SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Alexander Terekhov]

U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-08205-LAP

Andersen et al v. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.
Assigned to: Judge Loretta A. Preska
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Date Filed: 09/19/2007
Date Terminated: 11/30/2007
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

11/30/2007 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of
the F.R.C.P.: Plaintiffs hereby dismiss this action against defendants
without prejudice and without costs to any party. (Signed by Judge
Loretta A. Preska on 11/29/07) (tro) (Entered: 11/30/2007)

regards,
alexander.

--
"Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market
value is impossible to assess"

-- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-08205-LAP
Andersen et al v. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.
Assigned to: Judge Loretta A. Preska
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Date Filed: 09/19/2007
Date Terminated: 11/30/2007
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
11/30/2007 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of

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

Post by Alexander Terekhov
the F.R.C.P.: Plaintiffs hereby dismiss this action against defendants
without prejudice and without costs to any party. (Signed by Judge
Loretta A. Preska on 11/29/07) (tro) (Entered: 11/30/2007)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule41.htm

-----
Rule 41. Dismissal of Actions

(a) Voluntary Dismissal.
(1) By the Plaintiff.

(A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2 and 66
and any applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action
without a court order by filing:

(i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an
answer or a motion for summary judgment; or

(ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.

(B) Effect. Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the
dismissal is without prejudice. But if the plaintiff previously
dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the
same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the
merits.
-----

Interesting effect... it appears to me that on next Voluntary Dismissal
(recent cases 07-CV-10456 and 07-CV-10455) the game will be over for
plaintiffs. Collateral estoppel and all that. Correct? Hey rjack, ping.
:-)

regards,
alexander.

--
"Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market
value is impossible to assess"

-- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC.

[Bruce Lewis]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Plaintiffs hereby dismiss this action against defendants
without prejudice and without costs to any party.

This just means no court costs. The settlement agreement included "an
undisclosed financial settlement."

http://www.linux.com/feature/120629

The GPL's track record has been and continues to be 100% enforceable.

(I mention this to benefit third parties; I don't harbor any hope that
Terekhov will cease trolling.)

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Post by Bruce Lewis
The GPL's track record has been and continues to be 100% enforceable.

I've never seen a US case involving the GPL come to a verdict.
Of course there are the German cases, but given the different legal
system you can hardly compare the outcome there to the USA.

Arnoud

[rjack]

Post by Arnoud Engelfriet

Post by Bruce Lewis
The GPL's track record has been and continues to be 100% enforceable.

I've never seen a US case involving the GPL come to a verdict.
Of course there are the German cases, but given the different legal
system you can hardly compare the outcome there to the USA.
Arnoud

U.S. Federal Courts are very sensitive to legal standing issues
concerning "case and controversy" under Article III of the Constitution:

"[T]he first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first, of
this court, and then of the court from which the record comes. This
question the court is bound to ask and answer for itself, even when not
otherwise suggested, and without respect to the relation of the parties
to it. The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold
matter spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the
United States and is inflexible and without exception." (citations and
quotations omitted); Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523
U. S. 83 (1998)

The district court is apt to dismiss the GPL claims sua sponte when it
realizes the plaintiffs are claiming injury for rights belonging not to
the plaintiffs but "all third parties".

It is a matter of great embarrassment to a district judge for an appeals
court to rule that the district court had no business hearing the case
in the first place.
:)

[David Kastrup]

Post by rjack

Post by Bruce Lewis
The GPL's track record has been and continues to be 100% enforceable.

I've never seen a US case involving the GPL come to a verdict. Of
course there are the German cases, but given the different legal
system you can hardly compare the outcome there to the USA.

U.S. Federal Courts are very sensitive to legal standing issues
concerning "case and controversy" under Article III of the

[...]

Post by rjack
The district court is apt to dismiss the GPL claims sua sponte when it
realizes the plaintiffs are claiming injury for rights belonging not
to the plaintiffs but "all third parties".
It is a matter of great embarrassment to a district judge for an
appeals court to rule that the district court had no business hearing
the case in the first place. :)

And that's the reason for the bigwig defendant lawyers to rather fold
than get the case heard in a court that would likely dismiss it?

Are you sure you know what you are trying to argue for?

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Arnoud Engelfriet

Post by Bruce Lewis
The GPL's track record has been and continues to be 100% enforceable.

I've never seen a US case involving the GPL come to a verdict.

There was a verdict (court order) regarding attempt to impose
injunction on the basis of GPL "automatic termination".

"Given my knowledge of the practices of programming and the
requirements of the GPL, I concluded that the license violation was
intentional. Whether intentional or not, any violation of the GPL
results under §4 in a termination of the right to redistribute. ...
Under GPL §4, I conclude, Progress Software Corp. lost the right to
distribute MySQL when it distributed NuSphere MySQL Advantage in a
fashion that violated GPL.

I declare under penalty of perjury and upon personal knowledge
that the foregoing is true and correct. "

http://www.gnu.org/press/mysql-affidavit.html

(and Bruce Perens even "predicted" that "Moglen will get his
injunction" http://www.linux.com/articles/21439)

but Moglen's attempt failed miserably:

"Moreover, I am not persuaded based on this record that the
release of the Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the
breach. ... DENIED"

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf

regards,
alexander.

--
"Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market
value is impossible to assess"

-- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Courtesy of Groklaw...

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by Arnoud Engelfriet

Post by Bruce Lewis
The GPL's track record has been and continues to be 100% enforceable.

I've never seen a US case involving the GPL come to a verdict.

There was a verdict (court order) regarding attempt to impose
injunction on the basis of GPL "automatic termination".
"Given my knowledge of the practices of programming and the
requirements of the GPL, I concluded that the license violation was
intentional. Whether intentional or not, any violation of the GPL
results under §4 in a termination of the right to redistribute. ...
Under GPL §4, I conclude, Progress Software Corp. lost the right to
distribute MySQL when it distributed NuSphere MySQL Advantage in a
fashion that violated GPL.
I declare under penalty of perjury and upon personal knowledge
that the foregoing is true and correct. "
http://www.gnu.org/press/mysql-affidavit.html
(and Bruce Perens even "predicted" that "Moglen will get his
injunction" http://www.linux.com/articles/21439)
"Moreover, I am not persuaded based on this record that the
release of the Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the
breach. ... DENIED"
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf

...here is MySQL's counter-complaint asserting breach of GPL
license contract ("COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)")
and asking for declaratory (court to declare GPL terminated) and
injunctive (court to preliminary and permanently enjoin
Progress/NuSphere from "copying, modifying, sublicensing, or
distributing the MySQL(TM) Program") relief (plus damages, of
course):

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

regards,
alexander.

--
"Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market
value is impossible to assess"

-- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC.

[rjack]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Courtesy of Groklaw...

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by Arnoud Engelfriet

Post by Bruce Lewis
The GPL's track record has been and continues to be 100% enforceable.

I've never seen a US case involving the GPL come to a verdict.

There was a verdict (court order) regarding attempt to impose
injunction on the basis of GPL "automatic termination".

The SFLC's claim of "automatic termination" has a hollow ring to it
under U.S. Second Federal Circuit precedent (includes New York State).
I know the SFLC thinks it can ignore the Court of Appeals but. . .


"New York law does not presume the rescission or abandonment of a
contract and the party asserting rescission or abandonment has the
burden of proving it". Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1998)

affirmed 2007 by the Eastern District:

“. . . rescission of the contract only occurs upon affirmative acts by
the licensor, and a breach by one party does not automatically result in
rescission of a contract. Id. at 238 (”New York law does not presume the
rescission or abandonment of a contract and the party asserting
rescission or abandonment has the burden of proving it”).”; Atlantis
Information Technology, Gmbh v, CA Inc.,, 2007 WL 1238716 (E.D.N.Y.
April 30, 2007).

The SFLC claims that these rulings are inapplicable because the GPL is a
"license" not a "contract". Federal authority affirming this
"non-contract" claim is as scare as evidence of WMD in Irag. Do you
suppose Eben Moglen is related to George Bush?

regards,
rjack

--- "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 F3d 749, (7th Cir. 2006)---

[Alexander Terekhov]

Another Voluntary Dismissal.

U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-10455-PKC

Andersen et al v. Xterasys Corporation
Assigned to: Judge P. Kevin Castel
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Date Filed: 11/19/2007
Date Terminated: 12/17/2007
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

12/17/2007 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of
the F.R.C.P. WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without costs to any party. (Signed
by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 12/17/07) (db) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

Post by Alexander Terekhov
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-08205-LAP
Andersen et al v. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.
Assigned to: Judge Loretta A. Preska
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Date Filed: 09/19/2007
Date Terminated: 11/30/2007
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
11/30/2007 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of
the F.R.C.P.: Plaintiffs hereby dismiss this action against defendants
without prejudice and without costs to any party. (Signed by Judge
Loretta A. Preska on 11/29/07) (tro) (Entered: 11/30/2007)

regards,
alexander.

--
"Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market
value is impossible to assess"

-- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC.

[Alexander Terekhov]

And another Voluntary Dismissal. Did I just miss the announcement of
out-of-court settlement "surrender" by defendants this time (with SFLC
"agreeing" to reinstate defendant's lost rights LOL)... anyone?

U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-10456-LBS

Andersen et al v. High-Antennas, L.L.C.
Assigned to: Judge Leonard B. Sand
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Date Filed: 11/19/2007
Date Terminated: 03/03/2008
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

03/03/2008 5 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL. Plaintiffs Erik Anderson
and Rob Landley hereby dismiss this action against defendant High-Gain
Antennas, LLC without prejudice, and without costs to any party. SO
ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Leonard B. Sand on 3/3/08) (jw) (Entered:
03/03/2008)

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Another Voluntary Dismissal.
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-10455-PKC
Andersen et al v. Xterasys Corporation
Assigned to: Judge P. Kevin Castel
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Date Filed: 11/19/2007
Date Terminated: 12/17/2007
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
12/17/2007 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of
the F.R.C.P. WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without costs to any party. (Signed
by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 12/17/07) (db) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

Post by Alexander Terekhov
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-08205-LAP
Andersen et al v. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.
Assigned to: Judge Loretta A. Preska
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Date Filed: 09/19/2007
Date Terminated: 11/30/2007
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
11/30/2007 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of
the F.R.C.P.: Plaintiffs hereby dismiss this action against defendants
without prejudice and without costs to any party. (Signed by Judge
Loretta A. Preska on 11/29/07) (tro) (Entered: 11/30/2007)

regards,
alexander.

--
"12/21/2007 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT...
01/22/2008 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT...
02/19/2008 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDAT(sic)...
02/26/2008 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from
Daniel B. Ravicher...
02/27/2008 ORDER that Defendants Verizon Communications, Inc. has
until March 14, 2008..."

-- 1:07-cv-11070-LTS aka Never Beginning "GPL Enforcement" case

[rjack]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
And another Voluntary Dismissal. Did I just miss the announcement of
out-of-court settlement "surrender" by defendants this time (with SFLC
"agreeing" to reinstate defendant's lost rights LOL)... anyone?

With "open source" attorney Jason Haislmaier representing High-Gain
Antennas, what other outcome would you have expected?

From http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3718161
we can see:

[begin quote]
From a legal point of view, a company's responsibility when it comes to
open source software usage is quite clear. Jason Haislmaier an attorney
with Holme Roberts and Owen LLP is right in the thick of things when it
comes to compliance. He is the attorney representing High-Gain Antennas,
one of the defendants in the BusyBox suits. Haislmaier's prefaced his
comments by noting that he is not commenting specifically on that case.

"The bottom line is that companies need to understand their use of open
source software and make each use of open source a knowing and compliant
use," Haislmaier said. "This starts with implementing and maintaining an
open source compliance program to help understand when and where open
source is in use in your company so that you can take the proper steps
to comply with the open source licenses applicable to that software."
[end quote]

You haven't heard Verizon's defense attorneys spouting open source
platitudes before their client's Answer has even been filed.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

Post by Alexander Terekhov
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-10456-LBS
Andersen et al v. High-Antennas, L.L.C.
Assigned to: Judge Leonard B. Sand
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Date Filed: 11/19/2007
Date Terminated: 03/03/2008
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
03/03/2008 5 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL. Plaintiffs Erik Anderson
and Rob Landley hereby dismiss this action against defendant High-Gain
Antennas, LLC without prejudice, and without costs to any party. SO
03/03/2008)

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Another Voluntary Dismissal.
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-10455-PKC
Andersen et al v. Xterasys Corporation
Assigned to: Judge P. Kevin Castel
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Date Filed: 11/19/2007
Date Terminated: 12/17/2007
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
12/17/2007 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of
the F.R.C.P. WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without costs to any party. (Signed
by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 12/17/07) (db) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

Post by Alexander Terekhov
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-08205-LAP
Andersen et al v. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.
Assigned to: Judge Loretta A. Preska
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Date Filed: 09/19/2007
Date Terminated: 11/30/2007
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
11/30/2007 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of
the F.R.C.P.: Plaintiffs hereby dismiss this action against defendants
without prejudice and without costs to any party. (Signed by Judge
Loretta A. Preska on 11/29/07) (tro) (Entered: 11/30/2007)

regards,
alexander.
--
"12/21/2007 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT...
01/22/2008 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT...
02/19/2008 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDAT(sic)...
02/26/2008 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from
Daniel B. Ravicher...
02/27/2008 ORDER that Defendants Verizon Communications, Inc. has
until March 14, 2008..."
-- 1:07-cv-11070-LTS aka Never Beginning "GPL Enforcement" case

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hilarious.

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/17/busybox-verizon/

As if they've sued that tiny Actiontec and not Verizon...

I also notice that Verizon has made no changes at all regarding

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/verizon.pdf

"Upon information and belief, Verizon distributes to its customers the
Actiontec MI424WR wireless router (“Infringing Product”), which contains
embedded executable software (“Firmware”). Defendant also provides the
Firmware corresponding to the Infringing Product for download via its
website, at http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp."

Still no word about the GPL and/or source code.

So much about the "power" of the GNU GPL.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm

[Moshe Goldfarb]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Hilarious.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/17/busybox-verizon/
As if they've sued that tiny Actiontec and not Verizon...
I also notice that Verizon has made no changes at all regarding
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/verizon.pdf
"Upon information and belief, Verizon distributes to its customers the
Actiontec MI424WR wireless router (“Infringing Product”), which contains
embedded executable software (“Firmware”). Defendant also provides the
Firmware corresponding to the Infringing Product for download via its
website, at http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp."
Still no word about the GPL and/or source code.
So much about the "power" of the GNU GPL.
regards,
alexander.

The problem with the GNU GPL is that it is so confusing that the people
making decisions are leery of using Open Source code because they can't
determine positively what the impact, if any, could be to their business.

Some of this is due to confusion and misunderstanding of the GPL, but
that's really the point.

[Rahul Dhesi]

Post by Moshe Goldfarb
The problem with the GNU GPL is that it is so confusing that the people
making decisions are leery of using Open Source code because they can't
determine positively what the impact, if any, could be to their
business.
Some of this is due to confusion and misunderstanding of the GPL, but
that's really the point.

After they get caught violating the license they often plead
misunderstanding and confusion. :-)

[Moshe Goldfarb]

Post by Rahul Dhesi

Post by Moshe Goldfarb
The problem with the GNU GPL is that it is so confusing that the people
making decisions are leery of using Open Source code because they can't
determine positively what the impact, if any, could be to their business.
Some of this is due to confusion and misunderstanding of the GPL, but
that's really the point.

After they get caught violating the license they often plead
misunderstanding and confusion. :-)

Judge: "This is insanity!"
Plaintiff "Exactly what we are pleading your honor!"

[Moshe Goldfarb]

Post by Moshe Goldfarb

Post by Rahul Dhesi

Post by Moshe Goldfarb
The problem with the GNU GPL is that it is so confusing that the people
making decisions are leery of using Open Source code because they can't
determine positively what the impact, if any, could be to their business.
Some of this is due to confusion and misunderstanding of the GPL, but
that's really the point.

After they get caught violating the license they often plead
misunderstanding and confusion. :-)

Judge: "This is insanity!"
Plaintiff "Exactly what we are pleading your honor!"

Make that defendant.

Duhhhhh...I'm having a moment!

[rjack]

Post by Rahul Dhesi

Post by Moshe Goldfarb
The problem with the GNU GPL is that it is so confusing that the people
making decisions are leery of using Open Source code because they can't
determine positively what the impact, if any, could be to their business.
Some of this is due to confusion and misunderstanding of the GPL, but
that's really the point.

After they get caught violating the license they often plead
misunderstanding and confusion. :-)

After "they" (think Verizon) get "caught" they tell the SFLC (Software
Fictional Licensing Center) to kiss their royal ass and SFLC quickly
volunteers to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice and then claims
"victory" over some third party non-defendant.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

-- Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain
within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised,
but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the
license permits. -- Eben Moglen founder of the SFLC

-- "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) --

[Alexander Terekhov]

rjack wrote:
[...]

Post by rjack
After "they" (think Verizon) get "caught" they tell the SFLC (Software
Fictional Licensing Center) to kiss their royal ass and SFLC quickly
volunteers to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice and then claims
"victory" over some third party non-defendant.

According to eWeek's Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka "King of the
Freetards,"
(http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/12/six-more-incidents-of-copying-by.html
LOL)

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2614635569.html

"For decades, almost no one challenged the General Public License in
legal matters. In fact, no one has even dared to try to break it in
court. That record remains unsullied as the biggest company to
date--Verizon--that had been accused of a GPL violation opted to settle
out of court.

The Software Freedom Law Center filed a copyright infringement lawsuit
on Dec. 6 against Verizon Communications on behalf of its clients, the
two principal developers of BusyBox. The suit alleged that Verizon
violated the GNU GPLv2 by distributing Actiontec MI424WR wireless
routers--which contained unsanctioned GPLv2 code--that were used with
Verizon's fiber-optic Internet and television service, aka FiOS.

On March 17, the SFLC announced that Verizon has come to an agreement
with the SFLC and the BusyBox developers, which enables them to dismiss
the GPL enforcement lawsuit."

ROFL!

regards,
alexander.

--
http://linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm

[Alexander Terekhov]

ROFL!!!

http://lwn.net/Articles/273618/

From: Jim Garrison <garrison-AT-softwarefreedom.org>
To: pr-AT-lwn.net
Subject: BusyBox Developers Agree To End GPL Lawsuit Against Verizon
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:00:09 -0400
Message-ID: <***@softwarefreedom.org>


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BusyBox Developers Agree To End GPL Lawsuit Against Verizon

Good Faith Discussions Result in Dismissal of Copyright Infringement
Case

NEW YORK, March 17, 2008 -- The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC)
today announced that agreements have been reached to dismiss the GPL
enforcement lawsuit filed by SFLC against Verizon Communications
Inc. on behalf of two principal developers of BusyBox. Verizon
distributes BusyBox to its FiOS customers in devices that are provided
to Verizon by Actiontec Electronics, Inc.

BusyBox is a lightweight set of standard Unix utilities commonly used
in embedded systems and is open source software licensed under GNU
General Public License (GPL) version 2. One of the conditions of the
GPL is that re-distributors of BusyBox are required to ensure that
each downstream recipient is provided access to the source code of the
program.

As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and
reinstate Actiontec's and its customer's rights to distribute BusyBox
under the GPL, Actiontec has agreed to appoint an Open Source
Compliance Officer within its organization to monitor and ensure GPL
compliance, to publish the source code for the version of BusyBox it
previously distributed on its Web site, and to undertake substantial
efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox from Actiontec and
its customers, including Verizon, of their rights to the software
under the GPL. The settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of
financial consideration paid to the plaintiffs by Actiontec.

"We are happy to have settled this matter in a way that upholds the
GPL and the interests of our clients," said Dan Ravicher, Legal
Director of SFLC.

"Actiontec takes great pride in providing innovative, quality products
to its customers, while respecting the intellectual property rights of
third parties," said Dean Chang, Actiontec's President and CEO. "We
appreciate the value of the technological contributions of the open
source community, and look forward with renewed commitment to working
cooperatively with them."

The lawsuit, "Erik Andersen and Rob Landley v. Verizon Communications
Inc." case number 1:07-cv-11070-LTS, was filed December 6th, 2007, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

About the Software Freedom Law Center

The Software Freedom Law Center -- directed by Eben Moglen, one of the
world's leading experts on copyright law as applied to software --
provides legal representation and other law-related services to
protect and advance Free and Open Source Software. The Law Center is
dedicated to assisting non-profit open source developers and projects.
Visit SFLC at http://www.softwarefreedom.org.

About Actiontec Electronics, Inc.

Actiontec Electronics develops broadband connectivity and
broadband-powered solutions that simplify and enrich the digital life
-- delivering a unified experience that encompasses communications,
entertainment, home management, and more. Actiontec offerings range
from the market's broadest selection of IPTV-capable broadband home
gateways for bringing IP-based video services into the home, to DSL
modems, wireless networking devices, routers and digital entertainment
devices. The company's carrier-class products are easy to install,
manage, and use, and are sold through retail channels and broadband
service providers. Founded in 1993, Actiontec is headquartered in
Sunnyvale, CA, and maintains branch offices in Colorado Springs, CO;
Basingstoke, United Kingdom; Shanghai, China; and Taipei, Taiwan. For
more information, call 408-752-7700 or visit http://www.actiontec.com.

Media contacts:

Jim Garrison
Public Relations Coordinator
Software Freedom Law Center
[phone]
***@softwarefreedom.org

Lesley Kirchman
Director of Corporate Marketing
Actiontec Electronics
408-548-4849
***@actiontec.com

###


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Log in to post comments)

Apparently, Verizon wasn't distributing?
Posted Mar 17, 2008 17:21 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)

At the time the suit was announced, there was a lot of discussion (here
and in Groklaw) about whether Verizon actually was subject to GPL terms
or not - whether they were distributing the software, or simply
selling/renting boxes that contained software that Actiontec was the
distributor for.

The text of the announcement seems to imply, by omission, that it was
not - no mention was made of Verizon having agreed to do anything
differently.


Actiontec source distribution
Posted Mar 17, 2008 18:58 UTC (Mon) by salvarsan (subscriber, #18257)

Here:
http://opensource.actiontec.com/index.html

Actiontec's compliance started on a Friday two months ago.

Perhaps this late settlement suggests that Actiontec, despite their
eventual compliance, took no responsibility and referred all legal
action to Verizon.

-

regards,
alexander.

--
http://linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm

[Alexander Terekhov]

Just to recap, here's Initial Conference Order, Plaintiffs (*note: not
Defendant*) letter asking for delay (delay was granted), and official
notice of voluntary dismissal (followed by the entire docket).

http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/INITIAL_CONFERENCE_ORDER.pdf
http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/SFLC_LETTER.pdf
http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/VOLUNTARY_DISMISSAL.pdf

U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-11070-LTS

Andersen et al v. Verizon Communications, Inc.
Assigned to: Judge Laura Taylor Swain
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Date Filed: 12/06/2007
Date Terminated: 03/17/2008
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Erik Andersen
an individual represented by Daniel Ben Ravicher
Software Freedom Law Center, Inc
1995 Broadway, 17th Fl.
New York, NY 10023
(212)-580-0800
Fax: [phone]
Email: ***@softwarefreedom.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Rob Landley represented by Daniel Ben Ravicher
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


V.

Defendant
Verizon Communications, Inc.
a Delaware corporation

Date Filed # Docket Text

12/06/2007 1 COMPLAINT against Verizon Communications, Inc.(Filing Fee
$ 350.00, Receipt Number 635205)Document filed by Erik Andersen, Rob
Landley.(jeh) (Entered: 12/10/2007)

12/06/2007 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Verizon Communications, Inc. (jeh)
(Entered: 12/10/2007)

12/06/2007 Case Designated ECF. (jeh) (Entered: 12/10/2007)

12/06/2007 Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman is so designated. (jeh)
(Entered: 12/10/2007)

12/14/2007 2 ORDER RE SCHEDULING AND INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE:
Initial Conference set for 3/7/2008 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 17C, 500
Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Laura Taylor Swain.
(Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/13/07) (kco) (Entered:
12/14/2007)

12/19/2007 3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint. Verizon
Communications, Inc. served on 12/7/2007, answer due 12/27/2007. Service
was accepted by Terry Rolddan, Legal Department. Document filed by Erik
Andersen; Rob Landley. (Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered: 12/19/2007)

12/21/2007 4 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER: Verizon
Communications, Inc. answer is due 1/18/2007. (Signed by Judge Laura
Taylor Swain on 12/21/2007) (jar) (Entered: 12/26/2007)

01/02/2008 5 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Initial Conference Order served on
Verizon Communications on 12/20/07. Service was accepted by Janet
Donnelly, Assistant. Document filed by Erik Andersen, Rob Landley.
(Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered: 01/02/2008)

01/22/2008 6 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER:
Defendant has until 2/18/08, to answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint. Verizon Communications, Inc. answer due 2/18/2008. (Signed by
Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/18/08) (tro) (Entered: 01/22/2008)

02/19/2008 7 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDAT TO FILE ANSWER:
Defendant has until 2/27/08, to answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint. Verizon Communications, Inc. answer due 2/27/2008. (Signed by
Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 2/19/08) (tro) (Entered: 02/19/2008)

02/26/2008 8 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from
Daniel B. Ravicher dated 2/25/08 re: Plaintiffs request an adjournment
of the initial pre-trial conference currently scheduled for 3/7/08 to on
or after 4/4/08. ENDORSEMENT: The conference is adjourned to April 9,
2008 at 4:30 pm and the related submission deadline is modified
accordingly. ( Initial Conference set for 4/9/2008 at 04:30 PM before
Judge Laura Taylor Swain.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on
2/25/08) (tro) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

02/27/2008 9 ORDER that Defendants Verizon Communications, Inc. has
until March 14, 2008, to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint
filed on December 6, 2007, by Plaintiffs Erik Andersen and Rob Landley.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Verizon Communications, Inc. answer due 3/14/2008.
(Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 2/27/2008) (jmi) (Entered:
02/27/2008)

03/17/2008 10 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL: Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)
of the F.R.C.P., plaintiffs Erik Andersen and Rob Landley hereby dismiss
this action against defendant Verizon Communications Inc. with prejudice
and without costs to any party. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on
3/17/2008) (jpo) (Entered: 03/17/2008)

regards,
alexander.

--
http://linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm

[Alexander Terekhov]

Ha!

Post by rjack

Post by Rahul Dhesi

Post by Moshe Goldfarb
The problem with the GNU GPL is that it is so confusing that the people
making decisions are leery of using Open Source code because they can't
determine positively what the impact, if any, could be to their business.
Some of this is due to confusion and misunderstanding of the GPL, but
that's really the point.

After they get caught violating the license they often plead
misunderstanding and confusion. :-)

After "they" (think Verizon) get "caught" they tell the SFLC (Software
Fictional Licensing Center) to kiss their royal ass and SFLC quickly
volunteers to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice and then claims

Both the official docket and
http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/VOLUNTARY_DISMISSAL.pdf itself say
that the SFLC volunteered to dismiss the lawsuit WITH PREJUDICE.

*WITH PREJUDICE*

Fascinating!

SFLC ran scared to death out of court conceding total defeat!!!

--
http://linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm

[rjack]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Ha!

Post by rjack

Post by Rahul Dhesi

Post by Moshe Goldfarb
The problem with the GNU GPL is that it is so confusing that the people
making decisions are leery of using Open Source code because they can't
determine positively what the impact, if any, could be to their business.
Some of this is due to confusion and misunderstanding of the GPL, but
that's really the point.

After they get caught violating the license they often plead
misunderstanding and confusion. :-)

After "they" (think Verizon) get "caught" they tell the SFLC (Software
Fictional Licensing Center) to kiss their royal ass and SFLC quickly
volunteers to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice and then claims

Both the official docket and
http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/VOLUNTARY_DISMISSAL.pdf itself say
that the SFLC volunteered to dismiss the lawsuit WITH PREJUDICE.
*WITH PREJUDICE*
Fascinating!
SFLC ran scared to death out of court conceding total defeat!!!
--
http://linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm

Not quite true.

Verizon handed the SFLC their clients' (Andresen and Landley) heads on a
platter but... the SFLC arose from the dead and claimed standing for a
"resurrection" settlement over a party that was never joined in the
lawsuit -- such is the mysterious authority of the GPL license!

Hmmm... I wonder if the SFLC also had standing to force the tribal
chiefs in Southern Warziristan to appoint voluntary "compliance
officers" and pay undisclosed amounts.

WHAT A GLORIOUS VICTORY FOR THE GPL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

-- "Standing involves two distinct inquiries. First, an Article III
federal court must ask whether a plaintiff has suffered sufficient
injury to satisfy the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III
... Second, if a plaintiff has suffered sufficient injury to satisfy
Article III, a federal court must ask whether a statute has conferred
"standing" on that plaintiff."; Cetacean Community v. Bush, 386 F.3d
1169 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2004) --

[Alexander Terekhov]

Another postponement requested by SFLC. I gather that SFLC will move to
dismiss against own clients no later than August 20, 2008.


U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-05269-RMB

Andersen et al v. Super Micro Computer, Inc.
Assigned to: Judge Richard M. Berman
Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement
Date Filed: 06/09/2008
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Erik Andersen
an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson
Software Freedom Law Center, Inc
1995 Broadway
17th Floor
New York, NY 10023
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: ***@softwarefreedom.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Ben Ravicher
Software Freedom Law Center, Inc
1995 Broadway
17th Floor
New York, NY 10023
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: ***@softwarefreedom.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Rob Landley
an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Ben Ravicher
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


V.

Defendant
Super Micro Computer, Inc.
a Delaware Corporation


Date Filed # Docket Text
06/09/2008 1 COMPLAINT against Super Micro Computer, Inc.. (Filing Fee
$ 350.00.)Document filed by Erik Andersen, Rob Landley.(mbe) (mbe).
(Entered: 06/12/2008)
06/09/2008 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Super Micro Computer, Inc.. (mbe)
(Entered: 06/12/2008)
06/09/2008 Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman is so designated. (mbe)
(Entered: 06/12/2008)
06/09/2008 Case Designated ECF. (mbe) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
06/12/2008 ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO E-MAIL PDF. Note to Attorney for
noncompliance with Section (3) of the S.D.N.Y. 3rd Amended Instructions
For Filing An Electronic Case or Appeal and Section 1(d) of the S.D.N.Y.
Procedures For Electronic Case Filing. E-MAIL the PDF for Document 1
Complaint to: ***@nysd.uscourts.gov. (mbe) (Entered:
06/12/2008)
07/14/2008 2 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Super Micro Computer, Inc. served on
6/27/2008, answer due 7/17/2008. Service was accepted by Bob Aeshliman,
General Counsel. Document filed by Erik Andersen; Rob Landley.
(Williamson, Aaron) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
07/16/2008 3 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from
Daniel B. Ravicher dated 7/14/08 re: Plaintiffs request an adjournment
of the pre-trial conference currently scheduled for July 17, 2008, at
9:15 a.m. to on or after August 1, 2008. ENDORSEMENT: Conference
adjourned to 8/20/08 at 9:15 a.m. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Richard
M. Berman on 7/16/08) (js) (Entered: 07/16/2008)

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
Another postponement requested by SFLC. I gather that SFLC will move to
dismiss against own clients no later than August 20, 2008.

Probably because they are in negotiations to bring the
defendants into compliance with the GPL, after which
dismissal will be appropriate.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Another postponement requested by SFLC. I gather that SFLC will move to
dismiss against own clients no later than August 20, 2008.

Probably because they are in negotiations to bring the
defendants into compliance with the GPL, after which

So plaintiffs want to settle (having fruitless negotiations thus far)
and are asking delay of a conference meant to encourage defendants to
settle?

http://www.yourdictionary.com/pre-trial-conference

-----
An informal conference among opposing attorneys and the judge in which
the issues are narrowly spelled out, and that, in civil cases, allows
the judge to encourage both parties toward reaching a settlement.
-----

To me it appears that plaintiffs simply don't want the judge to hear
anything about the GPL and their "license not a contract" copyright
based enforcement theory (filing copyright infringement complaint
without bothering to register copyrights to establish court's
jurisdiction).

Could it be that plaintiffs are afraid that the judge will dismiss their
cockamamie case sua sponte right at the conference?

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
So plaintiffs want to settle (having fruitless negotiations thus far)
and are asking delay of a conference meant to encourage defendants to
settle?

The affidavit of service wasn't even filed until July 14.
I expect that in this case as in so many others, court
processes are slow and often delayed.

The proof will be, once the case is over, whether the
defendants properly make available the sources of the
GPLed software that they are distributing. That most
likely will be the case, because quoting from the
complaint:

<http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jun/10/busybox/supermicro-complaint.pdf>
15. On February 29, 2008, through their counsel,
Plaintiffs notified Defendant of its unlawful
conduct based upon its failure to comply with
the License.
16. On April 16, 2008, Defendant’s counsel provided
Plaintiffs with source code which it represented
to be the complete and corresponding code for the
GPL-licensed software on the Infringing Products.
Plaintiffs initiated a technical review of the source
code and communicated to Defendant their other demands
for settlement of the matter.
17. On April 25, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs
notified Defendant that the source provided did not
include “scripts used to control compilation and
installation of the executable,” and therefore did not
constitute “complete and corresponding source code”
within the meaning of the license.
18. Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s April 25
notice, and continues to distribute the Infringing
Products and Firmware in violation of Plaintiffs’
exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.

This means that, as usual, the defendants don't want to be
bothered with the GPL requirements, but once they're being
sued, they'll finally bite the bullet and do it right. Then
the SFLC will move to have the case dismissed, and you'll
once again treat it as a failure rather than a victory.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
So plaintiffs want to settle (having fruitless negotiations thus far)
and are asking delay of a conference meant to encourage defendants to
settle?

The affidavit of service wasn't even filed until July 14.
I expect that in this case as in so many others, court
processes are slow and often delayed.
The proof will be, once the case is over, whether the
defendants properly make available the sources of the
GPLed software that they are distributing. That most
likely will be the case, because quoting from the
<http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jun/10/busybox/supermicro-complaint.pdf>
15. On February 29, 2008, through their counsel,
Plaintiffs notified Defendant of its unlawful
conduct based upon its failure to comply with
the License.
16. On April 16, 2008, Defendant’s counsel provided
Plaintiffs with source code which it represented
to be the complete and corresponding code for the
GPL-licensed software on the Infringing Products.
Plaintiffs initiated a technical review of the source
code and communicated to Defendant their other demands
for settlement of the matter.
17. On April 25, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs
notified Defendant that the source provided did not
include “scripts used to control compilation and
installation of the executable,” and therefore did not
constitute “complete and corresponding source code”
within the meaning of the license.
18. Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s April 25
notice, and continues to distribute the Infringing
Products and Firmware in violation of Plaintiffs’
exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
This means that, as usual, the defendants don't want to be
bothered with the GPL requirements, but once they're being
sued, they'll finally bite the bullet and do it right. Then
the SFLC will move to have the case dismissed, and you'll
once again treat it as a failure rather than a victory.

Man oh man. Hyman Rosen managed to find out that SFLC wants scripts...
yet "PRAYER FOR RELIEF" doesn't mention scripts.

Pre-trial conference:

Judge: What's the issue?

Defendants: SFLC wants scripts...

Judge: What does that have to do with copyright infringement?

Defendants: No idea. BTW, they've not registered copyrights and you lack
jurisdiction, judge.

Judge: (To SFLC) &*^$%%#$$%$##&^%$*^(&^% Case dismissed.

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
Judge: (To SFLC) &*^$%%#$$%$##&^%$*^(&^% Case dismissed.

Do you know of an instance where the SFLC ended a case and
the GPLed sources were not made available?

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Judge: (To SFLC) &*^$%%#$$%$##&^%$*^(&^% Case dismissed.

Do you know of an instance where the SFLC ended a case and
the GPLed sources were not made available?

SFLC ended the case against Verizon and the GPL'd sources are still not
available from Verizon. And before you mention Actiontec: sources were
available from Actiontec prior to SFLC sued Verizon.

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
And before you mention Actiontec: sources were
available from Actiontec prior to SFLC sued Verizon.

The complaint against Verizon is dated December 6, 2007:
<http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/verizon.pdf>

This article says that the Actiontec FIOS router was available
in January of 2007:
<http://www.fibercrap.com/article/actiontec-mi424wr-router-fios-weapon-of-choice-1150-1.html>

Looking for http://opensource.actiontec.com/ on the WaybackMachine
shows that as late as Aug 2007 the software available on the site
contained sources for a Dual PC Modem, but not for a FIOS router:

August 2007:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20070822230857/http://opensource.actiontec.com/index.html>
Current:
<http://opensource.actiontec.com/index.html>

So it doesn't look to me as if the FIOS router firmware was
available before the lawsuit was filed. Do you have a URL or
other evidence that shows something different?

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
And before you mention Actiontec: sources were
available from Actiontec prior to SFLC sued Verizon.

<http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/verizon.pdf>
This article says that the Actiontec FIOS router was available
<http://www.fibercrap.com/article/actiontec-mi424wr-router-fios-weapon-of-choice-1150-1.html>
Looking for http://opensource.actiontec.com/ on the WaybackMachine
shows that as late as Aug 2007 the software available on the site
<http://web.archive.org/web/20070822230857/http://opensource.actiontec.com/index.html>
<http://opensource.actiontec.com/index.html>
So it doesn't look to me as if the FIOS router firmware was
available before the lawsuit was filed. Do you have a URL or
other evidence that shows something different?

Try this.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/07/1953217
^^^^^^^^

-------
Looking on Actiontec's "Support: Open Source" website
(http://opensource.actiontec.com/index.html [actiontec.com]), I see the
following:

GPL Code Download is available for the following Actiontec products:
Wireless Broadband Router Model MI424WR

The following is the portion of the Actiontec source code for the
MI424WR Products.

List of modules:

busybox-0.50
Release Date Filename
11/27/2007 actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr.tar.gz

Hmmm... looks like Actiontec is at least attempting to honor the
license. I haven't researched what's in the tarball, but at least it's
there.

So, again, why is SFLC suing Verizon?
-------

Then if you still have doubts go and ask Actiontec when did first appear
on web site. (The latest wayback-archived version of the site is of
08/22/2007.)

regards,
alexander.

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/07/1953217

Ouch. It took me a while to realize that the referenced
date is Decmember 7, not July 12!

Anyway, the WaybackMachine doesn't have anything from the
Actiontec source page after August 22, 2007, and Actiontec
had not yet posted the FIOS sources by then. It's clear
from my previous post that Verizon and Actiontec were out
of compliance with the GPL for most of 2007. Actiontec
had remedied the situation by December 7, but we don't
know on what date that actually happened.

There's not a lot of time between August 22 and December 7,
and it's easily possible that even if Actiontec had come into
compliance before SFLC filed their suit, SFLC might not have
noticed. That would explain why the suit was quickly dropped.

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Release Date Filename
11/27/2007 actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr.tar.gz
Hmmm... looks like Actiontec is at least attempting to honor the
license. I haven't researched what's in the tarball, but at least it's
there.
So, again, why is SFLC suing Verizon?

Actiontec and Verizon spent at least most of a year illegally
distributing copyrighted software without a license. Why shouldn't
the SFLC have sued them?

As I said before, it appears that Actiontec's compliance and the
SFLC's suit happened very close together, and a reasonable
interpretation (which, of course, will not be yours) is that the
two events crossed. This is also the reasonable interpretation of
why the SFLC then quickly dismissed the suit.

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Man oh man. Hyman Rosen managed to find out that SFLC wants scripts...
yet "PRAYER FOR RELIEF" doesn't mention scripts.

Of course not. The prayer for relief is simply asking the
defendant to stop illegally distributing the plaintiff's
software, and to compensate everyone for having done so.

The only license the defendant has for distributing this
software requires that sources, including scripts, be
distributed or made available with it. Since the defendant
is not doing that, he is not distributing under this license,
and therefore is distributing illegally.

[rjack]

The proof will be, once the case is over, whether the defendants properly
make available the sources of the GPLed software that they are distributing.

Each time the SFLC has filed a suit, GPL'd source code has appeared. This
correlation proves your hypothesis Hymen.

Every day an SFLC suit was filed, little children died in the Sudan. This
correlation proves the SFLC is killing little children.

Sincerely,
Rjack


"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or
the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
-- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre
Trials,' December 1770

[Linonut]

Post by rjack

The proof will be, once the case is over, whether the defendants properly
make available the sources of the GPLed software that they are distributing.

Each time the SFLC has filed a suit, GPL'd source code has appeared. This
correlation proves your hypothesis Hymen.
Every day an SFLC suit was filed, little children died in the Sudan. This
correlation proves the SFLC is killing little children.

Well, at least we know that rjack doesn't know jack about causation.

[rjack]

Post by Linonut

Post by rjack

The proof will be, once the case is over, whether the defendants properly
make available the sources of the GPLed software that they are
distributing. That most likely will be the case, because quoting from the

Each time the SFLC has filed a suit, GPL'd source code has appeared. This
correlation proves your hypothesis Hymen.
Every day an SFLC suit was filed, little children died in the Sudan. This
correlation proves the SFLC is killing little children.

Well, at least we know that rjack doesn't know jack about causation.

Sure I do.

Every time (with 100% correlation) when the S.F.L.C. files a plaintiff's GPL
case in the S.D.N.Y., this action causes the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss
his pointless lawsuit without the court ever reviewing the legal status of the
GPL or any of plaintiff's copyright claims.

This is not just conjectural since the court docket provides independent
evidence for confirmation (contrast with self-serving claims).

In the last three years, Moglen and Ravicher together have received over
$1,000,000 in compensation from public charitable contributions as S.F.L.C.
officers.

I know enough about causation to conclude that this will cause pockets to grow
fat. I also know that a negative finding by the court concerning the
enforceability of the GPL would cause this revenue stream to suddenly cease.

Sincerely,
Rjack

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

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by rjack
Every time (with 100% correlation) when the S.F.L.C. files a plaintiff's
GPL case in the S.D.N.Y., this action causes the plaintiff to voluntarily
dismiss his pointless lawsuit without the court ever reviewing the legal
status of the GPL or any of plaintiff's copyright claims.
In the last three years, Moglen and Ravicher together have received over
$1,000,000 in compensation from public charitable contributions as S.F.L.C.
officers.

You have not provide an instance where after the SFLC ended a
case the source for the GPLed software failed to be provided.

The SFLC continues to file cases on behalf of their clients,
who can therefore be assumed to be satisfied with the service
they are receiving.

The SFLC also receives enough money from its settlements that
its attorneys are reasonably well compensated and therefore
want to continue what they are doing.

So everyone involved, except for the code grabbers, is happy.
GPLed sources are made available, code grabbers are chastened,
attorneys are paid. I guess you're unhappy too, but that's just
an extra bonus.

[rjack]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by rjack
Every time (with 100% correlation) when the S.F.L.C. files a
plaintiff's GPL case in the S.D.N.Y., this action causes the plaintiff
to voluntarily dismiss his pointless lawsuit without the court ever
reviewing the legal
status of the GPL or any of plaintiff's copyright claims.
In the last three years, Moglen and Ravicher together have received over
$1,000,000 in compensation from public charitable contributions as S.F.L.C.
officers.

You have not provide an instance where after the SFLC ended a
case the source for the GPLed software failed to be provided.
The SFLC continues to file cases on behalf of their clients,
who can therefore be assumed to be satisfied with the service
they are receiving.
The SFLC also receives enough money from its settlements that
its attorneys are reasonably well compensated and therefore
want to continue what they are doing.

Uhhhh. What settlements. The imaginary ones?

Post by Hyman Rosen
So everyone involved, except for the code grabbers, is happy.
GPLed sources are made available, code grabbers are chastened,
attorneys are paid. I guess you're unhappy too, but that's just
an extra bonus.

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by rjack
Uhhhh. What settlements. The imaginary ones?

The settlements it reaches in its cases.

[rjack]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by rjack
Every time (with 100% correlation) when the S.F.L.C. files a
plaintiff's GPL case in the S.D.N.Y., this action causes the plaintiff
to voluntarily dismiss his pointless lawsuit without the court ever
reviewing the legal
status of the GPL or any of plaintiff's copyright claims.
In the last three years, Moglen and Ravicher together have received over
$1,000,000 in compensation from public charitable contributions as S.F.L.C.
officers.

You have not provide an instance where after the SFLC ended a
case the source for the GPLed software failed to be provided.

That's right. I'm gonna' let *you* provide the *verifiable evidence* for *your*
claims of settlements.

Post by Hyman Rosen
The SFLC continues to file cases on behalf of their clients,
who can therefore be assumed to be satisfied with the service
they are receiving.

Ah yes, "assumed". "Ass-u-me" will make an "ass" out of "u" and "me".

Post by Hyman Rosen
The SFLC also receives enough money from its settlements that
its attorneys are reasonably well compensated and therefore
want to continue what they are doing.

If you are privy to these "settlements" pray tell post them so all may see and
verify.

Post by Hyman Rosen
So everyone involved, except for the code grabbers, is happy.
GPLed sources are made available, code grabbers are chastened,
attorneys are paid. I guess you're unhappy too, but that's just
an extra bonus.

I'm not unhappy 'cause I'm having fun exposing your unverifiable, self-serving
claims.

Sincerely,
Rjack

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

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by rjack
That's right. I'm gonna' let *you* provide the *verifiable evidence*
for *your* claims of settlements.

I'm not going to do that. It's enough for me to provide reasonable
inferences to counter the absurd claims that you and Terekhov make.
There's no chance that either of you will change your minds. The
point is to prevent lurkers, assuming that there still are any, from
taking your statements at face value.

It's also obvious that should there have been such an instance, you
and Terekhov would be trumpeting it all over the place, as he tries
a bit with the Verizon case.

[rjack]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by rjack
That's right. I'm gonna' let *you* provide the *verifiable evidence*
for *your* claims of settlements.

I'm not going to do that.

That's right neither you nor the S.F.L.C. have ever produced any verifiable
evidence for any legal claims and you never will.

The upcoming appellate decision concerning Jacobsen v. Katzer in the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit will end the question of GPL enforceability once
and for all. Until then blather and bluster as you will. I suppose there are
still a few gullible souls out there.

Post by Hyman Rosen
It's enough for me to provide reasonable
inferences to counter the absurd claims that you and Terekhov make.
There's no chance that either of you will change your minds. The
point is to prevent lurkers, assuming that there still are any, from
taking your statements at face value.
It's also obvious that should there have been such an instance, you
and Terekhov would be trumpeting it all over the place, as he tries
a bit with the Verizon case.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

Have a nice day!
_ _
|_| |_|
| | /^^^\ | |
_| |_ (| "o" |) _| |_
_| | | | _ (_---_) _ | | | |_
| | | | |' | _| |_ | `| | | | |
| | / \ | |
\ / / /(. .)\ \ \ /
\ / / / | . | \ \ \ /
\ \/ / ||Y|| \ \/ /
\__/ || || \__/
() ()
|| ||
ooO Ooo

[Linonut]

Post by rjack
_ _
|_| |_|
| | /^^^\ | |
_| |_ (| "o" |) _| |_
_| | | | _ (_---_) _ | | | |_
| | | | |' | _| |_ | `| | | | |
| | / \ | |
\ / / /(. .)\ \ \ /
\ / / / | . | \ \ \ /
\ \/ / ||Y|| \ \/ /
\__/ || || \__/
() ()
|| ||
ooO Ooo

Your best argument yet.

[rjack]

Post by Linonut

_ _ |_| |_| | | /^^^\
| | _| |_ (| "o" |) _| |_ _| | | | _ (_---_) _ | | | |_ | |
| | |' | _| |_ | `| | | | | | | / \ | | \
/ / /(. .)\ \ \ / \ / / / | . | \ \ \ / \ \/ / ||Y||
\ \/ / \__/ || || \__/ () () || || ooO Ooo

Your best argument yet.

Many thanks. Trolls need love too!

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

“The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling”,
Sunday, December 14 2003 @ 09:06 PM EST -- Pamela Jones at Groklaw

[David Kastrup]

Post by rjack

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by rjack
That's right. I'm gonna' let *you* provide the *verifiable evidence*
for *your* claims of settlements.

I'm not going to do that.

That's right neither you nor the S.F.L.C. have ever produced any
verifiable evidence for any legal claims and you never will.
The upcoming appellate decision concerning Jacobsen v. Katzer in the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will end the question of GPL
enforceability once and for all.

Pffft. Like all previous decisions did. I don't expect anything new.
You trumpet about the inevitability of the outcomes all the time, and
then bluster about incompetence of the judges afterwards.

[Linonut]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by rjack
Every time (with 100% correlation) when the S.F.L.C. files a plaintiff's
GPL case in the S.D.N.Y., this action causes the plaintiff to voluntarily
dismiss his pointless lawsuit without the court ever reviewing the legal
status of the GPL or any of plaintiff's copyright claims.
In the last three years, Moglen and Ravicher together have received over
$1,000,000 in compensation from public charitable contributions as S.F.L.C.
officers.

Wow, $170K/year. Not a bad salary.

Unless you compare it to, say, Gates and Ballmer.

Post by Hyman Rosen
So everyone involved, except for the code grabbers, is happy.
GPLed sources are made available, code grabbers are chastened,
attorneys are paid. I guess you're unhappy too, but that's just
an extra bonus.

Of course he's happy, he don't get jack.

[Moshe Goldfarb.]

Post by Hyman Rosen
You have not provide an instance where after the SFLC ended a

Hyman,
Are you related to Moses Rosen?
I had a friend with that name who I believe had a son named Hyman and a
daughter named Hedy.

Just asking.
Shalom!

[Tim Smith]

Post by Hyman Rosen
The SFLC continues to file cases on behalf of their clients,
who can therefore be assumed to be satisfied with the service
they are receiving.

What's puzzling is that rjack appears to be right about one very
important thing, though. Doing a search of copyright registrations, I
can't find one for Busybox (or for anything else by the people listed in
the lawsuits as the copyright owners).

It also doesn't appear the Busybox counts as a non-US Berne work, and so
registration is a prerequisite to suit.

Can anyone explain what is going on here? Is the search at
www.copyright.gov not up to date? Are the defendants not bothering to
check because they just assume the work must have been registered? Is
Busybox actually a non-US Berne work?

[Moshe Goldfarb.]

Post by Tim Smith

Post by Hyman Rosen
The SFLC continues to file cases on behalf of their clients,
who can therefore be assumed to be satisfied with the service
they are receiving.

What's puzzling is that rjack appears to be right about one very
important thing, though. Doing a search of copyright registrations, I
can't find one for Busybox (or for anything else by the people listed in
the lawsuits as the copyright owners).
It also doesn't appear the Busybox counts as a non-US Berne work, and so
registration is a prerequisite to suit.
Can anyone explain what is going on here? Is the search at
www.copyright.gov not up to date? Are the defendants not bothering to
check because they just assume the work must have been registered? Is
Busybox actually a non-US Berne work?

I'm surprised Fisher Price hasn't squawked about the name.
Their's is Busy Box (2 words) though I think?

[rjack]

The SFLC continues to file cases on behalf of their clients, who can
therefore be assumed to be satisfied with the service they are receiving.

What's puzzling is that rjack appears to be right about one very important
thing, though. Doing a search of copyright registrations, I can't find one
for Busybox (or for anything else by the people listed in the lawsuits as the
copyright owners).
It also doesn't appear the Busybox counts as a non-US Berne work, and so
registration is a prerequisite to suit.
Can anyone explain what is going on here? Is the search at www.copyright.gov
not up to date? Are the defendants not bothering to check because they just
assume the work must have been registered? Is Busybox actually a non-US
Berne work?

From the S.F.L.C. suits:

"6. Plaintiffs are authors and developers of the BusyBox computer program, and
the owners of copyrights in that computer program."


Here is a list of BusyBox developers from the BusyBox site. Who owns what
copyrights in the BusyBox source code?
_______________________________________________________________________________

The following login accounts currently exist on busybox.net. (I.E. these people
can commit patches into subversion for the BusyBox, uClibc, and buildroot projects.)
aldot :Bernhard Fischer
andersen :Erik Andersen - uClibc and BuildRoot maintainer.
bug1 :Glenn McGrath
davidm :David McCullough
gkajmowi :Garrett Kajmowicz - uClibc++ maintainer
jbglaw :Jan-Benedict Glaw
jocke :Joakim Tjernlund
landley :Rob Landley - BusyBox maintainer
lethal :Paul Mundt
mjn3 :Manuel Novoa III
osuadmin :osuadmin
pgf :Paul Fox
pkj :Peter Kjellerstedt
prpplague :David Anders
psm :Peter S. Mazinger
russ :Russ Dill
sandman :Robert Griebl
sjhill :Steven J. Hill
solar :Ned Ludd
timr :Tim Riker
tobiasa :Tobias Anderberg
vapier :Mike Frysinger

The following accounts used to exist on busybox.net, but don't anymore so I
can't ask /etc/passwd for their names. Rob Wentworth asked Google and recovered
the names:

aaronl :Aaron Lehmann
beppu :John Beppu
dwhedon :David Whedon
erik :Erik Andersen
gfeldman :Gennady Feldman
jimg :Jim Gleason
kraai :Matt Kraai
markw :Mark Whitley
miles :Miles Bader
proski :Pavel Roskin
rjune :Richard June
tausq :Randolph Chung
vodz :Vladimir N. Oleynik

http://busybox.net/FAQ.html#who
_____________________________________________________________________________


How does one untangle all the interwoven source code from literally years of
derivative and collective patches submitted by over thirty different
programmers? The plaintiffs must identify only their own original works of
authorship in the BusyBox source code in order to claim ownership of the
copyrights.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or
the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
-- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre
Trials,' December 1770

[Rahul Dhesi]

Post by rjack
Here is a list of BusyBox developers from the BusyBox site. Who owns what
copyrights in the BusyBox source code?

Apparently no defendant has so far questioned the plaintiffs' ownership
of the copyright, so the question above is irrelevant to the lawsuits
and to this discussion.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Rahul Dhesi

Post by rjack
Here is a list of BusyBox developers from the BusyBox site. Who owns what
copyrights in the BusyBox source code?

Apparently no defendant has so far questioned the plaintiffs' ownership
of the copyright, so the question above is irrelevant to the lawsuits
and to this discussion.

SFLC complaints are to be dismissed automatically (due to lack of
jurisdiction).

SFLC does dismiss complaints automatically before defendants file any
response to the complaint and any ruling from judge (actually before
having him a chance to even read the GPL and complaint).

regards,
alexander.

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
SFLC complaints are to be dismissed automatically (due to lack of
jurisdiction).
SFLC does dismiss complaints automatically before defendants file any
response to the complaint and any ruling from judge (actually before
having him a chance to even read the GPL and complaint).

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

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
SFLC complaints are to be dismissed automatically (due to lack of
jurisdiction).
SFLC does dismiss complaints automatically before defendants file any
response to the complaint and any ruling from judge (actually before
having him a chance to even read the GPL and complaint).

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

How come that Verizon still doesn't make GPLed software available "as
required" Hyman?

Note that Verizon makes GPLed binaries available on its own website.

http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html

regards,
alexander.

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
How come that Verizon still doesn't make GPLed software available "as
required" Hyman?

I guess that the plaintiffs decided that having the manufacturer
of the routers comply with the GPL was good enough for them, because
it would be difficult to explain in court that Verizon was not
complying with the GPL given this availability. But that's just a
guess.

[Rahul Dhesi]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
SFLC does dismiss complaints automatically before defendants file any
response to the complaint and any ruling from judge (actually before
having him a chance to even read the GPL and complaint).

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

There is, however, one interesting question.

The terms of a settlement are kept confidential if they would embarrass
or harm a settling party.

I wonder who would be embarrassed or harmed in these cases if the terms
of the settlements became public.

There is definitely something philosophically contadictory about a
closed-source settlement intended to preserve the open-source-ness of
software.

Somebody wants to hide something. Who -- the defendants or the SFLC?
It's hard to tell.

[Hyman Rosen]

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

Why do you think anyone is hiding anything? For example,
<http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/17/busybox-verizon/>
says
"As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit
and reinstate Actiontec's and its customer's rights to distribute
BusyBox under the GPL, Actiontec has agreed to appoint an Open
Source Compliance Officer within its organization to monitor and
ensure GPL compliance, to publish the source code for the version
of BusyBox it previously distributed on its Web site, and to
undertake substantial efforts to notify previous recipients of
BusyBox from Actiontec and its customers, including Verizon, of
their rights to the software under the GPL. The settlement also
includes an undisclosed amount of financial consideration paid to
the plaintiffs by Actiontec."

I guess you can be enough of a nosey parker to want to know exactly
how much was paid, but otherwise there isn't anything secret about
the settlement terms.

[rjack]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Somebody wants to hide something. Who -- the defendants or the SFLC? It's
hard to tell.

Why do you think anyone is hiding anything? For example,
<http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/17/busybox-verizon/> says "As a
result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and reinstate
Actiontec's and its customer's rights to distribute BusyBox under the GPL,
Actiontec has agreed to appoint an Open Source Compliance Officer within its
organization to monitor and ensure GPL compliance, to publish the source code
for the version of BusyBox it previously distributed on its Web site, and to
undertake substantial efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox from
Actiontec and its customers, including Verizon, of their rights to the
software under the GPL. The settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of
financial consideration paid to the plaintiffs by Actiontec."
I guess you can be enough of a nosey parker to want to know exactly how much
was paid, but otherwise there isn't anything secret about the settlement
terms.

The New York Enquirer

Extra! Extra!
Flying pigs sighted in Southern Federal District of New York!

Miracle in New York!
Although no independently verifiable evidence of record, plaintiffs face-saving
blog posts prove their claims after case is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice!


Sincerely,
Rjack :)


"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or
the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
-- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre
Trials,' December 1770

[Hyman Rosen]

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

It is independently verifiable through the WaybackMachine and
other websites that Verizon was distributing the Actiontec FIOS
router as early as January 2007, while the source code for the
firmware was not being distributed by Actiontec as late as August
of 2007. It is independently verifiable that after the lawsuit,
that source code was available from Actiontec.

It appears from other postings that Actiontec may have started
making the sources available very shortly before the suit was
filed, which would explain why the suit was so quickly dismissed.

It is the purpose of the SFLC lawsuits to bring illegal
distribution of GPLed code to a halt, either by preventing
distribution or by having the distribution come into compliance.
As we have seen, in each case where the SFLC has filed suit,
after the suit was ended, distribution has come into compliance
with the GPL. Therefore the conclusion must be that they are
succeeding in attaining their goals.

[Rahul Dhesi]

Post by Hyman Rosen

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

Why do you think anyone is hiding anything? For example,
<http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/17/busybox-verizon/>
says

[press release omitted]

Post by Hyman Rosen
I guess you can be enough of a nosey parker to want to know exactly
how much was paid, but otherwise there isn't anything secret about
the settlement terms.

The announcement you quoted I'm sure presents some of the highlights of
the actual agreement, but might omit important details. Without looking
at the settlement, we do not know what those details are and how
important they are.

I'm inclined to think that at least one of the parties would be harmed
or embarrassed if the settlement became public -- otherwise they would
have just posted it, on or near the same web page where the complaint
was posted.

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/verizon.pdf

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Rahul Dhesi
I'm inclined to think that at least one of the parties would be harmed
or embarrassed if the settlement became public -- otherwise they would
have just posted it, on or near the same web page where the complaint
was posted.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/verizon.pdf

Except that complaints have to be very formal because they're
filed with a court. A settlement is a private agreement between
parties, and it can be as formal or informal as they want. In
any case, there is no reason that the fine details need to be
made public, and the general tendency of lawyers is to keep
things quiet, because what you don't say can't hurt you.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Yet another complaint.

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jul/21/busybox/extreme-networks.pdf

Now, this is interesting:

------
17. On March 12, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs sent Defendant
their requirements for settling the dispute, which included that
Defendant: comply with the License; appoint an Open Source Compliance
Officer; notify prior recipients of infinging products of their rights
under the License; and compensate Plaintiffs.

18. On June 25, 2008, after a series of communications between the
parties regarding other of Plaintiffs’ requirements for settlement,
Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiffs.

19. On June 26, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs again notified
Defendant that its continued distribution of the Program was in
violation of the License and an infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights.
Plaintiffs’ counsel requested a call to discuss the matter further.

20. Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s June 26 notice, and
continues to distribute the Infringing Products and Firmware in
violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
------

<chuckles>

regards,
alexander.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Extreme Networks' offer regarding GPL'd stuff:

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

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Yet another complaint.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jul/21/busybox/extreme-networks.pdf
------
17. On March 12, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs sent Defendant
their requirements for settling the dispute, which included that
Defendant: comply with the License; appoint an Open Source Compliance
Officer; notify prior recipients of infinging products of their rights
under the License; and compensate Plaintiffs.
18. On June 25, 2008, after a series of communications between the
parties regarding other of Plaintiffs’ requirements for settlement,
Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiffs.
19. On June 26, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs again notified
Defendant that its continued distribution of the Program was in
violation of the License and an infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights.
Plaintiffs’ counsel requested a call to discuss the matter further.
20. Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s June 26 notice, and
continues to distribute the Infringing Products and Firmware in
violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
------
<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.)

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Yet another complaint.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jul/21/busybox/extreme-networks.pdf

The piece of shit above is signed

-----
Respectfully submitted,
SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC.
By:
Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337)
...
-----

It appears that someone named "Aaron Williamson" has a domain*** and a
blog:

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

-----
copiesofcopies :: webl

Aaron Williamson gives you what-for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About

This is the personal webl of Aaron Williamson, and it isn’t legal
advice.

FAQ

Q: What is a “webl”?

A: It is a convenient abbreviation of the term “weblog.”
-----

Now, this is really interesting entry:

-----
A telling admission

May 28th, 2008

Today I was admitted to practice before the District Court for the
Southern District of New York and assigned my requested attorney bar
code: AW1337. I will be pwning n00bs briefly, meaning both “in the near
future” and “by virtue of briefs, which are things that lawyers file.”

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 at 3:53 am and is
filed under i am a lawyer.
-----

I just wonder how long will it take until some GPL defendant decides
that "enough is enough" and initiates disbarrment of the entire SFLC
gang including Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337).

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by Alexander Terekhov
------
17. On March 12, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs sent Defendant
their requirements for settling the dispute, which included that
Defendant: comply with the License; appoint an Open Source Compliance
Officer; notify prior recipients of infinging products of their rights
under the License; and compensate Plaintiffs.
18. On June 25, 2008, after a series of communications between the
parties regarding other of Plaintiffs’ requirements for settlement,
Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiffs.
19. On June 26, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs again notified
Defendant that its continued distribution of the Program was in
violation of the License and an infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights.
Plaintiffs’ counsel requested a call to discuss the matter further.
20. Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s June 26 notice, and
continues to distribute the Infringing Products and Firmware in
violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
------
<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.)

***) Whois Record

Domain ID:D149411650-LROR
Domain Name:COPIESOFCOPIES.ORG
Created On:15-Oct-2007 16:23:39 UTC
Last Updated On:09-Apr-2008 00:24:25 UTC
Expiration Date:15-Oct-2010 16:23:39 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:GODA-038672170
Registrant Name:Aaron Williamson
Registrant Street1:460 15th St.
Registrant Street2:Apt. 8
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Brooklyn
Registrant State/Province:New York
Registrant Postal Code:11215
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:[phone]
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email: ***@yahoo.com
Admin ID:GODA-238672170
Admin Name:Aaron Williamson
Admin Street1:460 15th St.
Admin Street2:Apt. 8
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Brooklyn
Admin State/Province:New York
Admin Postal Code:11215
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:[phone]
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email: ***@yahoo.com
Tech ID:GODA-138672170
Tech Name:Aaron Williamson
Tech Street1:460 15th St.
Tech Street2:Apt. 8
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Brooklyn
Tech State/Province:New York
Tech Postal Code:11215
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:[phone]
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email: ***@yahoo.com

[rjack]

I just wonder how long will it take until some GPL defendant decides that
"enough is enough" and initiates disbarrment of the entire SFLC gang
including Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337).

Alexander,

We must give credit where credit is due. The S.F.L.C. attorneys are *consistent*
and we may *always* count on them. They have filed six consecutive incompetent
pleadings in the Southern District of New York. Six complaints that fail to
comply with the jurisdictional requirements set forth by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit involving copyright infringement
complaints. To wit:

"It [The Copyright Act] provides that 'no action for infringement of the
copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or
registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this
title.' . . . Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is not up for debate
in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we have squarely held that it is".; In
re Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation 509 F.3d 116 (2nd
Cir. 2007).

Just one more reason why Americans distrust lawyers. The S.F.L.C. lawyers
need not fear the court's rebuke though. The one (and probably only) thing they
learned in law school was how to file a motion for voluntary dismissal --
conveniently preventing the court from reviewing their moronic, incompetent
pleadings.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or
the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
-- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre
Trials,' December 1770

[Hyman Rosen]

The S.F.L.C. attorneys are *consistent* and we may *always*
count on them. They have filed six consecutive incompetent
pleadings in the Southern District of New York.

In any of these cases, is there an instance where the
source code of the GPLed software was not available
once the case was over? If not, then the SFLC has done
its work successfully.

Over and over again, you appear to miss the point of a
lawsuit. It is to achieve an objective. That objective
is to make distributors of GPLed software comply with
the requirements of the license. After each suit filed
by the SFLC, this has happened.

[Linonut]

Post by Hyman Rosen

The S.F.L.C. attorneys are *consistent* and we may *always*
count on them. They have filed six consecutive incompetent
pleadings in the Southern District of New York.

In any of these cases, is there an instance where the
source code of the GPLed software was not available
once the case was over? If not, then the SFLC has done
its work successfully.
Over and over again, you appear to miss the point of a
lawsuit. It is to achieve an objective. That objective
is to make distributors of GPLed software comply with
the requirements of the license. After each suit filed
by the SFLC, this has happened.

rjack is wearing green-colored glasses.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

The S.F.L.C. attorneys are *consistent* and we may *always*
count on them. They have filed six consecutive incompetent
pleadings in the Southern District of New York.

In any of these cases, is there an instance where the
source code of the GPLed software was not available
once the case was over? If not, then the SFLC has done
its work successfully.

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

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[Hyman Rosen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
requires that the source for those versions be made available.

Read the complaint you idiot. The claimed unresolved issue is

"18. On June 25, 2008, after a series of communications between the
parties regarding other of Plaintiffs’ requirements for settlement,
Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiffs."

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

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

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

Man oh man.

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

Go to clinic, Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
May 28th, 2008
Today I was admitted to practice

And your point is what, exactly? Public interest groups often
hire interns and people just starting out in the profession.
The group gets relatively cheap labor, and the employee gets
experience.

For all your wailing and gnashing of teeth, it isn't even as
if these distributors are trying to hide some great secret that
they've incorporated into their software. They're just too lazy
to comply with the license until someone gets their attention
with a two-by-four. When you do business, there's a bunch of
stuff you just have to do - filings, taxes, bills, and so on.
Honoring software licenses is one of them. These are the same
kind of companies that get raided by the BSA and are discovered
to be using illegal copies of non-free software. It's a mindset.

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx

So when did this page appear? And do they actually honor
requests for the source? If they do, I would once again
assume that a grabber has come around to meeting the license
requirements once a suit was filed, and that we will thus
soon see another dismissal, which you will proclaim as a
defeat and everyone else will regard as a victory.

[Rjack]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx

So when did this page appear? And do they actually honor
requests for the source? If they do, I would once again
assume that a grabber has come around to meeting the license
requirements once a suit was filed, and that we will thus
soon see another dismissal, which you will proclaim as a
defeat and everyone else will regard as a victory.

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

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

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

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Rjack

Post by Hyman Rosen
defeat and everyone else will regard as a victory.

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

I don't understand what you mean. Do you believe that
"We will thus soon see another dismissal,
which you will proclaim as a defeat and
everyone else will regard as a victory."
is not grammatically correct? Why not?

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx

So when did this page appear? And do they actually honor

So once again you want me to prove something?

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

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by rjack
Each time the SFLC has filed a suit, GPL'd source code has appeared.
This correlation proves your hypothesis
Every day an SFLC suit was filed, little children died in the Sudan.
This correlation proves the SFLC is killing little children.

It is reasonable to believe that when a court action is filed
to accomplish a specific purpose, and when the court action is
over, that purpose has been accomplished, that the court action
was instrumental in accomplishing the purpose.

It is fine if you choose not to believe that, but you will find
it difficult to convince anyone else.

[David Kastrup]

Post by rjack

The proof will be, once the case is over, whether the defendants
properly make available the sources of the GPLed software that they
are distributing. That most likely will be the case, because quoting

Each time the SFLC has filed a suit, GPL'd source code has
appeared. This correlation proves your hypothesis Hymen.
Every day an SFLC suit was filed, little children died in the
Sudan. This correlation proves the SFLC is killing little children.

And I have no doubt that Terekhov and you would hail anybody suing the
SFLC for murder, and be calling any judge thinking otherwise "drunk",
"mad" or similar.

[Alexander Terekhov]

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20080610006158/en
(SFLC's press release)

Now,

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

that is quite a hallucination by SFLC's PR "Coordinator" given that
previous lawsuit against Verizon resulted in dismissal WITH PREJUDICE
against plaintiffs, meaning that defendant Verizon may now violate
Busybox copyrights/breach the GPL covering said copyrights with impunity
-- plaintiffs lost the case WITH PREJUDICE -- res judicata and all that.
(The announced "settlement" with NON-DEFENDANT Actiontec is in no way
affecting Verizon. To wit, Verizon is still breaching the GPL
<http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp>.)

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[Moshe Goldfarb.]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20080610006158/en
(SFLC's press release)
Now,
"All of the previous lawsuits have resulted in out-of-court settlements
requiring the defendants to distribute source code in compliance with
the GPL."
that is quite a hallucination by SFLC's PR "Coordinator" given that
previous lawsuit against Verizon resulted in dismissal WITH PREJUDICE
against plaintiffs, meaning that defendant Verizon may now violate
Busybox copyrights/breach the GPL covering said copyrights with impunity
-- plaintiffs lost the case WITH PREJUDICE -- res judicata and all that.
(The announced "settlement" with NON-DEFENDANT Actiontec is in no way
affecting Verizon. To wit, Verizon is still breaching the GPL
<http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp>.)
regards,
alexander.

You are going to scare Roy Schestowitz with this stuff.

[amicus_curious]

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

In every one of the cases that I have managed to find that had any detail,
the "compliance" involved was publishing the source of the original GPL
product used. There doesn't seem to be any instance of the defendant
publishing any new code. This seems kind of pointless in that these cases
involve situations where the end user, who is given the access to the the
source, is very unlikely to care. For Verizon, who gives a hoot about the
code used inside one's cell phone or modem or switch or whatever? If it
doesn't work, it will go back to the store for credit, no one is going to
re-write the code inside to fix it. Except maybe some COLA guy, but they
can find the source somewhere else anyway.

[rjack]

Post by amicus_curious

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

In every one of the cases that I have managed to find that had any
detail, the "compliance" involved was publishing the source of the
original GPL product used. There doesn't seem to be any instance of the
defendant publishing any new code.

I have have never found any *verifiable* detail of *any* settlement of
these lawsuits other than the court records available on PACER.

I have read hearsay reports of settlements released from SFLC blog
postings. . . these reports from SFLC lawyers who have spent the past
seven years claiming a copyright license is not a contract.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

These settlements concern BusyBox source code that has never been
registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The plaintiffs obviously have
no standing to file these frivolous suits:

"It provides that "no action for infringement of the copyright in any
United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or
registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with
this title." . . . Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is not up
for debate in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we have squarely
held that it is".; In re Literary Works in Electronic Databases
Copyright Litigation 509 F.3d 116 (2nd Cir. 2007).

Why believe *anything* from these SFLC crackpots? THE SFLC WILL NEVER,
NEVER ALLOW A FEDERAL COURT TO REVIEW THE GPL ON ITS MERITS. They will
even dismiss WITH PREJUDICE against their own clients rather than see a
court actually review their moronic GPL license claims.

Sincerely,
Rjack

-- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by
ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi
Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit 1995) --

[Rahul Dhesi]

Post by rjack
These settlements concern BusyBox source code that has never been
registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The plaintiffs obviously have

I think you should file an amicus brief making this point.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Rahul Dhesi

Post by rjack
These settlements concern BusyBox source code that has never been
registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The plaintiffs obviously have

I think you should file an amicus brief making this point.

What for, given that all SFLC's suits are ending prior to initial
pre-trial conference (with SFLC asking for delay, delay, and event more
delay*** in litigation) with court orders (four court orders to date)
imposing nothing but dismissals?

For example:

http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/DISMISSAL.pdf

***) "02/26/2008 8 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor
Swain from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 2/25/08 re: Plaintiffs request an
adjournment of the initial pre-trial conference currently scheduled for
3/7/08 to on or after 4/4/08. ENDORSEMENT: The conference is adjourned
to April 9, 2008 at 4:30 pm and the related submission deadline is
modified accordingly. ( Initial Conference set for 4/9/2008 at 04:30 PM
before Judge Laura Taylor Swain.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on
2/25/08) (tro) (Entered: 02/26/2008)"

(SFLC moved to dismiss WITH PREJUDICE against their own clients prior to
(postponed on SFLC's request) pre-trial conference.)

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.)

[Richard Tobin]

Post by rjack
I have have never found any *verifiable* detail of *any* settlement of
these lawsuits other than the court records available on PACER.

I have never found any *verifiable* evidence that you're a real person.

But then I've never thought it worth bothering to look.

-- Richard

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by rjack
I have have never found any *verifiable* detail of *any* settlement of
these lawsuits other than the court records available on PACER.

I have never found any *verifiable* evidence that you're a real person.

That's because you've never compared his posts here with lawsuits in the
7th Circuit (stuff partly available on PACER) regarding the GPL.

Hint:

http://www.grinswim.org/addressbook.html

One out of five. :-)

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.)

[Linonut]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by rjack
I have have never found any *verifiable* detail of *any* settlement of
these lawsuits other than the court records available on PACER.

I have never found any *verifiable* evidence that you're a real person.

I think he's an Eben Moglen wannabe.

Or a law student with a chip on his shoulder.

He's got a real funny one where he tries to claim, via a partial cite,
that "fair use" effectively negates the GPL.

In other words, an armchair lawyer.

[Tim Smith]

Post by rjack
These settlements concern BusyBox source code that has never been
registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The plaintiffs obviously have

Wait a second. What is the country of origin for the software? The
rules are different if its origin is a Berne country that is not the
United States.

(They'd still need to register if they wanted statutory damages and
attorney fees, and registration within five years of creating the work
give a rebuttable presumption that the copyright is valid and you are
the owner, which is a nice thing to have).

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Tim Smith

Post by rjack
These settlements concern BusyBox source code that has never been
registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The plaintiffs obviously have

Wait a second. What is the country of origin for the software? The
rules are different if its origin is a Berne country that is not the
United States.

"This is an action by Erik Andersen, an individual, and Rob Landley, an
individual, (“Plaintiffs”) by and through their attorneys, the Software
Freedom Law Center, Inc., to recover damages arising from infringement
of their copyrights by <snip>, Inc. (“Defendant”) ... Specifically,
Defendant distributed and continues to distribute Plaintiffs’
copyrighted BusyBox software without Plaintiffs’ permission ... Erik
Andersen is a private individual with a residence in Springville, Utah.
Rob Landley is a private individual with a residence in Austin, Texas. "

All SFLC's frivolous suits are about US copyrights and only US
copyrights.

"Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market
value is impossible to assess"

(See complaints filed by Software Fictional Licensing Center.)

LOL.

Here's more from SFLC's "lawyers":

"You do not need to register to enforce your copyright. "

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html

And this is from the United states Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit where SFLC resides and likes to file their idiotic complaints
(just to dismiss voluntary and even with prejudice against own clients
shortly after filing initial complaint):

"It provides that "no action for infringement of the copyright in
any United States work shall be instituted until pre-registration
or registration of the copyright claim has been made in
accordance with this title." 17 U.S.C. sec. 411(a); see also 17
U.S.C. sec. 501.1 Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is
not up for debate in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we
have squarely held that it is."; In re Literary Works in
Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation; Nos. 05-5943-cv(L),
06-0223-cv(CON)(2d Cir. Nov. 29, 2007).

http://infotechlawpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/01/second-circuit-vacates-settlement-of.html
(Second Circuit Vacates Settlement...)

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]

ROFL

http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html

------
Verizon CEO doesn't know about open source
By Sean Michael Kerner on June 18, 2008 1:37 PM

From the 'not everyone knows about open source yet' files:

LAS VEGAS -- I just got out of a Q&A session with Verizon Communications
CEO Denny Strigl and being an open source guy I asked Strigl about open
source. Specifically I asked what role does open source play at Verizon
now, especially in light of the recent SFLC lawsuit against Verizon on
GPL infringement.

Strigl looked at me with a blank face and asked me to repeat my
question. He was completely clueless.

He then asked one of his PR people to answer, and they too were
clueless.

In December of 2007 the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) filed its GPL
lawsuit, which was settled in March of this year. The win was hailed as
a victory for open source by the SFLC and others.

Apparently though open source types (like myself) thought the Verizon
thing was a big deal, it apparently never reached the radar screen of
Verizon's top exec. Go figure.
------

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.)

[Hadron]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
ROFL
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html
------
Verizon CEO doesn't know about open source
By Sean Michael Kerner on June 18, 2008 1:37 PM
LAS VEGAS -- I just got out of a Q&A session with Verizon Communications
CEO Denny Strigl and being an open source guy I asked Strigl about open
source. Specifically I asked what role does open source play at Verizon
now, especially in light of the recent SFLC lawsuit against Verizon on
GPL infringement.
Strigl looked at me with a blank face and asked me to repeat my
question. He was completely clueless.
He then asked one of his PR people to answer, and they too were
clueless.
In December of 2007 the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) filed its GPL
lawsuit, which was settled in March of this year. The win was hailed as
a victory for open source by the SFLC and others.
Apparently though open source types (like myself) thought the Verizon
thing was a big deal, it apparently never reached the radar screen of
Verizon's top exec. Go figure.
------
regards,
alexander.

They need to send COLA's resident genius Mark Kent around there in his
"Kentmobile" to edikate him like wot Mark is.

Loading Image...

[Moshe Goldfarb.]

Post by Hadron

Post by Alexander Terekhov
ROFL
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html
------
Verizon CEO doesn't know about open source
By Sean Michael Kerner on June 18, 2008 1:37 PM
LAS VEGAS -- I just got out of a Q&A session with Verizon Communications
CEO Denny Strigl and being an open source guy I asked Strigl about open
source. Specifically I asked what role does open source play at Verizon
now, especially in light of the recent SFLC lawsuit against Verizon on
GPL infringement.
Strigl looked at me with a blank face and asked me to repeat my
question. He was completely clueless.
He then asked one of his PR people to answer, and they too were
clueless.
In December of 2007 the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) filed its GPL
lawsuit, which was settled in March of this year. The win was hailed as
a victory for open source by the SFLC and others.
Apparently though open source types (like myself) thought the Verizon
thing was a big deal, it apparently never reached the radar screen of
Verizon's top exec. Go figure.
------
regards,
alexander.

They need to send COLA's resident genius Mark Kent around there in his
"Kentmobile" to edikate him like wot Mark is.
http://www.swclassiccars.com/images/cars/357/DSCN5100.JPG

Yea that sure looks like a KentMobile to me.....

Here is the Schestowitz Sports model:

Loading Image...

Here is Gregory Shearman's car...notice the lack of options....

Loading Image...

Peter Kohlman's car:

Loading Image...

Linonut's Vacation Vehicle:

Loading Image...

HPT's car:

Loading Image...

My car (not this particular pic and I have a vert)

Loading Image...

[Hadron]

Post by Moshe Goldfarb.

Post by Hadron
They need to send COLA's resident genius Mark Kent around there in his
"Kentmobile" to edikate him like wot Mark is.
http://www.swclassiccars.com/images/cars/357/DSCN5100.JPG

Yea that sure looks like a KentMobile to me.....
http://bp3.blogger.com/_HAnxun3Sm9w/RjfZRuiQapI/AAAAAAAAAaY/3rUpd63ZH0Q/s1600-h/barbie+car.jpg
Here is Gregory Shearman's car...notice the lack of options....
http://www.dyna.co.za/cars/Ford_15_Model_T.jpg
http://info.detnews.com/dn/pix/2005/09/28/asec/a028-gpvnew-0905n_09-28-2005_088Q2PV.jpg

No. Too big. More like this:

Loading Image...

Notice the trailer for his boat on the back. And yes, the teak deck does
indeed need some work!

http://tinyurl.com/43pxln

Post by Moshe Goldfarb.
http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2008/02/The_EM50_UrbanAssaultVehicle.jpg
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/08/0824_uglycars/image/1pacer.jpg

I thought more like:

Loading Image...

Post by Moshe Goldfarb.
My car (not this particular pic and I have a vert)
http://www.shnack.com/wallpaper/07ShelbyGT_07_1024.jpg

[Moshe Goldfarb.]

Post by Hadron

Post by Moshe Goldfarb.

Post by Hadron
They need to send COLA's resident genius Mark Kent around there in his
"Kentmobile" to edikate him like wot Mark is.
http://www.swclassiccars.com/images/cars/357/DSCN5100.JPG

Yea that sure looks like a KentMobile to me.....
http://bp3.blogger.com/_HAnxun3Sm9w/RjfZRuiQapI/AAAAAAAAAaY/3rUpd63ZH0Q/s1600-h/barbie+car.jpg
Here is Gregory Shearman's car...notice the lack of options....
http://www.dyna.co.za/cars/Ford_15_Model_T.jpg
http://info.detnews.com/dn/pix/2005/09/28/asec/a028-gpvnew-0905n_09-28-2005_088Q2PV.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/93/277721044_b1eed74d2e.jpg?v=0
Notice the trailer for his boat on the back. And yes, the teak deck does
indeed need some work!
http://tinyurl.com/43pxln

Post by Moshe Goldfarb.
http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2008/02/The_EM50_UrbanAssaultVehicle.jpg
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/08/0824_uglycars/image/1pacer.jpg

http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Commerce/trans-3wtaxi.jpg

Post by Moshe Goldfarb.
My car (not this particular pic and I have a vert)
http://www.shnack.com/wallpaper/07ShelbyGT_07_1024.jpg

Good points....
Good....

TVLand now has Hogan's Heroes on every night and each time I watch it I
think of Kohlmann....

He's either Klink or General Burkhalter. I can't make up my mind.

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Moshe Goldfarb.

Post by Hadron

Post by Moshe Goldfarb.

Post by Hadron
They need to send COLA's resident genius Mark Kent around there in his
"Kentmobile" to edikate him like wot Mark is.
http://www.swclassiccars.com/images/cars/357/DSCN5100.JPG

Yea that sure looks like a KentMobile to me.....
http://bp3.blogger.com/_HAnxun3Sm9w/RjfZRuiQapI/AAAAAAAAAaY/3rUpd63ZH0Q/s1600-h/barbie+car.jpg
Here is Gregory Shearman's car...notice the lack of options....
http://www.dyna.co.za/cars/Ford_15_Model_T.jpg
http://info.detnews.com/dn/pix/2005/09/28/asec/a028-gpvnew-0905n_09-28-2005_088Q2PV.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/93/277721044_b1eed74d2e.jpg?v=0
Notice the trailer for his boat on the back. And yes, the teak deck does
indeed need some work!
http://tinyurl.com/43pxln

Post by Moshe Goldfarb.
http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2008/02/The_EM50_UrbanAssaultVehicle.jpg
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/08/0824_uglycars/image/1pacer.jpg

http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Commerce/trans-3wtaxi.jpg

Post by Moshe Goldfarb.
My car (not this particular pic and I have a vert)
http://www.shnack.com/wallpaper/07ShelbyGT_07_1024.jpg

Good points....
Good....
TVLand now has Hogan's Heroes on every night and each time I watch it I
think of Kohlmann....
He's either Klink or General Burkhalter. I can't make up my mind.
http://www.derbydeadpool.co.uk/images/celebs/a/askinl.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/drekhead/colonel_klink.jpg

Stallman's car:

Loading Image...

(He got it for free, of course.)

"Live cheaply," he said, offering some free advice. "Don't buy a house,
a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have
to spend all your time making money to pay for them."

http://www.chineselinuxuniversity.net/news/3308.shtml

Moglen's car:

Loading Image...

"Capitalism produces inherently defective technology, mainly because of
the short sightedness of the whole process. Global heating and the
combustion engine being one of the most present short sightedness
examples of capitalism today."

http://ictlogy.net/20080602-4th-internet-law-and-politics-congress-i-eben-moglen-living-apart-together-social-networking-in-the-free-world/

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.)

[Hadron]

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by Moshe Goldfarb.

Post by Hadron

Post by Moshe Goldfarb.

Post by Hadron
They need to send COLA's resident genius Mark Kent around there in his
"Kentmobile" to edikate him like wot Mark is.
http://www.swclassiccars.com/images/cars/357/DSCN5100.JPG

Yea that sure looks like a KentMobile to me.....
http://bp3.blogger.com/_HAnxun3Sm9w/RjfZRuiQapI/AAAAAAAAAaY/3rUpd63ZH0Q/s1600-h/barbie+car.jpg
Here is Gregory Shearman's car...notice the lack of options....
http://www.dyna.co.za/cars/Ford_15_Model_T.jpg
http://info.detnews.com/dn/pix/2005/09/28/asec/a028-gpvnew-0905n_09-28-2005_088Q2PV.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/93/277721044_b1eed74d2e.jpg?v=0
Notice the trailer for his boat on the back. And yes, the teak deck does
indeed need some work!
http://tinyurl.com/43pxln

Post by Moshe Goldfarb.
http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2008/02/The_EM50_UrbanAssaultVehicle.jpg
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/08/0824_uglycars/image/1pacer.jpg

http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Commerce/trans-3wtaxi.jpg

Post by Moshe Goldfarb.
My car (not this particular pic and I have a vert)
http://www.shnack.com/wallpaper/07ShelbyGT_07_1024.jpg

Good points....
Good....
TVLand now has Hogan's Heroes on every night and each time I watch it I
think of Kohlmann....
He's either Klink or General Burkhalter. I can't make up my mind.
http://www.derbydeadpool.co.uk/images/celebs/a/askinl.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/drekhead/colonel_klink.jpg

http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/34132/nb83.jpg
(He got it for free, of course.)

Looks like to goes to the same barbers.

Post by Alexander Terekhov
"Live cheaply," he said, offering some free advice. "Don't buy a house,
a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have
to spend all your time making money to pay for them."
http://www.chineselinuxuniversity.net/news/3308.shtml

Yes gods. So he is anti evolution too!

[rjack]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
ROFL
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html
In December of 2007 the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) filed its
GPL lawsuit, which was settled in March of this year. The win was
hailed as a victory for open source by the SFLC and others.

How does a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses his lawsuit WITH
PREJUDICE "win" a victory against a defendant?

The claims coming from the SFLC camp are increasingly bizarre. They
should just leave on their anti-gravity carpets for greener pastures.

Sincerely,
Rjack

--- "[A] breach by one party does not automatically result in rescission
of a contract. Id. at 238 ("New York law does not presume the rescission
or abandonment of a contract and the party asserting rescission or
abandonment has the burden of proving it")."; Atlantis Information
Technology, Gmbh v, CA Inc., 2007 WL 1238716 (Eastern District of New
York, 2007). ---

[Tim Smith]

Post by rjack
How does a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses his lawsuit WITH
PREJUDICE "win" a victory against a defendant?

Dismissal with prejudice is the normal end of most lawsuits that settle.
If D violates the terms of the settlement, P sues to enforce the
settlement. If D commits *new* violations of P's copyright, P sues for
those violations. That's a new suit covering a new cause of action, and
is not affected by the dismissal with prejudice of the old suit, which
was a different cause of action for a different alleged infringement.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Tim Smith

Post by rjack
How does a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses his lawsuit WITH
PREJUDICE "win" a victory against a defendant?

Dismissal with prejudice is the normal end of most lawsuits that settle.

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/gcdltep/related/SettlementAgreement-08-25-06.pdf

That's normal. Compare it to

http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/VOLUNTARY_DISMISSAL.pdf

which is not normal 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.)