some point of time, this distribution became hard to sustain. So
servers were acquired, and distribution changed to those dedicated
servers.

Post by amicus_curious
He was a grad school drop out who got a job as a computer operator,
pure and simple. He did no research and he published nothing of the
caliber of the AI lab that he claimed affinity with. He is a silly
wannabe.

Not as silly as to try pasting over one's utter lack of contributions to
society by choosing a pseudonym like "amicus_curious" and posting
slander about people in an entirely different class.

Post by amicus_curious

Post by David Kastrup

Post by amicus_curious
Linux, Apache, PHP, and even MySQL have a legitimate place in the
world as public domain, generic solutions to many IT needs, but the
sideshow of the GPL and Stallman's musings do not.

Huh? Neither of these are public domain. Seems like you don't get
anything right.

That is just hair-splitting pedantry.

If it were, you would not be spewing bile here. You are doing the
latter because there is a difference, and a difference that counts.

[amicus_curious]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by amicus_curious

Post by David Kastrup

Post by amicus_curious
Stallman is a odd duck with an odd appearance and a even odder mantra.
For years he shamelessly used the banner of MIT to hide his mere
Harvard undergraduate qualifications. He is a technician run amok and
is no true son of MIT. He is a charlatan to the core and parades his
silly image in front of wannabe dweebs who confuse such shenanigans
with technical urbanity.

You should count his commits in Emacs (still ongoing) and Gcc (he
designed, wrote and maintained it for a long time, and many of his
extensions and concepts are still alive).
That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...

Old stuff and water long ago under the bridge.

More than you ever did or started.

Post by amicus_curious
Sure he could code back when it wasn't so hard to do,

Uh, what?

Post by amicus_curious
but what has he done lately?

Check the commits to Emacs. Do you you even read what you are replying
to?

Emacs? LOL.

Post by David Kastrup

Post by amicus_curious
In any case, the charlatan aspect comes from his misuse of the MIT
brand that he did not deserve, for example the use of gnu.MIT.edu
before the institute was made aware of the practice and put an end to
it..

Wow, do you get many facts wrong. He _was_ employed by the AI lab. And
he was invited to distribute GNU software from there by the lab
professor. That's not so unusual: there is a _lot_ of software of
interest for students (and the world) distributed by universities.
Dissemination of information is their prime job.

He was employed as a computer operator assigned to run jobs on a batch
processing system for grad students actually doing research. He was not
invited to distribute software or to use the mit.edu URL and when the lab
director found out he was doing that, the practice ceased.

MIT does not endorse the FSF.

Post by David Kastrup
At some point of time, this distribution became hard to sustain. So
servers were acquired, and distribution changed to those dedicated
servers.

Post by amicus_curious
He was a grad school drop out who got a job as a computer operator,
pure and simple. He did no research and he published nothing of the
caliber of the AI lab that he claimed affinity with. He is a silly
wannabe.

Not as silly as to try pasting over one's utter lack of contributions to
society by choosing a pseudonym like "amicus_curious" and posting
slander about people in an entirely different class.

You presume to know something about me, but you do not. You are just
irritated by the truth.

Post by David Kastrup

Post by amicus_curious

Post by David Kastrup

Post by amicus_curious
Linux, Apache, PHP, and even MySQL have a legitimate place in the
world as public domain, generic solutions to many IT needs, but the
sideshow of the GPL and Stallman's musings do not.

Huh? Neither of these are public domain. Seems like you don't get
anything right.

That is just hair-splitting pedantry.

If it were, you would not be spewing bile here. You are doing the
latter because there is a difference, and a difference that counts.

You are crazy.

[Hadron]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by amicus_curious

Post by David Kastrup

Post by amicus_curious
Stallman is a odd duck with an odd appearance and a even odder mantra.
For years he shamelessly used the banner of MIT to hide his mere
Harvard undergraduate qualifications. He is a technician run amok and
is no true son of MIT. He is a charlatan to the core and parades his
silly image in front of wannabe dweebs who confuse such shenanigans
with technical urbanity.

You should count his commits in Emacs (still ongoing) and Gcc (he
designed, wrote and maintained it for a long time, and many of his
extensions and concepts are still alive).
That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...

Old stuff and water long ago under the bridge.

More than you ever did or started.

Post by amicus_curious
Sure he could code back when it wasn't so hard to do,

Uh, what?

Post by amicus_curious
but what has he done lately?

Check the commits to Emacs. Do you you even read what you are replying
to?

Post by amicus_curious
In any case, the charlatan aspect comes from his misuse of the MIT
brand that he did not deserve, for example the use of gnu.MIT.edu
before the institute was made aware of the practice and put an end to
it..

Wow, do you get many facts wrong. He _was_ employed by the AI lab. And
he was invited to distribute GNU software from there by the lab
professor. That's not so unusual: there is a _lot_ of software of
interest for students (and the world) distributed by universities.
Dissemination of information is their prime job.
At some point of time, this distribution became hard to sustain. So
servers were acquired, and distribution changed to those dedicated
servers.

Post by amicus_curious
He was a grad school drop out who got a job as a computer operator,
pure and simple. He did no research and he published nothing of the
caliber of the AI lab that he claimed affinity with. He is a silly
wannabe.

Not as silly as to try pasting over one's utter lack of contributions to
society by choosing a pseudonym like "amicus_curious" and posting
slander about people in an entirely different class.

Post by amicus_curious

Post by David Kastrup

Post by amicus_curious
Linux, Apache, PHP, and even MySQL have a legitimate place in the
world as public domain, generic solutions to many IT needs, but the
sideshow of the GPL and Stallman's musings do not.

Huh? Neither of these are public domain. Seems like you don't get
anything right.

That is just hair-splitting pedantry.

If it were, you would not be spewing bile here. You are doing the
latter because there is a difference, and a difference that counts.

I remember you once claiming it was all "really simple".

if you somehow don't think those things are PD in a "real sense" then you
need to adjust your medication.

AC was right : you're displaying hair splitting pedantry.

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...

Yeah, yeah.

http://luca.priorelli.com/lang/en-us/2010/05/14/dining-with-richard-m-stallman/

"Dining with Richard M. Stallman

Yesterday I had the fortune (misfortune?) to dine with Richard M.
Stallman aka RMS. Stange person indeed. Very bright, he has an answer
for everything, and the answer is always very intelligent and gives you
lots to think about.

That said, I think he is also the most discourteous and rude person I
met in my life (which spans, I regret to say, over half a century).
True, he is a globe trotter giving conferences constantly everywhere,
and he certainly had his good share of bad experiences, but... nobody
has condemned him to do it.

So, while the memory is still warm, I thought to give him few (unasked
and unwanted, I am afraid) suggestions that may help improve his
manners:

At table:

1. do not read when you are with other people, especially while they are
talking to you

2. do not keep your netbook over the dish, constantly typing on it and
lifting it only when you have to take a fork of whatever lies under it

3. do not get angry and accuse your host for not having consulted with
you in advance on what you like and dislike to eat

4. do not charge your host with the mischief of having irreparably
ruined your dinner due to his totally lack of courtesy (sic!)

5. when somebody asks you a question do not ignore him and start to talk
with the person at his side

6. if somebody, concerned of your tiredness, asks you if you prefer to
stay silent, do not answer “yes, unless you have something important to
say”

At a conference:

1. do not remove your shoes and socks and start massaging your feet with
a cream

2. if somebody asks you a question don’t start the answer with a “your
question is meaningless”

3. wait for the question to be completed and do not interrupt assuming
the rest and then reproach your interlocutor that he is making
assumptions and assumptions are wrong

In general:

1. try to find some time to read a good book on the subject of
“etiquette”. There are many

2. see if the evangelical concept of “why do you look at the speck of
sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your
own eye?” can be applied also to you

3. before accepting an invitation, get acquainted with the customs of
the place you are going, and if you don’t like them, don’t send them in
advance a paper explaining how you expect to be treated and then treat
them as idiots for not having fully complied with all your requests. Try
to adapt. If you cannot, simply don’t go. So doing, you will not offend
anybody and your cause would not be damaged.

Anyway, I am still on the FLOSS side."

<chuckles>

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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.)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://luca.priorelli.com/lang/en-us/2010/05/14/dining-with-richard-m-stallman/

It is not unknown for people with unique vision to
have personal eccentricities. Fortunately, tolerating
the eccentricities is limited to their circle of
acquaintances, while the visionary ideas can spread
to influence a much larger audience.

How much more sad to be an endlessly ranting crank.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
It is not unknown for people with unique vision to

[...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
acquaintances, while the visionary ideas can spread

Stallman is an ill person without any visionary ideas. See the GNG link
below.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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.)

[Hyman Rosen]

Stallman is ... without any visionary ideas.

On the contrary, in a world of locked-down systems,
his ideas about freedom for users have never been
more relevant.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Stallman is ... without any visionary ideas.

On the contrary, in a world of locked-down systems,
his ideas about freedom for users have never been
more relevant.

Take your meds Hyman. Take your meds.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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.)

[Clogwog]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...

Yeah, yeah.
http://luca.priorelli.com/lang/en-us/2010/05/14/dining-with-richard-m-stallman/
"Dining with Richard M. Stallman
Yesterday I had the fortune (misfortune?) to dine with Richard M.
Stallman aka RMS. Stange person indeed. Very bright, he has an answer
for everything, and the answer is always very intelligent and gives you
lots to think about.
That said, I think he is also the most discourteous and rude person I
met in my life (which spans, I regret to say, over half a century).
True, he is a globe trotter giving conferences constantly everywhere,
and he certainly had his good share of bad experiences, but... nobody
has condemned him to do it.
So, while the memory is still warm, I thought to give him few (unasked
and unwanted, I am afraid) suggestions that may help improve his
1. do not read when you are with other people, especially while they are
talking to you
2. do not keep your netbook over the dish, constantly typing on it and
lifting it only when you have to take a fork of whatever lies under it
3. do not get angry and accuse your host for not having consulted with
you in advance on what you like and dislike to eat
4. do not charge your host with the mischief of having irreparably
ruined your dinner due to his totally lack of courtesy (sic!)
5. when somebody asks you a question do not ignore him and start to talk
with the person at his side
6. if somebody, concerned of your tiredness, asks you if you prefer to
stay silent, do not answer "yes, unless you have something important to
say"
1. do not remove your shoes and socks and start massaging your feet with
a cream

He ate his toe jam (a nasty, smelly substance that collects between the toes
of unwashed feet), probably! ;-)
"Richard Stallman Eats Something From His Foot"

Post by Alexander Terekhov
2. if somebody asks you a question don't start the answer with a "your
question is meaningless"
3. wait for the question to be completed and do not interrupt assuming
the rest and then reproach your interlocutor that he is making
assumptions and assumptions are wrong
1. try to find some time to read a good book on the subject of
"etiquette". There are many
2. see if the evangelical concept of "why do you look at the speck of
sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your
own eye?" can be applied also to you
3. before accepting an invitation, get acquainted with the customs of
the place you are going, and if you don't like them, don't send them in
advance a paper explaining how you expect to be treated and then treat
them as idiots for not having fully complied with all your requests. Try
to adapt. If you cannot, simply don't go. So doing, you will not offend
anybody and your cause would not be damaged.
Anyway, I am still on the FLOSS side."
<chuckles>
regards,
alexander.
P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."
P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."
--
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.)

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
That's not _quite_ the track of a charlatan...

Yeah, yeah.
http://luca.priorelli.com/lang/en-us/2010/05/14/dining-with-richard-m-stallman/
"Dining with Richard M. Stallman

As always, you quote something that actually is against the point you
try to make. This (rather crude) article does not call Stallman a
charlatan, but rather a lot of other things.

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by RJack
They've all failed dismally.

Unfortunately, free software is failing miserably as well,
because people are happy to trade principle for convenience,
viz. Apple.

[RJack]

Post by RJack
They've all failed dismally.

Unfortunately, free software is failing miserably as well, because
people are happy to trade principle for convenience, viz. Apple.

As "Free Software" continues to fail, true unencumbered open source
code will accelerate it's benefits to the public by encouraging new
proprietary free market competition thus benefiting everyone. People who
don't like the real, unconstrained "freedom" of BSD and MIT style
licenses can place their code under their pillows or sell it to the
highest bidder. Now, that's *real* freedom.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by RJack
As "Free Software" continues to fail

Of course, as the SFLC lawsuits demonstrate, free software
hasn't gone away yet. And in none of the concluded lawsuits
brought by the SFLC have any of the defendants chosen to stop
using free software. Instead, they have made the sources
properly available under the GPL.

[David Kastrup]

Post by RJack

Post by RJack
They've all failed dismally.

Unfortunately, free software is failing miserably as well, because
people are happy to trade principle for convenience, viz. Apple.

As "Free Software" continues to fail, true unencumbered open source
code will accelerate it's benefits to the public by encouraging new
proprietary free market competition thus benefiting everyone.

Again, reality has chosen a path different from your pipe dreams. The
GPL accounts for the licensing of the vast majority of available (and
deployed) free software.

And "proprietary free market competition" is an oxymoron since
proprietary software is _not_ available for creating competition on the
free market. Free software distributors compete with one another, as
everyone can do the job of the next one. The distribution of
proprietary software, in contrast, is locked to a set of authorized
distributors.

[Hadron]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by RJack
They've all failed dismally.

Unfortunately, free software is failing miserably as well,
because people are happy to trade principle for convenience,
viz. Apple.

You can only trade what you have. And most people do not have
"principles" about paying for and using good closed commercial code.

The problems with lunatics like you and DK is that you think we should
all adhere to your nutty something for nothing principles.

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Hadron

Post by Hyman Rosen
Unfortunately, free software is failing miserably as well,
because people are happy to trade principle for convenience,
viz. Apple.

You can only trade what you have. And most people do not have
"principles" about paying for and using good closed commercial code.

Free software, like any other public advocacy movement, attempts
to educate people about the issues involved. Sometimes these efforts
succeed, and sometimes they fail. With the technology world involved
in digital rights management, selective output control, region coding,
restrictive application stores, and "jailbreaking" phones, it may
become more apparent to the public how important freedom is to end
users, how those freedoms have been exchanged for convenience or less,
and how prescient Richard Stallman was in foreseeing this decades ago.
Or it may not. You never know.

Post by Hadron
The problems with lunatics like you and DK is that you think we
should all adhere to your nutty something for nothing principles.

Regardless of what we think others should do, the free software
movement has created a commons under the GPL where like-minded
people can share code and preserve the freedom of users. The
problem with thieves like you and the other anti-GPL cranks is
that you want to steal works from there without honoring the
exclusive rights that those creators are given by US law.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Hadron

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by RJack
They've all failed dismally.

Unfortunately, free software is failing miserably as well,
because people are happy to trade principle for convenience,
viz. Apple.

You can only trade what you have. And most people do not have
"principles" about paying for and using good closed commercial code.
The problems with lunatics like you and DK is that you think we should
all adhere to your nutty something for nothing principles.

If you use software I wrote, you have to heed the license under which
you got it. The only adherence involved is that to copyright law.

I'd be fine if nobody had to adhere to what by now amounts to an absurd
block of knowledge dissemination, but as long as those laws are in
effect, you are not free to use software I wrote other than under those
terms I license them.

If you are not fine with that, talk to your congressman about reducing
the power of copyright.

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
If you are not fine with that, talk to your congressman about reducing
the power of copyright.

Reducing the power of copyright would not satisfy true GNUtians, you
retard dak.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community-2000.html

"AM4: The problem with this change in the copyright laws for three
would be that you wouldn't get the sources.

RMS: Right. There would have also to be a condition, a law that to
sell copies of the software to the public the source code must be
deposited somewhere so that three years later it can be released. So
it could be deposited say, with the library of congress in the US,
and I think other countries have similar institutions where copies
of published books get placed, and they could also received the
source code and after three years, publish it. And of course, if the
source code didn't correspond to the executable that would be fraud,
and in fact if it really corresponds then they ought to be able to
check that very easily when the work is published initially so
you're publishing the source code and somebody there says alright
"dot slash configure dot slash make" and sees if produces the same
executables and uh.

So you're right, just eliminating copyright would not make software
free.

AM5: Um libre

RMS: Right."

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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.)

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
If you are not fine with that, talk to your congressman about reducing
the power of copyright.

Reducing the power of copyright would not satisfy true GNUtians, you
retard dak.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community-2000.html

[...]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
So you're right, just eliminating copyright would not make software
free.
AM5: Um libre
RMS: Right."

Sure, it has not just advantages. But the advantages would outweigh the
disadvantages enough to make them worthwhile.

[RJack]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Hadron

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by RJack
They've all failed dismally.

Unfortunately, free software is failing miserably as well,
because people are happy to trade principle for convenience, viz.
Apple.

You can only trade what you have. And most people do not have
"principles" about paying for and using good closed commercial code.
The problems with lunatics like you and DK is that you think we
should all adhere to your nutty something for nothing principles.

If you use software I wrote, you have to heed the license under which
you got it.

Only if the contract terms are legally enforceable -- which in the case
of the GPL they aren't.

Post by David Kastrup
The only adherence involved is that to copyright law.
I'd be fine if nobody had to adhere to what by now amounts to an
absurd block of knowledge dissemination, but as long as those laws
are in effect, you are not free to use software I wrote other than
under those terms I license them.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

Post by David Kastrup
If you are not fine with that, talk to your congressman about
reducing the power of copyright.

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by RJack
Only if the contract terms are legally enforceable -- which in the case
of the GPL they aren't.

The license terms of the GPL are perfectly legal, and
are assumed voluntarily by anyone who chooses to copy
and distribute GPL-covered works. There is no other
permission available to copy and distribute such works,
so anyone who does so without honoring the terms of the
GPL will have the terms of copyright infringement legally
enforced against them.

[RJack]

Post by RJack
Only if the contract terms are legally enforceable -- which in the
case of the GPL they aren't.

The license terms of the GPL are perfectly legal, and are assumed
voluntarily by anyone who chooses to copy and distribute GPL-covered
works. There is no other permission available to copy and distribute
such works, so anyone who does so without honoring the terms of the
GPL will have the terms of copyright infringement legally enforced
against them.

A U.S. court has *never* enforced a single term of the GPL contract
and *never* will. You're dreaming -- or hallucinating.

A winning court ruling in the hand is worth 100 losing voluntary
dismissals in the bush. ROFL and LMAO.

Keep on spinnin' Hyman -- just keep on spinnin'.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by RJack
A U.S. court has *never* enforced a single term of the GPL contract

Thus far, when copyright infringement of GPL-covered works
have been brought to trial, the defendants have agreed to
comply with the GPL, so no court enforcement has been needed.

Post by RJack
and *never* will.

I agree that it's likely that compliance with the GPL will
always be forthcoming, but you can never tell.

[RJack]

Post by RJack
A U.S. court has *never* enforced a single term of the GPL contract

Thus far, when copyright infringement of GPL-covered works have been
brought to trial,

So far, every plaintiff in a GPL lawsuit has cut and run prior to
the court ever reading the GPL contract -- must less judging it terms.

the defendants have agreed to comply with the GPL, so no court
enforcement has been needed.

Post by RJack
and *never* will.

I agree that it's likely that compliance with the GPL will always be
forthcoming, but you can never tell.

It is easily verfied that the term "compliance" has never been raised in
a GPL lawsuit -- must less enforced.

LMAO:
One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came
to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over
a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing
back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch.
Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no
greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but
at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air,
saying: "I am sure they are sour."


Sincerely,
RJack :)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by RJack
So far, every plaintiff in a GPL lawsuit has cut and run prior to
the court ever reading the GPL contract -- must less judging it terms.

The purpose of these lawsuits is to enforce copyright
of GPL-covered works. Since the defendants in all the
concluded cases have come into compliance with the GPL,
the lawsuits accomplished their purpose. Lawsuits do
not continue when the parties no longer have a dispute.
Courts do not offer opinions for the satisfaction of
cranks.

Post by RJack
It is easily verfied that the term "compliance" has
never been raised in a GPL lawsuit -- must less enforced.

You are lying:
<http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf>
25. Plaintiffs have at no time granted any permission to
any party to copy, modify, or distribute BusyBox under any
terms other than those of the License. Plaintiffs do not
permit anyone to distribute BusyBox except in compliance
with the License.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
<http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf>
25. Plaintiffs have at no time granted any permission to
any party to copy, modify, or distribute BusyBox under any
terms other than those of the License. Plaintiffs do not
permit anyone to distribute BusyBox except in compliance
with the License.

See PRAYER FOR RELIEF, you idiot. It is easily verified that the term
"compliance" has never been raised in PRAYER FOR RELIEF in a GPL lawsuit
-- must less enforced.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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.)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
It is easily verified that the term
"compliance" has never been raised in PRAYER FOR RELIEF in a GPL lawsuit
-- must less enforced.

Of course not, since compliance with the GPL cannot be compelled.
Accepting its requirements is completely voluntary. The prayers
for relief are those normally demanded in cases of copyright
infringement. It is up to the defendants to plead acceptance of
the license if they so choose, and then to explain why they have
not complied with it.

[RJack]

Post by RJack
So far, every plaintiff in a GPL lawsuit has cut and run prior to
the court ever reading the GPL contract -- must less judging it terms.

The purpose of these lawsuits is to enforce copyright of GPL-covered
works. Since the defendants in all the concluded cases have come into
compliance with the GPL, the lawsuits accomplished their purpose.
Lawsuits do not continue when the parties no longer have a dispute.
Courts do not offer opinions for the satisfaction of cranks.

Post by RJack
It is easily verfied that the term "compliance" has never been
raised in a GPL lawsuit -- must less enforced.

<http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf>
25. Plaintiffs have at no time granted any permission to any party to
copy, modify, or distribute BusyBox under any terms other than those
of the License. Plaintiffs do not permit anyone to distribute
BusyBox except in compliance with the License.

That has nothing to do with the relief requests raised by the plaintiffs
in any SFLC lawsuit. Twist and squirm all you want Hyman but a court has
never granted anything an SFLC lawsuit any plaintiff has ever requested
because they have cut and run before any judge could ever read their
complaint.

Keep on spinnin' Hyman -- just keep on spinnin'.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[RJack]

The SFLC has been granted a pre-motion conference with Judge Scheindlin
requesting permission to file for FRCP 56 Summary Judgment with respect
to defendant Western Digital Electronics LLC. Western Digital has filed
an ABC (assignment for the benefit of creditors) in the state of
California and does not anticipate responding to the SFLC suit.

Should Judge Scheindlin grant permission for the SFLC to file for
Summary Judgment, the controlling law in the Second Circuit which
defines the guidelines for a district court to follow is:

"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that if a non-moving party
fails to oppose a summary judgment motion, then "summary judgment, if
appropriate, shall be entered against" him. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) (emphasis
added). This Court has made clear, however, that where the non-moving
party "chooses the perilous path of failing to submit a response to a
summary judgment motion, the district court may not grant the motion
without first examining the moving party's submission to determine if it
has met its burden of demonstrating that no material issue of fact
remains for trial." Amaker, 274 F.3d at 681. If the evidence submitted
in support of the summary judgment motion does not meet the movant's
burden of production, then "summary judgment must be denied even if no
opposing evidentiary matter is presented." Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted); Giannullo, 322 F.3d at 141 (noting that the "non-movant is not
required to rebut an insufficient showing"). Moreover, in determining
whether the moving party has met this burden of showing the absence of a
genuine issue for trial, the district court may not rely solely on the
statement of undisputed facts contained in the moving party's Rule 56.1
statement. It must be satisfied that the citation to evidence in the
record supports the assertion. Giannullo, 322 F.3d at 143 n. 5 (stating
that not verifying in the record the assertions in the motion for
summary judgment "would derogate the truth-finding functions of the
judicial process by substituting convenience for facts").

An unopposed summary judgment motion may also fail where the undisputed
facts fail to "`show that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.'" Champion v. Artuz, 76 F.3d 483, 486 (2d Cir.1996) (per
curiam) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). Where the order granting summary
judgment is insufficiently clear to permit this Court to determine
whether the grounds for granting the motion are valid, remand is
appropriate. See Miranda v. Bennett, 322 F.3d 171, 175 (2d Cir.2003);
Amaker, 274 F.3d at 681 n. 1 (vacating and remanding the judgment of the
district court that granted an unopposed summary judgment motion is
singularly appropriate "as the district court is in a far better
position to conduct a summary judgment analysis in the first instance")."
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/373/373.F3d.241.03-7030.html

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[RJack]

The SFLC is filing for a Default Judgment in the alternative to Summary
Judgment. There is no burden of proof in a default judgment.

The Judge Scheindlin believes that Western Digital was manufacturing
"Busy Boxes".

I can see that this defendant's (Western Digital) default is going to
be a real hummdinger. Anyone ever seen a "Busy Box" manufactured by
Western Digital?

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[RJack]

The SFLC's PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST
DEFENDANT WESTINGHOUSE DIGITAL ELECTRONICS,
LLC states:

"4 The version of BusyBox distributed by Westinghouse is believed to be
version v0.60.2. D. Kuhn ¶ 10; SMF ¶ 14. While Mr. Andersen owns
copyright in portions of that version of BusyBox as well, the copyright
registration here was for the next subsequent version of BusyBox,
v0.60.3. D. Andersen ¶ 4; SMF ¶ 4. However, since Mr. Andersen “is the
owner of the copyright of both the derivative and preexisting work, the
registration certificate relating to the derivative work in this
circumstance will suffice to permit it to maintain an action for
infringement based on defendants' infringement of the preexisting work.”
Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. Vandam, Inc., 159 F.3D 739, 747 (2d Cir. 1998).
Thus, the registration for v0.60.3 constitutes registration for v0.60.2
as well."

The official source for v0.60.2 is here:

http://www.busybox.net/downloads/legacy/busybox-0.60.2.tar.gz

A grep of the source tree for v0.60.2 reflects Erik Andersen's
name appears in the following files:

autodocifier.pl
bootfloppy.txt
BusyBox.html
BusyBox.html
BusyBox.txt
depmod.pl
index.html
oldnews.html

The compiled BusyBox binary v0.60.2 that Andersen claims that Western
Digital is distributing is allegedly in a ramdisk kernel image according
to his sworn witness D. Kuhn.

Andersen's contribution to v0.60.2 consists of name mention in four html
scripts, two text files and two perl scripts.

NONE OF THE FILES MENTIONING ERIK ANDERSEN IN THE SOURCE TREE FOR
v0.60.2 ARE COMPILED INTO THE CLAIMED BINARY VERSION OF BUSYBOX THAT IS
ALLEGEDLY DISTRIBUTED BY WESTERN DIGITAL.

His "contribution" to v0.60.2 consists of name mention in four html
scripts, two text files and two perl scripts.

Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2 although
he has contributed no executable code to the compiled BusyBox binary at
all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than this. It would be a
toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar -- The Sofware Freedom
Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.

If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent request for
default judgment to proceed, they should be restricted to practicing law
in Siberia.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[RayLopez99]

Post by RJack
Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2 although
he has contributed no executable code to the compiled BusyBox binary at
all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than this. It would be a
toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar -- The Sofware Freedom
Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.
If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent request for
default judgment to proceed, they should be restricted to practicing law
in Siberia.

Right. And they won't. This is just another IP troll attempt, this
time by the Linux crowd, to extract money from corporations in the
legal arena after having failed in the marketplace. Opera browser did
it with Microsoft in Europe.

RL

[David Kastrup]

Post by RayLopez99

Post by RJack
Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2 although
he has contributed no executable code to the compiled BusyBox binary at
all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than this. It would be a
toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar -- The Sofware Freedom
Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.
If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent request for
default judgment to proceed, they should be restricted to practicing law
in Siberia.

Right. And they won't. This is just another IP troll attempt, this
time by the Linux crowd, to extract money from corporations in the
legal arena after having failed in the marketplace.

<URL:http://www.top500.org/stats/list/35/osfam>

455 systems are powered by Linux. 5 systems by Windows.

I consider this more a sign of failure of Microsoft's "High performance
computing Windows" initiative.

<URL:http://www.drdobbs.com/184404102>

Thomas Watson, Jr, IBM's CEO, noted in a famous memo to IBM
employees: "Last week, Control Data ... announced the 6600 system. I
understand that in the laboratory developing the system there are
only 34 people including the janitor. Of these, 14 are engineers and
4 are programmers... Contrasting this modest effort with our vast
development activities, I fail to understand why we have lost our
industry leadership position by letting someone else offer the
world's most powerful computer." To which Cray replied: "It seems
like Mr. Watson has answered his own question."

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Post by David Kastrup

<snipped>

<URL:http://www.top500.org/stats/list/35/osfam>
455 systems are powered by Linux. 5 systems by Windows.
I consider this more a sign of failure of Microsoft's "High performance
computing Windows" initiative.
<URL:http://www.drdobbs.com/184404102>
Thomas Watson, Jr, IBM's CEO, noted in a famous memo to IBM
employees: "Last week, Control Data ... announced the 6600 system. I
understand that in the laboratory developing the system there are
only 34 people including the janitor. Of these, 14 are engineers and
4 are programmers... Contrasting this modest effort with our vast
development activities, I fail to understand why we have lost our
industry leadership position by letting someone else offer the
world's most powerful computer." To which Cray replied: "It seems
like Mr. Watson has answered his own question."

Sounds like the "Mythical Man-Month" ought to be called the
"Microsoft Man-Month".

[RJack]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by RayLopez99

Post by RJack
Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2
although he has contributed no executable code to the compiled
BusyBox binary at all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than
this. It would be a toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar --
The Sofware Freedom Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.
If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent
request for default judgment to proceed, they should be
restricted to practicing law in Siberia.

Right. And they won't. This is just another IP troll attempt,
this time by the Linux crowd, to extract money from corporations in
the legal arena after having failed in the marketplace.

<URL:http://www.top500.org/stats/list/35/osfam>
455 systems are powered by Linux. 5 systems by Windows.
I consider this more a sign of failure of Microsoft's "High
performance computing Windows" initiative.
<URL:http://www.drdobbs.com/184404102>
Thomas Watson, Jr, IBM's CEO, noted in a famous memo to IBM
employees: "Last week, Control Data ... announced the 6600 system. I
understand that in the laboratory developing the system there are
only 34 people including the janitor. Of these, 14 are engineers and
4 are programmers... Contrasting this modest effort with our vast
development activities, I fail to understand why we have lost our
industry leadership position by letting someone else offer the
world's most powerful computer." To which Cray replied: "It seems
like Mr. Watson has answered his own question."

Let's be neutral and count 'em all since it's a big World:
======================================================================
OS Platform Statistics
Windows XP is the most popular operating system. The Windows family
counts for almost 90%:

2010 Win7 Vista Win2003 WinXP W2000 Linux Mac
April 16.7% 13.2% 1.3% 56.1% 0.5% 4.5% 7.1%
March 14.7% 13.7% 1.4% 57.8% 0.5% 4.5% 6.9%
Feb 13.0% 14.4% 1.4% 58.4% 0.6% 4.6% 7.1%
Jan 11.3% 15.4% 1.4% 59.4% 0.6% 4.6% 6.8

=======================================================================
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[David Kastrup]

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup

Post by RayLopez99
Right. And they won't. This is just another IP troll attempt,
this time by the Linux crowd, to extract money from corporations in
the legal arena after having failed in the marketplace.

<URL:http://www.top500.org/stats/list/35/osfam>
455 systems are powered by Linux. 5 systems by Windows.
I consider this more a sign of failure of Microsoft's "High
performance computing Windows" initiative.
<URL:http://www.drdobbs.com/184404102>
Thomas Watson, Jr, IBM's CEO, noted in a famous memo to IBM
employees: "Last week, Control Data ... announced the 6600 system. I
understand that in the laboratory developing the system there are
only 34 people including the janitor. Of these, 14 are engineers and
4 are programmers... Contrasting this modest effort with our vast
development activities, I fail to understand why we have lost our
industry leadership position by letting someone else offer the
world's most powerful computer." To which Cray replied: "It seems
like Mr. Watson has answered his own question."

So you are saying that CDC was a failure for not producing commodity
computers?

Post by RJack
======================================================================
OS Platform Statistics
Windows XP is the most popular operating system. The Windows family
2010 Win7 Vista Win2003 WinXP W2000 Linux Mac
April 16.7% 13.2% 1.3% 56.1% 0.5% 4.5% 7.1%
March 14.7% 13.7% 1.4% 57.8% 0.5% 4.5% 6.9%
Feb 13.0% 14.4% 1.4% 58.4% 0.6% 4.6% 7.1%
Jan 11.3% 15.4% 1.4% 59.4% 0.6% 4.6% 6.8
=======================================================================
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

Actually, this will likely not take into account browsers masking
themselves as Internet Explorer in order not to get fed hogwash (at some
point of time, microsoft.com actually returned special rubbish code for
browsers identifying themselves as "Opera", designed to look like a
rendering error, whereas the code returned for "Internet Explorer"
rendered just fine on Opera).

Anyway, "after having failed in the marketplace" insinuates that the
story is over. I don't see that... It is just starting to get
interesting, actually.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by RayLopez99

Post by RJack
Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2 although
he has contributed no executable code to the compiled BusyBox binary at
all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than this. It would be a
toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar -- The Sofware Freedom
Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.
If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent request for
default judgment to proceed, they should be restricted to practicing law
in Siberia.

Right. And they won't. This is just another IP troll attempt, this
time by the Linux crowd, to extract money from corporations in the
legal arena after having failed in the marketplace. Opera browser did
it with Microsoft in Europe.

No sane 'troll' would move against utterly assetless and bankrupt
defendant.

See "California State equivalent to bankruptcy" in

http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-117-4.pdf

What does the SFLC really want to achieve moving against defenceless
assetless bankrupt entity?

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.)

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by RayLopez99

Post by RJack
Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2 although
he has contributed no executable code to the compiled BusyBox binary at
all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than this. It would be a
toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar -- The Sofware Freedom
Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.
If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent request for
default judgment to proceed, they should be restricted to practicing law
in Siberia.

Right. And they won't. This is just another IP troll attempt, this
time by the Linux crowd, to extract money from corporations in the
legal arena after having failed in the marketplace. Opera browser did
it with Microsoft in Europe.

No sane 'troll' would move against utterly assetless and bankrupt
defendant.

If he's in for the money, sure.

Post by Alexander Terekhov
See "California State equivalent to bankruptcy" in
http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-117-4.pdf
What does the SFLC really want to achieve moving against defenceless
assetless bankrupt entity?

Compliance. Like always. Like stated in their pleading. Like what
they always settle for. You don't need money to comply with the GPL.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by RayLopez99

Post by RJack
Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2 although
he has contributed no executable code to the compiled BusyBox binary at
all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than this. It would be a
toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar -- The Sofware Freedom
Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.
If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent request for
default judgment to proceed, they should be restricted to practicing law
in Siberia.

Right. And they won't. This is just another IP troll attempt, this
time by the Linux crowd, to extract money from corporations in the
legal arena after having failed in the marketplace. Opera browser did
it with Microsoft in Europe.

No sane 'troll' would move against utterly assetless and bankrupt
defendant.

If he's in for the money, sure.

Post by Alexander Terekhov
See "California State equivalent to bankruptcy" in
http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-117-4.pdf
What does the SFLC really want to achieve moving against defenceless
assetless bankrupt entity?

Compliance.

The defendant is an assetless bankrupt you idiot.

http://bankruptcy.cooley.com/2008/03/articles/the-financially-troubled-compa/assignments-for-the-benefit-of-creditors-simple-as-abc/

"The ABC is an insolvency proceeding governed by state law rather than
federal bankruptcy law. "

Post by David Kastrup
Like always.

Uh retard dak. Read the memorandum, it's not about compliance, stupid.

http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-113.pdf

So once again:

What does the SFLC really want to achieve moving against defenceless
assetless bankrupt entity?

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.)

[RJack]

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by RayLopez99

Post by RJack
Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2
although he has contributed no executable code to the compiled
BusyBox binary at all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than
this. It would be a toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar --
The Sofware Freedom Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.
If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent
request for default judgment to proceed, they should be
restricted to practicing law in Siberia.

Right. And they won't. This is just another IP troll attempt,
this time by the Linux crowd, to extract money from corporations in
the legal arena after having failed in the marketplace. Opera
browser did it with Microsoft in Europe.

No sane 'troll' would move against utterly assetless and bankrupt
defendant.
See "California State equivalent to bankruptcy" in
http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-117-4.pdf
What does the SFLC really want to achieve moving against defenceless
assetless bankrupt entity?

A PROPAGANDA VICTORY.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[Alexander Terekhov]

RJack wrote:
[...]

Post by RJack
A PROPAGANDA VICTORY.

http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-121.pdf

<chuckles>

Uh retards at SFLC...

In other news, Humax USA Inc. was dismissed without any settlement at
all.

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.)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
In other news, Humax USA Inc. was dismissed without
any settlement at all.

Humax makes the GPLed source code properly available here:
<http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx>

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
In other news, Humax USA Inc. was dismissed without
any settlement at all.

Humax makes ...

Show me a settlement agreement you silly.

BTW, did you try to *use* the sources offered by Humax?

"I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system
so that I can do the builds."

Attr: Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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.)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Show me a settlement agreement

Settlement agreements are often kept private between
the parties to the suit, and are likely to contain
things such as financial settlements which are not
pertinent to the public aspects of a GPL lawsuit. It
is the fully public web page
<http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx>
which demonstrates that Humax is properly complying
with the requirements of the GPL.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
is the fully public web page
<http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx>
which demonstrates ...

LOL.

Did you try to use the sources offered by Humax, silly?

"I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system
so that I can do the builds."

Attr: Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

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.)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Did you try to use the sources offered by Humax

No. I have no reason to believe that they are not exactly
what they purport to be, I do not own any Humax devices,
and I'm insufficiently motivated to set up a development
environment in order to mollify a Usenet crank who would
in any event choose to disbelieve evidence not fitting his
warped worldview.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Did you try to use the sources offered by Humax

No. I have no reason to believe that they are not exactly

Click on "busybox-1.2.2.1.tar.gz" you retard.

http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx

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.)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Click on "busybox-1.2.2.1.tar.gz"
http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx

Yes? It first asks you to register, and when you do and log in,
you get the source code. Is there some point you're making?

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Click on "busybox-1.2.2.1.tar.gz"
http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx

Yes? It first asks you to register, and when you do and log in,
you get the source code. Is there some point you're making?

Try using the source code silly and report the results.

<chuckles>

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.)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Click on "busybox-1.2.2.1.tar.gz"
http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx

Yes? It first asks you to register, and when you do and log in,
you get the source code. Is there some point you're making?

Try using the source code and report the results.

Why?

[RJack]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
In other news, Humax USA Inc. was dismissed without any settlement
at all.

<http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx>

The only GPL'd code at issue is "BusyBox, v.0.60.3" registered
(fraudulently) by Erik Andersen. *No* hypothetical Busybox suit
"settlement" ever filed has produced a link to the purportedly
infringed code. The most evidence produced by the SFLC of infringement
in *any* suit is the presence of a text string "v.60.2" in an alleged
binary ramdisk (see SFLC Rule 56.1 statement of uncontested facts).

Well folks that's six identified bytes from a source tree of two million
seven hundred thousand bytes. That's about 0.00022 percent infringement.
Good luck convincing a jury of "substantial similarity" Hyman.

Rolling On the Fucking Laughing.

Sincerely,
RJack

[David Kastrup]

Post by RJack

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
In other news, Humax USA Inc. was dismissed without any settlement
at all.

<http://www.humaxdigital.com/global/products/opensource.aspx>

The only GPL'd code at issue is "BusyBox, v.0.60.3" registered
(fraudulently) by Erik Andersen.

Are you claiming that he is not the author of any BusyBox code?

Post by RJack
*No* hypothetical Busybox suit "settlement" ever filed has produced a
link to the purportedly infringed code.

The "purportedly infringed code" is any copyrightable material from Erik
Anderson that can be found in both the registered version of Busybox as
well as the infringing code.

Post by RJack
The most evidence produced by the SFLC of infringement in *any* suit
is the presence of a text string "v.60.2" in an alleged binary ramdisk
(see SFLC Rule 56.1 statement of uncontested facts).
Well folks that's six identified bytes from a source tree of two
million seven hundred thousand bytes. That's about 0.00022 percent
infringement.

A smoking gun is a smoking gun. It is not against the law to carry
smoking guns on the premises of a murder. It is nevertheless something
that you should have an outstandingly good explanation for when talking
to a jury.

Post by RJack
Good luck convincing a jury of "substantial similarity" Hyman.

Good luck convincing a jury that all you left in was the
(non-copyrightable) version string.

"Oh, I carry smoking guns around all the time. Bad habit of me,
really."

[RJack]

Post by David Kastrup
A smoking gun is a smoking gun. It is not against the law to carry
smoking guns on the premises of a murder. It is nevertheless
something that you should have an outstandingly good explanation for
when talking to a jury.

Post by RJack
Good luck convincing a jury of "substantial similarity" Hyman.

Good luck convincing the judge to instruct the jury that the burden of
proof is a "smoking gun" and not a preponderance of the evidence.

Post by David Kastrup
Good luck convincing a jury that all you left in was the
(non-copyrightable) version string.

Left in what? The couple of million occcurences of non-registered,
non-identified random numbers?

This discussion is academic at best. Long, long before any jury would
hear any admissible evidence, Judge Scheindlin will have shredded and
discarded the GPL licnese.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[David Kastrup]

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup
A smoking gun is a smoking gun. It is not against the law to carry
smoking guns on the premises of a murder. It is nevertheless
something that you should have an outstandingly good explanation for
when talking to a jury.

Post by RJack
Good luck convincing a jury of "substantial similarity" Hyman.

Good luck convincing the judge to instruct the jury that the burden of
proof is a "smoking gun" and not a preponderance of the evidence.

Post by David Kastrup
Good luck convincing a jury that all you left in was the
(non-copyrightable) version string.

Left in what? The couple of million occcurences of non-registered,
non-identified random numbers?

Every single copyrighted literary work consists of million occurences of
letters. Well, millions for larger works.

Not a particularly convincing argument you try here.

Post by RJack
This discussion is academic at best. Long, long before any jury would
hear any admissible evidence, Judge Scheindlin will have shredded and
discarded the GPL licnese.

For those defendants not coming into compliance, the expected outcome
indeed is that the GPL, its conditions not being met, will be shredded
and discarded by the judge, leaving the defendant without a valid
license to point to for copying and distribution.

That was the whole point of the suit. So it is not clear why you are
hopping with glee in the prospect of the judge agreeing with the
plaintiffs.

[RJack]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup
A smoking gun is a smoking gun. It is not against the law to
carry smoking guns on the premises of a murder. It is
nevertheless something that you should have an outstandingly good
explanation for when talking to a jury.

Post by RJack
Good luck convincing a jury of "substantial similarity" Hyman.

Good luck convincing the judge to instruct the jury that the burden
of proof is a "smoking gun" and not a preponderance of the
evidence.

Post by David Kastrup
Good luck convincing a jury that all you left in was the
(non-copyrightable) version string.

Left in what? The couple of million occcurences of non-registered,
non-identified random numbers?

Every single copyrighted literary work consists of million occurences
of letters. Well, millions for larger works.
Not a particularly convincing argument you try here.

Dyslexia with the word "random"?

Post by David Kastrup

Post by RJack
This discussion is academic at best. Long, long before any jury
would hear any admissible evidence, Judge Scheindlin will have
shredded and discarded the GPL licnese.

For those defendants not coming into compliance, the expected outcome
indeed is that the GPL, its conditions not being met, will be
shredded and discarded by the judge, leaving the defendant without a
valid license to point to for copying and distribution.

"Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the circumstances;
but the relation between the parties thereafter in respect of any suit
brought must be held to be contractual, and not an unlawful invasion of
the rights of the owner."; De Forest Radio Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United
States, 273 U.S. 236, United States Supreme Court (1927).

Post by David Kastrup
That was the whole point of the suit. So it is not clear why you are
hopping with glee in the prospect of the judge agreeing with the
plaintiffs

A failed copyright license is construed against its drafter in the
United States. Read it and weep DAK:

Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel.
Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[David Kastrup]

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup
Good luck convincing a jury that all you left in was the
(non-copyrightable) version string.

Left in what? The couple of million occcurences of non-registered,
non-identified random numbers?

Every single copyrighted literary work consists of million occurences
of letters. Well, millions for larger works.
Not a particularly convincing argument you try here.

Dyslexia with the word "random"?

So you don't know what "dyslexia" means, don't know what "random" means
and/or have no idea what programs are. Your legal prowess fits right in
with the rest of your remarkable capabilities.

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup

Post by RJack
This discussion is academic at best. Long, long before any jury
would hear any admissible evidence, Judge Scheindlin will have
shredded and discarded the GPL licnese.

For those defendants not coming into compliance, the expected outcome
indeed is that the GPL, its conditions not being met, will be
shredded and discarded by the judge, leaving the defendant without a
valid license to point to for copying and distribution.

"Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the
circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in
respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not an
unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner."; De Forest Radio Tel. &
Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, United States Supreme Court
(1927).

After an exchange of consideration or a two-sided declaration of wanting
to enter into a contractual relation. It does not look like the
defendants would be in the situation to claim that.

A shoplifter can't state that he should not be sued for theft but merely
for breach of contract because he would have been able to pay and leave
had he wanted to.

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup
That was the whole point of the suit. So it is not clear why you are
hopping with glee in the prospect of the judge agreeing with the
plaintiffs

A failed copyright license is construed against its drafter in the
United States.

You mean, a failed _contract_. A license is something _granting_
permission. If it fails, there is no license.

Post by RJack
Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel.
Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel.

That's if a license fails for reasons the licensee could not reasonably
expect. "How was I supposed to know that I had to keep my end of the
deal, too?" is not exactly going to have the court go "of course, of
course".

[RJack]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup
Good luck convincing a jury that all you left in was the
(non-copyrightable) version string.

Left in what? The couple of million occcurences of
non-registered, non-identified random numbers?

Every single copyrighted literary work consists of million
occurences of letters. Well, millions for larger works.
Not a particularly convincing argument you try here.

Dyslexia with the word "random"?

So you don't know what "dyslexia" means, don't know what "random"
means and/or have no idea what programs are. Your legal prowess fits
right in with the rest of your remarkable capabilities.

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup

Post by RJack
This discussion is academic at best. Long, long before any jury
would hear any admissible evidence, Judge Scheindlin will have
shredded and discarded the GPL licnese.

For those defendants not coming into compliance, the expected
outcome indeed is that the GPL, its conditions not being met,
will be shredded and discarded by the judge, leaving the
defendant without a valid license to point to for copying and
distribution.

"Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the
circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in
respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not
an unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner."; De Forest Radio
Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, United States
Supreme Court (1927).

After an exchange of consideration or a two-sided declaration of
wanting to enter into a contractual relation. It does not look like
the defendants would be in the situation to claim that.
A shoplifter can't state that he should not be sued for theft but
merely for breach of contract because he would have been able to pay
and leave had he wanted to.

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup
That was the whole point of the suit. So it is not clear why you
are hopping with glee in the prospect of the judge agreeing with
the plaintiffs

A failed copyright license is construed against its drafter in the
United States.

You mean, a failed _contract_. A license is something _granting_
permission. If it fails, there is no license.

Post by RJack
Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel.
Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel.

That's if a license fails for reasons the licensee could not
reasonably expect. "How was I supposed to know that I had to keep my
end of the deal, too?" is not exactly going to have the court go "of
course, of course".

You don't even hesitate when you make up this gibberish, do you DAK?

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by RJack
The only GPL'd code at issue is "BusyBox, v.0.60.3" registered

No, that's incorrect. In order to copy and distribute a
GPLed version of BusyBox, the source code for the exact
version being distributed must be made properly available
according to the terms of the GPL. The version you mention
is one registered by Erik Andersen, but it is not the
version being distributed by the defendants.

It is possible, should the defendants not settle, that they
will assert that registration of a different version prevents
suit on the version they are distributing, and then the court
would decide that matter. The plaintiffs can register other
versions and refile the suit, should that be necessary.

[RJack]

Post by RJack
The only GPL'd code at issue is "BusyBox, v.0.60.3" registered

No, that's incorrect. In order to copy and distribute a GPLed version
of BusyBox, the source code for the exact version being distributed
must be made properly available according to the terms of the GPL.
The version you mention is one registered by Erik Andersen, but it is
not the version being distributed by the defendants.

*Allegedly* distributed Hyman. *Allegedly." Where's the beef?

It is possible, should the defendants not settle, that they will
assert that registration of a different version prevents suit on the
version they are distributing, and then the court would decide that
matter. The plaintiffs can register other versions and refile the
suit, should that be necessary.

The plaintiff(s) don't own *any* version of Busybox "a single computer
program". One of the plaintiff(s) owns no copyrights at all. The
plaintiff Erik Andersen will never successfully get *any* version of
Busybox registered since he doesn't own *any8 version.

Busybox is a snarled, tangled combination of patches and derivative
source modules that defies categorization. No one will *ever*
successfully register "Busybox a single computer program" because the
original authorship of the code is impossible to untangle. More than
fifty authors have contributed patches to Busybox over the course of
ten years -- that's literally millions of bifurcations in a supposed
derivative work.

You can spin but you can't win.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by RJack
*Allegedly* distributed

If the defendants believe and wish to assert that they are
not distributing BusyBox, they are free to do so.

Post by RJack
The plaintiff(s) don't own *any* version of Busybox

They own the copyright of any modifications they have
made. The combined work of BusyBox which contains their
copyrighted work may not be distributed without their
permission, and such permission is only through the GPL.

Post by RJack
The plaintiff Erik Andersen will never successfully get
*any* version of Busybox registered

This is manifestly false, since he already has such a
version successfully registered.

Post by RJack
Busybox is a snarled, tangled combination of patches and derivative
source modules that defies categorization. No one will *ever*
successfully register "Busybox a single computer program" because the
original authorship of the code is impossible to untangle.

Unfortunately for you, copyright law makes no provision
allowing the copying and distribution of copyrighted works
without permission on grounds of complexity of ownership.

[RJack]

Post by RJack
*Allegedly* distributed

If the defendants believe and wish to assert that they are not
distributing BusyBox, they are free to do so.

Have you read the defendants Answers to Complaint? ROFL.

Post by RJack
The plaintiff(s) don't own *any* version of Busybox

They own the copyright of any modifications they have made. The
combined work of BusyBox which contains their copyrighted work may
not be distributed without their permission, and such permission is
only through the GPL.

The *broken* GPL.

Post by RJack
The plaintiff Erik Andersen will never successfully get *any*
version of Busybox registered

This is manifestly false, since he already has such a version
successfully registered.

This is manifestly true since he already has fraudulently
registered a version of Busybox that he doesn't own -- which is
contrary to copyright law.

You can spin but you can't win.

Post by RJack
Busybox is a snarled, tangled combination of patches and derivative
source modules that defies categorization. No one will *ever*
successfully register "Busybox a single computer program" because
the original authorship of the code is impossible to untangle.

Unfortunately for you, copyright law makes no provision allowing the
copying and distribution of copyrighted works without permission on
grounds of complexity of ownership.

The broken GPL gives the defendants permission to copy and distribute.
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, copyright law does not allow
registration of works you don't own.

You can spin but you can't win.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by RJack

If the defendants believe and wish to assert that they are not
distributing BusyBox, they are free to do so.

Have you read the defendants Answers to Complaint?

Not with any great attention. It's not interesting at early
stages because such responses throw up a screen of every
possible legal argument, plausible or not, in order to make
work for the other side and so as not to foreclose on any
avenue of defense. If they have made such a claim, and do not
choose to settle, then it will be up to the plaintiffs to
prove that the defenses are invalid.

Post by RJack
The *broken* GPL.

The GPL is not broken. No one who wishes to comply with its
terms has any trouble doing so. It is those who wish to benefit
from GPLed software without honoring its terms who complain
most about it. There is no need to worry about the opinios of
parasites. GPLv3 did go to great lengths to accommodate the
needs of free software developers who wish to use GPLed code
in projects licensed under incompatible licenses.

Post by RJack
This is manifestly true since he already has fraudulently
registered a version of Busybox that he doesn't own -- which is
contrary to copyright law.

His registration of BusyBox is legal since it is a derivative
work he has created. If the defendants believe otherwise, they
may claim that, and then the plaintiffs will need to demonstrate
this.

Post by RJack
The broken GPL gives the defendants permission to copy and distribute.
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, copyright law does not allow
registration of works you don't own.

The GPL is not broken, and gives permission to copy and
distribute only in compliance with its terms. Erik Andersen
is an owner of copyright in BusyBox under the terms specified
in US copyright law, and thus may sue if BusyBox is copied and
distributed without permission. Usenet cranks believe that they
may accept permissions without accepting requirements; belief
in insane ideas is after all the hallmark of a crank. But the
beliefs of cranks do not translate into law, as Daniel Wallace
discovered.

[RJack]

Post by RJack
The SFLC's PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST
"4 The version of BusyBox distributed by Westinghouse is believed to
be version v0.60.2. D. Kuhn ¶ 10; SMF ¶ 14. While Mr. Andersen owns
copyright in portions of that version of BusyBox as well, the
copyright registration here was for the next subsequent version of
BusyBox, v0.60.3. D. Andersen ¶ 4; SMF ¶ 4. However, since Mr.
Andersen “is the owner of the copyright of both the derivative and
preexisting work, the registration certificate relating to the
derivative work in this circumstance will suffice to permit it to
maintain an action for infringement based on defendants' infringement
of the preexisting work.” Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. Vandam, Inc., 159
F.3D 739, 747 (2d Cir. 1998). Thus, the registration for v0.60.3
constitutes registration for v0.60.2 as well."
http://www.busybox.net/downloads/legacy/busybox-0.60.2.tar.gz
A grep of the source tree for v0.60.2 reflects Erik Andersen's name

I found some more files in the source tree v0.60.2. mentioning Erik
Andersen where the original authors' licensed source code has been
claimed by Andersen and placed under the GPL. See:

"Mr. Andersen, his past employers and Mr. Landley appear to have removed
some of the copyright statements of other Busybox developers, and appear
to have altered license statements, in apparent violation of various
laws." -- Bruce Perens.
http://perens.com/blog/d/2009/12/15/23/

How convenient that a default judgment could mask all the underlying
lies in this lawsuit.

RJack :)

[RJack]

Post by RJack

Post by RJack
The SFLC's PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT
"4 The version of BusyBox distributed by Westinghouse is believed
to be version v0.60.2. D. Kuhn ¶ 10; SMF ¶ 14. While Mr. Andersen
owns copyright in portions of that version of BusyBox as well, the
copyright registration here was for the next subsequent version of
BusyBox, v0.60.3. D. Andersen ¶ 4; SMF ¶ 4. However, since Mr.
Andersen “is the owner of the copyright of both the derivative and
preexisting work, the registration certificate relating to the
derivative work in this circumstance will suffice to permit it to
maintain an action for infringement based on defendants'
infringement of the preexisting work.” Streetwise Maps, Inc. v.
Vandam, Inc., 159 F.3D 739, 747 (2d Cir. 1998). Thus, the
registration for v0.60.3 constitutes registration for v0.60.2 as
well."
http://www.busybox.net/downloads/legacy/busybox-0.60.2.tar.gz
A grep of the source tree for v0.60.2 reflects Erik Andersen's name

I found some more files in the source tree v0.60.2. mentioning Erik
Andersen where the original authors' licensed source code has been
"Mr. Andersen, his past employers and Mr. Landley appear to have
removed some of the copyright statements of other Busybox developers,
and appear to have altered license statements, in apparent violation
of various laws." -- Bruce Perens.
http://perens.com/blog/d/2009/12/15/23/
How convenient that a default judgment could mask all the underlying
lies in this lawsuit.

Erik Andersen now states:
"While Mr. Andersen owns copyright in portions of that version of
BusyBox...".

Erik has now registered "portions" of the "single computer program"
BusyBox v0.60.3 with the Copyright Office but has totally failed to
identify what those specific "portions" are that he actually claims. He
continues to claim:

"However, since Mr. Andersen 'is the owner of the copyright of both the
derivative and preexisting work, the registration certificate relating
to the derivative work in this circumstance will suffice to permit it to
maintain an action for infringement based on defendants' infringement of
the preexisting work.'”.

So... he now owns *his* own derivative "portions" of BusyBox that he has
never identified to anyone. (Erik is on his knees praying that the court
somehow now believes that he owns the "single computer program" known as
"BusyBox v0.60.2".)

His sole evidence for copyright infringement is the appearance of a
character string in a binary ramdisk image containing the text string
"v0.60.2". Is it any wonder that the 3/22/2010 Scheduling Order stated:

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Shira A. Scheindlin U.S.D.J.
...
2. A concise statement of the issues as they then appear;

Pending results of Defendants' investigations, Defendants
intend to show that the Plaintiff's have no damages, that
the Defendants did nothing actionable under copyright law, that
any alleged copying was not willful, that Plaintiffs are not
the proper parties, that the copyright held by Mr. Andersen
is not applicable, and that, since being put on notice of
the purported requirements of the general public license,
Defendants have endeavored to come into compliance with what
can only be described as a 'moving target'."

----------------------------------------------------------
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[Alexander Terekhov]

(a sorta response to the idiotic SFLC motion)

Post by RJack
The SFLC's PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST
DEFENDANT WESTINGHOUSE DIGITAL ELECTRONICS,

Case 1:09-cv-10155-SAS Document 128 Filed 06/29/2010:

"...

On April 2, 2010, Westinghouse, a California limited liability company,
now known as Mora Electronics, LLC ("Mora"), executed a General
Assignment (the "General Assignment"). Under the General Assignment,
Mora assigned all of its assets (excluding real property leasehold
interest and interests under agreements with labor unions or trade
associations) to the Credit Management Association of California ("the
CMA"), a California corporation, in trust, for the benefit of Mora’s
creditors.1

The CMA has determined that it will not provide a defense in this
action. Consequently, the CMA has provided to plaintiff the attached
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bulletin No. 1.2 The Bulletin provides information on the General
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Assignment and informs potential creditors, such as plaintiff, how to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
seek participation in the distribution of assets of Mora.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Michael Joncich of the CMA has informed the subject attorneys that they
are not authorized to represent Westinghouse, Mora or the CMA in
connection with this case. Mr. Joncich also terminated the services of
the subject attorneys and revoked their authority to act on behalf of
Westinghouse.3 The New York Rules of Professional Conduct and Local
Rules of the Southern District of New York govern the termination of a
lawyer’s services. Specifically, Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(b)(3)
states that “a lawyer shall withdraw from the representation of a client
when... the lawyer is discharged.” (Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.16
(2009).) Notwithstanding, under subsection (d) of the same rule as well
as under Local Rule 1.4,

1 Declaration of Jay R. Campbell of Motion to Withdraw (“Campbell
Decl.”) at ¶ 2, 3.
2 Campbell Decl.., Attachment A.
3 Campbell Decl. at ¶ 5. Case 1:09-cv-10155-SAS Document 128 Filed
06/29/2010 Page 2 of 4

an attorney must obtain leave of the court in order to withdraw. (L.R.
Civ. 1.4 (2009).) In light of the termination of their authority and
services, Renner Otto and Kane Kessler now come before this court and
seek to withdraw as counsel for defendant Westinghouse in compliance
with the above rules.

Counsel has added Mr. Joncich’s email to the CM/ECF system so that he
will receive notices from the court in the above captioned case.

Renner Otto and Kane Kessler respectfully request that the Court enter
an Order allowing them to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Westinghouse
Digital Electronics, LLC. No party would suffer prejudice by this
withdrawal.

Dated: June 29, 2010 in Cleveland, Ohio
Respectfully submitted,
/s/_Kyle B. Fleming____________
Kyle B. Fleming (KF-2327)
Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP
1621 Euclid Ave., 19th Floor
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
[phone]
Sarah Bawany Yousuf (SBY-0305)
Kane Kessler, P.C.
1350 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019
[phone]
Attorneys for Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC"

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.)

[RJack]

The (almost) most idiotic SFLC response so far. . .

The SFLC has filed a Memorandum *opposing* the Motion to Withdraw by
Westinghouse counsel. This, despite the fact that Westinghouse and it's
successors in interest have declared that they will not defend against
the suit and have withdrawn all authorization for legal counsel to
act. Apparently the SFLC believes it can *force* a defendant to appear
in a civil action even after the defendant has declared his intention to
default.

WHERE DID THESE SFLC GUYS GET THEIR LAW DEGREES? A Wheaties (Breakfast
of Champions) box top? Groklaw?

ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack


-- “The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't
Falling” -- Pamela Jones at Groklaw
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851

-- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) --
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/463/463.F3d.749.05-1172.html

[Alexander Terekhov]

SFLC gang 'won' $90,000 + attorneys fees and costs and expenses against
LONG INSOLVENT AND ASSETS-DISSOLVED DEFENCELESS defendant on default.

Congrats to Eben Moglen and his underlings.

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.)

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by RJack
The SFLC is filing for a Default Judgment in the alternative to Summary
Judgment. There is no burden of proof in a default judgment.
The Judge Scheindlin believes that Western Digital was manufacturing
"Busy Boxes".

Yeah.

http://www.terekhov.de/BestBuy-117-4.pdf

<chuckles>

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.)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by RJack
That has nothing to do with the relief requests raised by the plaintiffs
in any SFLC lawsuit.

Of course not, since compliance with the GPL cannot be compelled.
Accepting its requirements is completely voluntary. The prayers
for relief are those normally demanded in cases of copyright
infringement. It is up to the defendants to plead acceptance of
the license if they so choose, and then to explain why they have
not complied with it.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
so anyone who does so without honoring the terms of the
GPL will have the terms of copyright infringement legally
enforced against them.

When was that done in a United States court, silly Hyman?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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.)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Hyman Rosen
so anyone who does so without honoring the terms of the
GPL will have the terms of copyright infringement legally
enforced against them.

When was that done in a United States court?

So far, the SFLC has brought several enforcement measures
against copyright infringers of GPL-covered works, and in
every concluded case the defendants have agreed to comply
with the GPL. We have yet to see such a case carried to
judgment, since it's likely that the infringement was due
to carelessness or laziness. We may in fact never see such
a full case, since real companies have lawyers who advise
them against foolishness, while cranks like Daniel Wallace
are incapable of coherence.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
every concluded case the defendants have agreed to comply

Take your meds Hyman. Take your meds.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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.)

[amicus_curious]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by amicus_curious
Well, OK, so say that I post some link somewhere saying that you can get
the Busy Box or whatever source from some place that has it. Now you
have said many times that covers the waterfront for using and conveying
the GPL program. So it is legitimately conveyed and subsequently it is
legitimately modified by adding Rjack's proprietary piece to it to form
the improved program. You cannot sue the customer and I don't see where
you can sue the distributor since he has published the link to the
source meeting the GPL requirement

Sorry, I can't figure out from your description above who the
actors are and what they are doing.

Have you been conveniently stupid all your life or has that happened
recently. I am sure you get the point, having been around this forum for so

Post by Hyman Rosen
The GPL requires that the
conveyor of a covered work provide the source code for the
version of the work being conveyed.

Exactly. So to please the SFLC, Rjack conveys the original version of, say,
Busy Box, by posting the source somewhere.

Post by Hyman Rosen
The GPL permits changes to
be made without restriction or requirement to a copy of the
work which is not conveyed. Someone may add a non-free piece to
a GPLed work, but may then not convey the combined work. So if
a "customer" wishes to modify a GPLed work, he is allowed to do
so - indeed, I imagine there are any number of companies who
make in-house modifications to GPLed works and never convey
those works, and so never provide the source for their changes.

But the GPL goes beyond the pall here. Rjack has simply augmented the
program that was properly conveyed to the end user by means of adding in his
improvements and authorizes the end user to use the combination via some
proprietary license that restricts the user from further redistribution of
the combination. That is a legitimate action under the copyright laws and
under the GPL as I have framed it. The mere fact that Rjack has found a
very efficient way of modifying the end user's copy of the GPL work, i.e., a
recompilation, is immaterial, at least to the copyright laws.

Post by Hyman Rosen
Remember, the purpose of the GPL is to provide freedom for users
of software. That's why users are permitted to do all of this
without restriction. But in order to provide freedom for all users,
once someone wants to convey a covered work, they must do so under
the terms of the GPL, so that the recipients can share in the same
freedom.

That is, of course, a joke, but, even so, the end user is just as free as
Rjack to use the Busy Box software in the same form as used by Rjack.

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by amicus_curious

Post by Hyman Rosen
The recipient of the illegally conveyed program has no
right to further convey it, or to do anything else with
it - holders of illegal copies of a work don't get any
rights.

Well, in my scenario that is just what Rjack would want, since the user
is not allowed to further convey Rjack's additions either. It is pretty
much like selling a program that uses some GPL program as a base but not
putting the whole thing under the GPL. Who cares what the user does with
the original GPL program, there isn't any commercial value in that. The
key is being able to obtain the commercial value from the add-on that
does something new.

As I said, the GPL requires that the someone who conveys a covered
work provide the source to the version being conveyed, so I don't
know what you mean by "selling a program that uses some GPL program
as a base but not putting the whole thing under the GPL". That is an
infringement of the copyright of the base program.

Well, you can say that all day, but it has no effect. You say that a user
may take a GPL work and modify it and use it himself with no obligations to
anyone and that is the key to the issue. Say that some company wishes to to
just that, for example Google. Now there is no "Google user" per se, just a
company that employs a lot of people who know how to code. So one or more
of them make the modifications and receive payment for those services in
doing that work. The result is conveyed to Google as a legal entity and no
disclosure is made of the exact modifications in use. That is no different
than an end user hiring Rjack to make necessary modifications and receiving
the result and not disclosing any source.

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by amicus_curious
So to please the SFLC, Rjack conveys the original version of,
say, Busy Box, by posting the source somewhere.

OK.

Post by amicus_curious
But the GPL goes beyond the pall here.

A cloud of smoke? Or do you mean "beyond the pale"?

Post by amicus_curious
Rjack has simply augmented the program that was properly conveyed
to the end user by means of adding in his improvements

Are these improvements conveyed in combination with the
GPLed program as a work as a whole, or are they sent to
the end user separately? If the former, then the source
to these improvements must be provided by the terms of
the GPL, because otherwise there is no permission to
convey the GPLed work. If the latter, there is no problem.

Post by amicus_curious
and authorizes the end user to use the combination via
some proprietary license that restricts the user from further
redistribution of the combination.

That's fine, as long as the extra non-GPLed portion is
conveyed separately. It is not a violation of the GPL
to instruct end users on how to build a program combining
GPLed and non-GPLed components, or for those end users to
do so. And those end users will not be able to further
convey the combined work.

Post by amicus_curious
You say that a
user may take a GPL work and modify it and use it himself with no
obligations to anyone and that is the key to the issue. Say that some
company wishes to to just that, for example Google. Now there is no
"Google user" per se, just a company that employs a lot of people who
know how to code. So one or more of them make the modifications and
receive payment for those services in doing that work. The result is
conveyed to Google as a legal entity and no disclosure is made of the
exact modifications in use. That is no different than an end user hiring
Rjack to make necessary modifications and receiving the result and not
disclosing any source.

That's correct. In both of these cases, the companies or users
who have contracted for the changes may not convey the changed
program to other entities (this does not include their own
employees in their capacity as employees) except in compliance
with the GPL, which would include providing the source to the
modifications and extra components. But they may freely use the
modified works themselves.

I don't see what you find noteworthy about this. It has been
true from the moment of conception of the GPL that anyone may
make changes to GPLed software for their own use (including
entire companies as the "anyone") without incurring any
disclosure requirements. GPL requirements take effect when
its permissions are used to convey covered works from one
person or entity to another. This is because, mock as you like,
the purpose of the GPL is to preserve the freedoms of users,
and so users must be given the source code to GPLed works they
receive. The modifying users in your example have already had
this freedom - they have the sources of the GPLed work which
they are using. But they cannot choose to convey covered works
to other users while denying them the same freedom they have
themselves received, namely the source code of the entire work.

[amicus_curious]

Post by Hyman Rosen
I don't see what you find noteworthy about this.

I think that you are ignoring the premise on purpose because you have no
answer that fits your philosophy. Once again:

A. Someone wants an improved version of some GPL work.

B. They contract with a third part to obtain that modified GPL work, paying
the third part a sum agreeable to the third party.

C. As a condition of the third party contract, the person agrees to not
disclose any details or make copies of the item for use by others not party
to the contract.

D. When all is said and done, the person has his software to use and the
supplier has his money. No GPL violations here.

So Rjack is free to sell his amalgamation of GPL and self-provided software
to anyone, free of GPL restrictions, as long as the customer has access to
the original, unmodified source.

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by amicus_curious
I think that you are ignoring the premise on purpose because you have no
A. Someone wants an improved version of some GPL work.
B. They contract with a third part to obtain that modified GPL work,
paying the third part a sum agreeable to the third party.
C. As a condition of the third party contract, the person agrees to not
disclose any details or make copies of the item for use by others not
party to the contract.
D. When all is said and done, the person has his software to use and the
supplier has his money. No GPL violations here.

All correct. What I don't understand is why you believe this
is antithetical to the free software philosophy. There is no
user here who has been deprived of any freedom - the user is
voluntarily choosing not to share his program with others, but
free software doesn't require such sharing.

Post by amicus_curious
So Rjack is free to sell his amalgamation of GPL and self-provided
software to anyone, free of GPL restrictions, as long as the customer
has access to the original, unmodified source.

And as long as the purveyor of this amalgamation does not
convey it as a unified work without honoring the GPL.

[Rex Ballard]

You are confused.  Modification even in uncreative ways is not a right
granted by copyright.

Actually, by default, ANY modification is a "derivative work" and all
rights to derivative works including the right to create and
distribute them - are controlled by the copyright owner. The
copyright owner may grant some permission to release derivative works
- such as the BSD license, but these permissions must be granted
explicitly.

The whole point of the Revised Copyright Act of 1976 and the Digital
Millenium Copyright Act of 1994 was to limit the ability of Judges to
define "fair use" at their discresssion.

It's worth noting that it was BECAUSE of the Revised Copyright Act of
1976 that Microsoft was able to exist and thrive the way it did.

If the basis for this summary judgement were allowed to stand as legal
precedent, based on the current lack of evidence that the software was
not "work for hire" - the lack of a negotiated contract does not make
it work for hire, because the defendant acknowledges that they were
still in progress of negotiating the contract, and that contract
negotiation broke down when the terms of the interim agreement were
changed.

[RJack]

Post by Rex Ballard

Post by David Kastrup
You are confused. Modification even in uncreative ways is not a
right granted by copyright.

Actually, by default, ANY modification is a "derivative work" and all
rights to derivative works including the right to create and
distribute them - are controlled by the copyright owner. The
copyright owner may grant some permission to release derivative works
- such as the BSD license, but these permissions must be granted
explicitly.
The whole point of the Revised Copyright Act of 1976 and the Digital
Millenium Copyright Act of 1994 was to limit the ability of Judges to
define "fair use" at their discresssion.

Actually, the central goal of Congress concerning fair use was stated in
the House of Representatives' Report HR No. 94-1476. The courts were
given flexibility within the statutory guidelines:

"General intention behind the provision

The statement of the fair use doctrine in section 107 offers some
guidance to users in determining when the principles of the doctrine
apply. However, the endless variety of situations and combinations of
circumstances that can rise in particular cases precludes the
formulation of exact rules in the statute. The bill endorses the purpose
and general scope of the judicial doctrine of fair use, but there is no
disposition to freeze the doctrine in the statute, especially during a
period of rapid technological change. Beyond a very broad statutory
explanation of what fair use is and some of the criteria applicable to
it, their courts must be free to adapt the doctrine to particular
situations on a case-by-case basis. Section 107 is intended to restate
the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or
enlarge it in any way."

Post by Rex Ballard
It's worth noting that it was BECAUSE of the Revised Copyright Act of
1976 that Microsoft was able to exist and thrive the way it did.
If the basis for this summary judgement were allowed to stand as
legal precedent, based on the current lack of evidence that the
software was not "work for hire" - the lack of a negotiated contract
does not make it work for hire, because the defendant acknowledges
that they were still in progress of negotiating the contract, and
that contract negotiation broke down when the terms of the interim
agreement were changed.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by RJack
The following decision probably settles most questions touching upon
copyright law and dynamically linking to open source code and vice
versa.

It does nothing of the sort, and there is nothing in this
decision that impacts upon the GPL at all.

The case is Krause v. Titleserv,
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16327862974386079523>,
and it is about the owner of a copy of a computer program
being permitted to make changes to it:
Titleserv moved for summary judgment on the basis of 17 U.S.C.
§ 117(a)(1) (as well as on other grounds). Section 117(a)(1)
provides an affirmative defense against copyright infringement
for anyone who (i) owns a physical copy of a computer program,
(ii) makes an adaptation "as an essential step in the utilization
of the computer program in conjunction with a machine," and (iii)
uses it "in no other manner." The district court, following the
recommendation of Magistrate Judge William D. Wall, concluded
there was no genuine issue of material fact and granted summary
judgment in favor of Titleserv.

On appeal, Krause challenges the district court's interpretation
and application of § 117(a)(1). We affirm.

The GPL says, <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>,
To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of
the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than
the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a
“modified version” of the earlier work or a work “based on” the
earlier work.
A “covered work” means either the unmodified Program or a work
based on the Program.
To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables
other parties to make or receive copies.
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise
remains in force.

The rights granted by 17 USC 117 are thus at least restated and
likely broadened by the GPL.

[Rex Ballard]

Post by RJack
The following decision probably settles most questions touching upon
copyright law and dynamically linking to open source code and vice
versa. Simply placing a hook in GPL source code to call independent
proprietary drivers or libraries is fully protected by 17 USC sec. 117.
Simply dynamically calling GPL code doesn't involve copyright questions
at all.

The entire judgement seems to overturn nearly 35 years of copyright
law.

The first question, which the Judge avoided issuing a ruling on, was
whether the copyrighted work was work for hire. In 1976 copyright law
distinguished work for contract from work for hire. In this case, the
claim of the plaintiff was that the software was written during
negotiation for a contract, and that the terms of the contract were
unacceptable. He apparently had been paid something, and so under a
settlement he offered them a set of license terms in which they were
permitted to use the software he wrote, in their binary form.

Had the judge ruled instead that that this was just software for hire
and that the defendent owned the copyrights themselves - which
requires a prior written agreement with the person as part of an
employment agreement. Most companies have employees sign explicit
intellectual rights agreements in which employees agree to grant the
employers all intellectual property rights related to the profession
for which they are hired. In this case, there was no such agreement
of employment and no such agreement of assignment of intellectual
property rights.

The defendant did admit that they had been given a software license
agreement, and that they had accepted the terms agreement by using the
software they had been given - the equivalent of "i accept". The
defendant also admitted that it reverse engineered the software -
therefore creating a "derivative work" from the copyrighted work, and
claimed that it owned this derivative work exclusively, even though
they had explicitly NOT been given any of these rights.

The Judge decided to disregard these precepts of copyright law and
accepted the rulings of a lower magistrate, who seemed to assume that
simply because the defendant possessed copies of the code, that this
was sufficient basis to grant them "ownership" of the copyrighted
work, even though they were clearly only given a license to the
copyrighted work and had no assignment of intellectual property rights
agreement under an employment agreement. Based on the lack of
evidence - at minimum the summary judgement should have gone in favor
of the plaintiff, not the defendant, or deferred until further
disclosures were ordered and a sufficient body of discovery to
determine, based on the preponderance of discovery evidence whether a
summary judgement was warranted.

The judge further decided that rather than honor the restrictions on
derivative works which prevents the licensee from doing self-applied
upgrades, a fundamental basis for "for-fee" upgrades for applications
published by major vendors like Microsoft, Borland, Lotus, Corel, and
most other major software companies, the judge ruled that the
defendent had the right to make any modifications they wished to make
the software "useful" under the new circumstances. This would be a
bit like a judge ruling that hackers have the legal right to unlock
software and publish the unlock codes - because it makes the software
"useful" on "new hardware and software" - even if that's a
competitor's product.

Ironically, it's highly likely that Krouse will find some interesting
allies backing his appeal, possibly even to the Supreme court, at
least making a case for a remand to get a full trial or settlement.
The Summary judgement was premature at best, and a dangerous precedent
at worst.

It's unlikely that companies like Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM would
want such a ruling to stand, because it establishes an ambiguous
precedent that possession of a copyrighted work gives the possessor
the right to create derivative works based on the mere possession of
the work.