[News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Spamowitz Roy
http://boycott-boycottnovell.com/index.php/the-news/88-roy-schestowitz-demands-expansion-of-qgodwins-lawq

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Copyrights and wrongs
http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/02/08/copyrights-and-wrongs/
See comments.

Huh?

In comments, Larry Rosen correctly noted:

"Under US copyright law, only “the legal or beneficial owner of an
exclusive right is entitled ... to institute an action for any
infringement of that particular right...” 17 USC 501. So if all you have
is a non-exclusive license, or indeed if all you have is joint
ownership, you cannot enforce that copyright in court without the other
owners joining in. "

At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the
entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for
consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ in
which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly frivolous
'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik
Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined
by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known as
busybox at http://busybox.net/.

regards,
alexander.

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

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the
entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC
for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/
in which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly frivolous
'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik
Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT
joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known
as busybox at http://busybox.net/.

Under your legal theories, Apple could not sue for violation of MacOSX
licenses unless Berkeley university joins their lawsuit.

But it's certainly not the first time that the reality in the courts
does not match your wet dreams. You'll be sulking over "drunken judges"
and whatever else soon again, no doubt.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the
entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC
for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/
in which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly frivolous
'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik
Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT
joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known
as busybox at http://busybox.net/.

Under your legal theories, Apple could not sue for violation of MacOSX
licenses unless Berkeley university joins their lawsuit.

A compilation work which you call 'MacOSX' is a collective work (see 17
USC 101 for both 'compilation' and 'collective work') of Apple and only
Apple, silly.

Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of ownership is
about

"New and revised computer source code" and NOT A COMPILATION WORK you
stupid dak.

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2&ti=1,2&Search%5FArg=busybox&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=C56aDfGGYoWR1oMK5BIoLaV4QdHU7&SEQ=20100210103005&SID=1

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
Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of ownership

<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane>
In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered
copyright on the issues and the books.
... McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim
copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s
own contributions as compiler and illustrator, than the copyright
notices did. The significance of registration is that it is a
prerequisite to a suit to enforce a copyright.

GPL skeptics are so wrong, in so many ways.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of ownership

<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane>
In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered
copyright on the issues and the books.
... McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim
copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s
own contributions as compiler and illustrator, . . .

Uh retard Hyman.

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2&ti=1,2&Search%5FArg=busybox&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=C56aDfGGYoWR1oMK5BIoLaV4QdHU7&SEQ=20100210103005&SID=1

"Basis of Claim: New and revised computer source code by Erik Andersen.
"

Take the meds and call your doctor to explain to you that ownership of
"computer source code" (aka a "computer program" work under 17 USC 101)
has nothing to do with ownership "as compiler" as in 17 USC 101
'compilation'. Nor has it anything to do with ownership of separate and
independant works such "Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" under
17 USC 101, silly.

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
ownership of
"computer source code" (aka a "computer program" work under 17 USC 101)
has nothing to do with ownership "as compiler" as in 17 USC 101
'compilation'. Nor has it anything to do with ownership of separate and
independant works such "Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" under
17 USC 101

<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane>
In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered
copyright on the issues and the books.
... McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim
copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s
own contributions as compiler and illustrator, . . .

Your reading comprehension is as lacking as always.
Registration of copyright in a work is not a claim
against any co-authors who may exist. It is a formal
notice by an author that he has copyright in the work.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Take your meds, Hyman.

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
ownership of
"computer source code" (aka a "computer program" work under 17 USC 101)
has nothing to do with ownership "as compiler" as in 17 USC 101
'compilation'. Nor has it anything to do with ownership of separate and
independant works such "Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" under
17 USC 101

<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane>
In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered
copyright on the issues and the books.
... McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim
copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s
own contributions as compiler and illustrator, . . .
Your reading comprehension is as lacking as always.
Registration of copyright in a work is not a claim
against any co-authors who may exist. It is a formal
notice by an author that he has copyright in the work.

regards,
alexander.

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

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Take your meds, Hyman.

How would that help your running out of arguments?

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Take your meds, Hyman.

How would that help your running out of arguments?

Hyman just can't grok it. Or rather he is simply acting as an utter
moron just for fun, I think.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

"That would not, to repeat, matter in a case such as this in which the
registered work is a compilation. "

"That would not, to repeat, matter in a case such as this in which the
registered work is a compilation. "

"That would not, to repeat, matter in a case such as this in which the
registered work is a compilation. "

Here's more:

"Gaiman contends that he and McFarlane are joint owners of the
copyrights on the three characters by reason of their respective
contributions to joint (indivisible) work. 17 U.S.C. § 101; Seshadri v.
Kasraian, 130 F.3d 798, 803-04 (7th Cir. 1997); Erickson v. Trinity
Theatre, Inc., 13 F.3d 1061, 1067-72 (7th Cir. 1994); Thomson v. Larson,
147 F.3d 195, 199-205 (2d Cir. 1998). McFarlane concedes Gaiman’s joint
ownership of Angela, but not of the other two; . . . As a co-owner,
McFarlane was not violating the Copyright Act by unilaterally publishing
the jointly owned work, but, as in any other case of conversion or
misappropriation, he would have to account to the other joint owner for
the latter’s share of the profits. Zuill v. Shanahan, supra, 80 F.3d at
1369. When co-ownership is conceded and the only issue therefore is the
contractual, or in the absence of contract the equitable, division of
the profits from the copyrighted work, there is no issue of copyright
law and the suit for an accounting of profits therefore arises under
state rather than federal law. Goodman v. Lee, 78 F.3d 1007, 1013 (5th
Cir. 1996); Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630, 633 and n. 2 (9th Cir. 1984);
Mountain States Properties, Inc. v. Robinson, 771 P.2d 5, 6-7 (Colo.
App. 1988). It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Saturday
Evening Post Co. v. Rumbleseat Press, Inc., 816 F.2d 1191, 1194-95 (7th
Cir. 1987); T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823, 824, 828 (2d Cir.
1964) (Friendly, J.); cf. International Armor & Limousine Co. v. Moloney
Coachbuilders, Inc., 272 F.3d 912, 915-16 (7th Cir. 2001). And in that
event the applicable statute of limitations would be state rather than
federal."

Hey moron dak:

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

"It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises
under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

But the GPL is "not a contract", right dak? LMAO!!!

regards,
alexander.

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

[David Kastrup]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of ownership

<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane>
In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered
copyright on the issues and the books.
... McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim
copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s
own contributions as compiler and illustrator, than the copyright
notices did. The significance of registration is that it is a
prerequisite to a suit to enforce a copyright.
GPL skeptics are so wrong, in so many ways.

That's an unfair characterization. The bunch of lunatics posting here
does not bend reality either which way. Every legal issue has its
bordercases where outcomes in court become hardly predictable. Not the
ones our nutcases dream about, but there will be some eventually.

[RJack]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of ownership

<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane> In addition to
the copyright notices, McFarlane registered copyright on the issues
and the books. ... McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an
intent to claim copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from
McFarlane’s own contributions as compiler and illustrator, than the
copyright notices did. The significance of registration is that it is
a prerequisite to a suit to enforce a copyright.
GPL skeptics are so wrong, in so many ways.

1) The Best Buys et.al. suit filed by the SFLC is in the Second Circuit
not the Seventh Circuit of the Gaiman_v._McFarlane suit.
2) The Gaiman_v._McFarlane suit was about a declaration of ownership,
not a copy infringement suit.
3) You're mixing out of context apples and oranges issues:
"POSNER, Circuit Judge. Neil Gaiman brought suit under the Copyright Act
against Todd McFarlane and corporations controlled by him that we can
ignore, seeking a declaration that he (Gaiman) owns copyrights jointly
with McFarlane in certain comic-book characters."


Erik Andersen signed a *Complaint* explicitly claiming that:

"20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer
program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program. BusyBox
is a single computer program that comprises a set of computing tools and
optimizes them for computers with limited resources, such as cell
phones, PDAs, and other small, specialized electronic devices."

Erik Andersen is *not* "the author" of the "single computer program"
know as BusyBox -- this is a patently false statement.

"23. Under the License, Mr. Andersen grants certain permissions to other
parties to copy, modify and redistribute BusyBox so long as those
parties satisfy certain conditions."

Notice that "*Mr Andersen* grants..." -- doesn't say "*the developers*"
of BusyBox grant...

"31. Mr. Andersen is, and at all relevant times has been, a copyright
owner under United States copyright law in the FOSS software program
known as BusyBox. See, e.g., “BusyBox, v.0.60.3.”, Copyright Reg. No.
TX0006869051 (10/2/2008)."

Here is the release of busybox-0.60.3 that Erik claims he authored.
http://www.busybox.net/downloads/legacy/

Decompress it and see if Erik claims a compilation copyright on the
arrangement and selection of the source code. Let's grant that he does
have a copyright on the arrangement of that specific tarball release.
Remember that the copyright resides in the specific arrangement and
selection of the constituent elements in a compilation. That was on
27-Apr-2002 (735K). Are you seriously claiming that the fourteen
defendants in the pending SFLC suit are infringing *that* particular
arrangement “BusyBox, v.0.60.3”? The last 2008 release is
busybox-1.13.2.tar.bz2-31-Dec-2008. The source tarball with more
efficient compression is 2.0M -- three times as large with thousands
of patches.

The current SFLC lawsuit is so fucked up it doesn't even deserve the
label "wrong". Eben Moglen is an incompetent socialist moron.

Hyman Rosen sez, "The Captain's scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by RJack
1) The Best Buys et.al. suit filed by the SFLC is in the Second
Circuit not the Seventh Circuit of the Gaiman_v._McFarlane suit.

Does that mean you believe the judge was wrong in
McFarlane v. Gaiman? Is it crank vs. court again?

Post by RJack
2) The Gaiman_v._McFarlane suit was about a declaration of
ownership, not a copy infringement suit.

The other crank has been arguing that Erik Andersen was wrong
to register copyright in BusyBox because he was not the sole
author. The judge's writing in Gaiman v. McFarlane shows that
such a registration merely represents an author asserting that
he has copyright in a work, not that he has sole copyright.

Post by RJack
"POSNER, Circuit Judge. Neil Gaiman brought suit under the Copyright Act
against Todd McFarlane and corporations controlled by him that we can
ignore, seeking a declaration that he (Gaiman) owns copyrights jointly
with McFarlane in certain comic-book characters."
"20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer
program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program. BusyBox
is a single computer program that comprises a set of computing tools and
optimizes them for computers with limited resources, such as cell
phones, PDAs, and other small, specialized electronic devices."
Erik Andersen is *not* "the author" of the "single computer program"
know as BusyBox -- this is a patently false statement.

If the defendants wish to deny this claim, they may do so,
and then the plaintiffs will have to prove the truth of this
claim to the extent that it affects the copyright infringement
charges. Presumably the defendants would deny this claim
routinely anyway no matter how it is phrased, since it is not
obviously true and all such claims are denied in responses.

Post by RJack
"31. Mr. Andersen is, and at all relevant times has been, a copyright
owner under United States copyright law in the FOSS software program
known as BusyBox. See, e.g., “BusyBox, v.0.60.3.”, Copyright Reg. No.
TX0006869051 (10/2/2008)."

Notice here that he says "a copyright owner" not "the copyright
owner". The defendants may choose to dispute the details of
ownership of BusyBox, but all Andersen has to do is demonstrate
that he holds some copyright on BusyBox for him to assert that
his rights are being infringed.

Post by RJack
see if Erik claims a compilation copyright on the
arrangement and selection of the source code.

He doesn't need to claim a compilation copyright. If he has
contributed source code to BusyBox, then he holds copyright
to that portion of it, and anyone distributing BusyBox without
his permission is infringing on his copyright.

Post by RJack
The current SFLC lawsuit is so fucked up it doesn't even deserve the
label "wrong". Eben Moglen is an incompetent socialist moron.

And yet, in every case the SFLC has filed, the defendants have
chosen to settle and come into compliance with the GPL. You
should consider yourself lucky that the SFLC lawyers are so bad,
else they would have by now wiped non-free software from the
face of the Earth.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
Notice here that he says "a copyright owner" not "the copyright
owner".

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf

"20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer
program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program, and the
owner of copyrights in that program, he is the author and developer of
the BusyBox computer program. BusyBox is a single computer program, it
is really a single computer program and Mr. Andersen is the author and
developer of the BusyBox computer program, and the owner of copyrights
in that computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that program,
he is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program. BusyBox
is a single computer program, it is really a single computer program.
[repeat Moglen's Bullshit rap]

20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer
program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program, and the
owner of copyrights in that program, he is the author and developer of
the BusyBox computer program. BusyBox is a single computer program, it
is really a single computer program and Mr. Andersen is the author and
developer of the BusyBox computer program, and the owner of copyrights
in that computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that program,
he is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program. BusyBox
is a single computer program, it is really a single computer program.
[repeat Moglen's Bullshit rap]"

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf

Does Mr. Andersen plan to offer an insanity defence against the request
for justice by the defendants, you MORON Hyman?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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
[...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
Notice here that he says "a copyright owner" not "the copyright
owner".

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf
"20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer
program...
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf

Yes, the complaint is phrasing it both ways. The defendants
will routinely deny these claims in their responses, and then
the plaintiffs will have to prove their claims sufficiently
so that their charge of copyright infringement will stand.

All the plaintiffs need to show is that Andersen holds
copyright in a part of BusyBox, and that the defendants
are copying and distributing it without permission.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
All the plaintiffs need to show is that Andersen holds
copyright in a part of BusyBox, and that the defendants
are copying and distributing it without permission.

http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/02/08/copyrights-and-wrongs/

Larry Rosen correctly noted:

"Under US copyright law, only “the legal or beneficial owner of an
exclusive right is entitled ... to institute an action for any
infringement of that particular right...” 17 USC 501. So if all you have
is a non-exclusive license, or indeed if all you have is joint
ownership, you cannot enforce that copyright in court without the other
owners joining in. "

At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the
entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for
consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ in
which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly frivolous
'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik
Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined
by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known as
busybox at http://busybox.net/.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

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

[Hyman Rosen]

[...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
All the plaintiffs need to show is that Andersen holds
copyright in a part of BusyBox, and that the defendants
are copying and distributing it without permission.

http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/02/08/copyrights-and-wrongs/
"Under US copyright law, only “the legal or beneficial owner of an
exclusive right is entitled ... to institute an action for any
infringement of that particular right...” 17 USC 501. So if all you have
is a non-exclusive license, or indeed if all you have is joint
ownership, you cannot enforce that copyright in court without the other
owners joining in. "

Fortunately, Erik Andersen is the legal or beneficial owner
of an exclusive right, not a non-exclusive right or a joint
ownership. He owns his exclusive right by being an author of
(some of) the content of BusyBox. BusyBox is not a joint work
because all of its authors have not declared their intention
that it be a joint work.

At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the
entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for
consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits

Every lawsuit filed by the SFLC has ended successfully with the
defendants coming into compliance with the GPL. I can only imagine
how much more could accomplished by competent attorneys!

[RJack]

Post by Hyman Rosen
Every lawsuit filed by the SFLC has ended successfully with the
defendants coming into compliance with the GPL. I can only imagine
how much more could accomplished by competent attorneys!

Surely you are not referring to the SFLC's attorneys?

THAT'S HERESY HYMAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"You shall not take the name of the LORDS your Gods in vain, for the
LORDS will not leave him unpunished who takes Their names in vain."
Exodus 20:7




"The Captain's scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by RJack
Surely you are not referring to the SFLC's attorneys?
THAT'S HERESY HYMAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!`

I shouldn't be surprised that irony is lost on you too.

[RJack]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of
ownership

<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane> In addition to
the copyright notices, McFarlane registered copyright on the issues
and the books. ... McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an
intent to claim copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct
from McFarlane’s own contributions as compiler and illustrator,
than the copyright notices did. The significance of registration is
that it is a prerequisite to a suit to enforce a copyright.
GPL skeptics are so wrong, in so many ways.

"37 CFR § 202.3 Registration of copyright.

(a) General.

(1) This section prescribes conditions for the registration of
copyright, and the application to be made for registration under
sections 408 and 409 of title 17 of the United States Code, as amended
by Pub. L. 94–553.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the terms audiovisual work ,
compilation , copy , derivative work , device , fixation , literary work
, motion picture , phonorecord , pictorial, graphic and sculptural works
, process , sound recording , and their variant forms, have the meanings
set forth in section 101 of title 17. The term author includes an
employer or other person for whom a work is “made for hire” under
section 101 of title 17.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a copyright claimant is either:

(i) The author of a work;

(ii) A person or organization that has obtained ownership of all rights
under the copyright initially belonging to the author."

-------------------------------------------------------

1) Is Erik Anderson "the author" of release tarball BusyBox,
v.0.60.3.tar.bz2?

3) Is Erik Anderson "a person" that has obtained ownership of all rights
in release BusyBox, v.0.60.3.tar.bz2?

Sincerely,
RJack

[Hyman Rosen]

"37 CFR § 202.3 Registration of copyright.
(i) The author of a work;
(ii) A person or organization that has obtained ownership of all rights
under the copyright initially belonging to the author."
1) Is Erik Anderson "the author" of release tarball BusyBox,
v.0.60.3.tar.bz2?

Yes: <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane>
McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent
to claim copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as
distinct from McFarlane’s own contributions as compiler
and illustrator, than the copyright notices did. The
significance of registration is that it is a prerequisite
to a suit to enforce a copyright.

3) Is Erik Anderson "a person" that has obtained ownership of all rights
in release BusyBox, v.0.60.3.tar.bz2?

No.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the
entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC
for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/
in which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly frivolous
'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik
Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT
joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known
as busybox at http://busybox.net/.

Under your legal theories, Apple could not sue for violation of MacOSX
licenses unless Berkeley university joins their lawsuit.

A compilation work which you call 'MacOSX' is a collective work (see
17 USC 101 for both 'compilation' and 'collective work') of Apple and
only Apple, silly.

Without any components with copyright by other parties?

Really, you should do some trivial reality checks before one of your
wild law interpretation sprees.

Pretty much every operating system nowadays contains part from the BSD
TCP/IP stacks as an _integrated_ part. Those parts _are_ copyrighted,
even though they are licensed with the liberal BSD license.

According to your _copyright_ theories, nobody could sue for breach of
license without Berkeley joining the suit.

So don't forget those reality checks. Consider the real world before
starting your "every GPL licensor will be punished" masturbations.

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
A compilation work which you call 'MacOSX' is a collective work (see
17 USC 101 for both 'compilation' and 'collective work') of Apple and
only Apple, silly.

Without any components with copyright by other parties?

The copyright on components (distinct from the compilation work) is
totally separate/independent copyright (distinct from the copyright on
compilation) you retard dak.

See 17 USC 103.

Hth.

regards,
alexander.

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

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
A compilation work which you call 'MacOSX' is a collective work (see
17 USC 101 for both 'compilation' and 'collective work') of Apple and
only Apple, silly.

Without any components with copyright by other parties?

The copyright on components (distinct from the compilation work) is
totally separate/independent copyright (distinct from the copyright on
compilation) you retard dak.

So for any component with copyrighted parts from other parties (like
BSD), Apple could not sue for breach of copyright without having the
other parties joining the suit?

Reality check...

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
A compilation work which you call 'MacOSX' is a collective work (see
17 USC 101 for both 'compilation' and 'collective work') of Apple and
only Apple, silly.

Without any components with copyright by other parties?

The copyright on components (distinct from the compilation work) is
totally separate/independent copyright (distinct from the copyright on
compilation) you retard dak.

So for any component with copyrighted parts from other parties (like
BSD), Apple could not sue for breach of copyright without having the
other parties joining the suit?
Reality check...

Apple's COMPILATION WORK is NOT A JOINT WORK you retard.

Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation
work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple.

It's not a joint work under 17 USC 101.

regards,
alexander.

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

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by David Kastrup
So for any component with copyrighted parts from other parties (like
BSD), Apple could not sue for breach of copyright without having the
other parties joining the suit?
Reality check...

Apple's COMPILATION WORK is NOT A JOINT WORK you retard.
Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation
work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple.

How did the copyright of BSD come to cease on the portions that Apple
changed?

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation
work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple.

How did the copyright of BSD come to cease on the portions that Apple
changed?

BSD "copyright" didn't "come to cease" (it's too early for expiration
and I'm unaware of any abandonment/dedications to the public domain of
the BSD'd works) on the BSD'd portions that Apple changed unless Apple's
changes resulted in a complete removal of BSD'd protected expression.

At this point, why don't you just piss off and call

http://www.justlanded.com/english/Germany/Germany-Guide/Health/Emergencies

you retard dak?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

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

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation
work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple.

How did the copyright of BSD come to cease on the portions that Apple
changed?

BSD "copyright" didn't "come to cease" (it's too early for expiration
and I'm unaware of any abandonment/dedications to the public domain of
the BSD'd works) on the BSD'd portions that Apple changed unless
Apple's changes resulted in a complete removal of BSD'd protected
expression.

Ah, so that means that according to your legal theories, we have a
"joint copyright" situation for those portions, and anybody can take any
parts of Apple's changes and use them without worry, since Apple could
only possibly sue if it managed to get Berkeley interested to sue
together with them, and Berkeley's choice of license made perfectly
clear that Berkeley is not interested much in suing.

Do you really not understand why your theories about the GPL case are so
absurd and don't stand up to real world cases?

Post by Alexander Terekhov
At this point, why don't you just piss off and call
http://www.justlanded.com/english/Germany/Germany-Guide/Health/Emergencies
you retard dak?

It's funny how every time you are shown to be wrong, you holler for
doctors, medications, and retards. Not to mention drunk judges.

Such a transparent maneuver, and what a pathetic excuse for a smoke
screen.

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
BSD "copyright" didn't "come to cease" (it's too early for expiration
and I'm unaware of any abandonment/dedications to the public domain of
the BSD'd works) on the BSD'd portions that Apple changed unless
Apple's changes resulted in a complete removal of BSD'd protected
expression.

Ah, so that means that according to your legal theories, we have a
"joint copyright" situation for those portions, and anybody can take any

It's quite reasonable to expect that Apple's BSD layer fork known as
Darwin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) work may
well contain "joint copyright" portions, dak.

I know this whole material is too complicated to grok for someone of
your intellectual capacity...

Hey GNUtian dak, BTW:

http://www.tug.org/interviews/kastrup.html

"Please note that shareware is not free software. The principal problem
with free software as a business model is that there really is little in
the way of bootstrapping it. Programmers tend to be “mad scientists” to
some degree or other, and TeX programming mostly has attraction for the
worst of those. This means that you often have people with a bad
judgment concerning business requirements and project management and
time planning and customer interaction. For proprietary software, this
is less of a problem: if you are the only supplier for a marketable
product, poor market interaction does not kill your business prospects.
In a free software market, however, being the developer of a product
gives you just a headstart for marketing your own product, but it does
not put anybody else out of the race. "

(LOL)

Don't you know that

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html

"“Market”

It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software
users in general, as a “market.”"

right, GNUtian dak?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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
At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the
entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for
consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ in
which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly frivolous
'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik
Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined
by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known as
busybox at http://busybox.net/.

The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case
that it has filed - all defendants have come into compliance
with the GPL. No defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs.
I understand how frustrating it must be for the GPL skeptics
to see such untrammeled success, and how they must hope for
some external force to appear and turn things their way. But
that won't happen.

You are also quite wrong about joint works in at leats
four separate ways.

<http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html>,
According to the Copyright Act, the authors of a joint
work jointly own the copyright in the work they create.
A joint work is defined in Section 101 of the Copyright
Act as "a work prepared by two or more authors with the
intention that their contributions be merged into
inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole."

When the copyright in a work is jointly owned, each joint
owner can use or license the work in the United States
without the consent of the other owner, provided that the
use does not destroy the value of the work and the parties
do not have an agreement requiring the consent of each
owner for use or licensing. A joint owner who licenses a
work must share any royalties he or she receives with the
other owners.

First, BusyBox is a joint work only if all the authors have
agreed to make it so. Given that one of the authors is a party
to the suit and can insist that he did not intend to form such
a joint work, the plaintiffs might have a difficult time showing
otherwise.

Second, if BusyBox is a joint work, then each author has full
rights in the work and may sue for infringement without needing
permission from the other authors.

Third, even if BusyBox is a joint work, each contributing author
has released his changes under the GPL, and therefore it may be
argued that there is an agreement in place among the authors that
the only way their work may be copied and distributed is by GPL.

Fourth, even if BusyBox is a joint work, the plaintiffs need to
demonstrate that they have permission to copy and distribute it
in some way other than under the GPL, granted to them by some
author of the joint work. That one author has said after the
suit was filed that he does not want to be a party to it does
not mean that he has granted permission to copy and distribute
BusyBox outside of the GPL.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Take your meds, Hyman.

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the
entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for
consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ in
which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly frivolous
'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik
Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined
by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known as
busybox at http://busybox.net/.

The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case
that it has filed - all defendants have come into compliance
with the GPL. No defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs.
I understand how frustrating it must be for the GPL skeptics
to see such untrammeled success, and how they must hope for
some external force to appear and turn things their way. But
that won't happen.
You are also quite wrong about joint works in at leats
four separate ways.
<http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html>,
According to the Copyright Act, the authors of a joint
work jointly own the copyright in the work they create.
A joint work is defined in Section 101 of the Copyright
Act as "a work prepared by two or more authors with the
intention that their contributions be merged into
inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole."
When the copyright in a work is jointly owned, each joint
owner can use or license the work in the United States
without the consent of the other owner, provided that the
use does not destroy the value of the work and the parties
do not have an agreement requiring the consent of each
owner for use or licensing. A joint owner who licenses a
work must share any royalties he or she receives with the
other owners.
First, BusyBox is a joint work only if all the authors have
agreed to make it so. Given that one of the authors is a party
to the suit and can insist that he did not intend to form such
a joint work, the plaintiffs might have a difficult time showing
otherwise.
Second, if BusyBox is a joint work, then each author has full
rights in the work and may sue for infringement without needing
permission from the other authors.
Third, even if BusyBox is a joint work, each contributing author
has released his changes under the GPL, and therefore it may be
argued that there is an agreement in place among the authors that
the only way their work may be copied and distributed is by GPL.
Fourth, even if BusyBox is a joint work, the plaintiffs need to
demonstrate that they have permission to copy and distribute it
in some way other than under the GPL, granted to them by some
author of the joint work. That one author has said after the
suit was filed that he does not want to be a party to it does
not mean that he has granted permission to copy and distribute
BusyBox outside of the GPL.

regards,
alexander.

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

[RJack]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar
the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from
SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/
in which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly
frivolous 'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights
and (2) Erik Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because
he was NOT joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the
joint work known as busybox at http://busybox.net/.

The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it has
filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the GPL. No
defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals before any
judge could ever read their frivolous Complaints. Why why would a
plaintiff answer a Complaint that has been dismissed?
ROFL

"The Captain's scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by RJack
The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals

The words "chose" and "involuntary" don't go together.
You appear to have ongoing difficulties with the English
language, which perhaps explains some of your difficulty
understanding the GPL and the law.

Post by RJack
Why why would a plaintiff answer a Complaint that has been dismissed?

The plaintiffs dismissed their cases once the defendants
agreed to a settlement whereby they would comply with the
GPL, as evidenced by the fact that after the cases were
ended, all the defendants came into compliance with the GPL.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by RJack
The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals

The words "chose" and "involuntary" don't go together.
You appear to have ongoing difficulties with the English

And there is absolutely no chance at all that RJack simply mistyped it
either inintentionally or with intent to show what a sucker you are with
your "difficulties with the English" reply?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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 there is absolutely no chance at all that RJack simply mistyped it
either inintentionally or with intent to show what a sucker you are with
your "difficulties with the English" reply?

Actually, I thought that it was written by you - I didn't
notice that the other resident crank had chimed in.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
And there is absolutely no chance at all that RJack simply mistyped it
either inintentionally or with intent to show what a sucker you are with
your "difficulties with the English" reply?

Actually, I thought that it was written by you - I didn't

Take your meds, Hyman. Take your meds. And call the doctor, Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

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

[David Kastrup]

Post by RJack

Post by Alexander Terekhov
At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar
the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from
SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/
in which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly frivolous
'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2)
Erik Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was
NOT joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work
known as busybox at http://busybox.net/.

The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it has
filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the GPL. No
defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals before

What's "automatic" and "involuntary" about dismissals that are filed
after settling?

Post by RJack
any judge could ever read their frivolous Complaints. Why why would a
plaintiff answer a Complaint that has been dismissed?

Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available in the course of
a settlement?

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available

There's no reason to do it -- to wit:

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

To Hyman: take your meds first!

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

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

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available

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

That's a link to a firmware upgrade. "This firmware update is
applicable to both Actiontec and Verizon branded FiOS Routers." As I
hear, those routers come with a manual detailing where to get the source
to the firmware. The links have been pointed out to you as well.

Post by Alexander Terekhov
To Hyman: take your meds first!

Oh you are running out of arguments again?

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available

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

That's a link to a firmware upgrade. "This firmware update is
applicable to both Actiontec and Verizon branded FiOS Routers." As I
hear, those routers come with a manual detailing where to get the source
to the firmware. The links have been pointed out to you as well.

That "where to get" is NOT Verizon's location and has nothing to do with
Verison's location above, silly dak.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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.)

[Peter Köhlmann]

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available

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

That's a link to a firmware upgrade. "This firmware update is
applicable to both Actiontec and Verizon branded FiOS Routers." As I
hear, those routers come with a manual detailing where to get the source
to the firmware. The links have been pointed out to you as well.

That "where to get" is NOT Verizon's location and has nothing to do with
Verison's location above, silly dak.

Oh, and you twit can certainly point to the exact place in the GPL where
it is stated that the source *absolutely* has to be supplied from the same
location you got the binary from?

You get dumber by the second

[Alexander Terekhov]

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
[...]

Post by Peter Köhlmann

Post by Alexander Terekhov
That "where to get" is NOT Verizon's location and has nothing to do with
Verison's location above, silly dak.

Oh, and you twit can certainly point to the exact place in the GPL where

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/2007/09/peter-khlmann-liar.html

"The Peter Köhlmann liar

Peter Köhlmann is a fake pretend German who serves no purpose at all.
The only one possibly more worthless than this foul mouthed twit would
be the Willy Boaster moron. This Köhlmann liar has never posted anything
worth reading about computers, software, linux or otherwise. The only
reason he posts at all is to call other posters who do talk about
computers and software "morons, liars, trolls and scum."

This Köhlmann idiot is stupid enough to make broad sweeping statements
about how all "Windoze users" or all "Mak users" are idiots, morons,
uneducated and etc. Quite ironic isn't it - a loser like Köhlmann makes
an uneducated statement about how all people who use an OS different
from his are uneducated. This is something that a child with an 8th
grade education would be smart enough not to say.

Köhlmann claims to be an expert in "anti-aliasing", "swap-files" and
hyperlinks that conform to standards. Although he has proven on several
occasions that he knows less than nothing about these topics - he knows
wrong and inaccurate information. He is too stupid to follow a simple
link and even stated that he will not read a link that proves his
pathetic arguments wrong. "

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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.)

[Peter Köhlmann]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Peter Köhlmann

Post by Alexander Terekhov
That "where to get" is NOT Verizon's location and has nothing to do
with Verison's location above, silly dak.

Oh, and you twit can certainly point to the exact place in the GPL where

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/2007/09/peter-khlmann-liar.html
"The Peter Köhlmann liar

So you admit that you have no such link or citation

Figures. You are as dishonest as Snot Michael Glasser

[Alexander Terekhov]

Khlmann Peter

Post by Peter Köhlmann

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Peter Köhlmann

Post by Alexander Terekhov
That "where to get" is NOT Verizon's location and has nothing to do
with Verison's location above, silly dak.

Oh, and you twit can certainly point to the exact place in the GPL where

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/2007/09/peter-khlmann-liar.html
"The Peter Köhlmann liar

So you admit that you have no such link or citation

Uh retard Khlmann.

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html

"If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access
to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy
the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source
code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source
along with the object code.

When that was written in 1991, Internet distribution of software was the
exception, not the rule. Some FTP sites existed, but generally software
was sent on magnetic tape or CDs. GPLv2 therefore mostly assumed that
binary distribution happened on some physical media. By contrast, GPLv3
§ 6(d) explicitly gives an option for this practice that the community
has historically considered GPLv2-compliant. "

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

"Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place
(gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the
Corresponding Source along with the object code.

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html

"Thus, you may fulfill your source-provision obligations by providing
the source code in the same way and from the same location. "

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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
That "where to get" is NOT Verizon's location and has nothing to do with
Verison's location above, silly dak.

The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is
accompanied by source found at
<http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/FiOSInternet/Networking/Troubleshooting/QuestionsOne/124346.htm>.
Verizon also makes source available through the offer of
a physical copy for no more than distribution costs ($10)
listed on the same page.

The manufacturers of the hardware also make source
available at <http://opensource.actiontec.com/>, and
offer physical copies for $10 as well.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
<http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/FiOSInternet/Networking/Troubleshooting/QuestionsOne/124346.htm>.
Verizon also makes source available through the offer of
a physical copy for no more than distribution costs ($10)
listed on the same page.

Uh MORON Hyman:

"GPL Code Requests
4250 Buckingham Drive Suite #400
Colorado Springs, Co 80907 "

Right?

Now,

http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_6f3dp

"Actiontec Electronics, Inc (Actiontec)
4250 Buckingham Dr # 400
Colorado Springs, CO 80907 . . .
Phone: [phone]
Website: www.actiontec.com

Ads by Google"

http://yellowpages.gazette.com/actiontec.9.52901761p.home.html

"Actiontec
[phone]
4250 Buckingham Dr
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Map and Directions

Own this business? Sign in to update your listing"

Take your meds, you MORON Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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
"GPL Code Requests
4250 Buckingham Drive Suite #400
Colorado Springs, Co 80907 "
Right?
Now,
http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_6f3dp
"Actiontec Electronics, Inc (Actiontec)
4250 Buckingham Dr # 400
Colorado Springs, CO 80907 . . .
Phone: [phone]
Website: www.actiontec.com
http://yellowpages.gazette.com/actiontec.9.52901761p.home.html
"Actiontec
[phone]
4250 Buckingham Dr
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Map and Directions

Why is this surprising? Actiontec makes the routers and the
firmware, so they are the natural parties to fulfill the
GPL source requirements. Wasn't it one of you cranks who was
trying to explain to me about "agency"?

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
"GPL Code Requests
4250 Buckingham Drive Suite #400
Colorado Springs, Co 80907 "
Right?
Now,
http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_6f3dp
"Actiontec Electronics, Inc (Actiontec)
4250 Buckingham Dr # 400
Colorado Springs, CO 80907 . . .
Phone: [phone]
Website: www.actiontec.com
http://yellowpages.gazette.com/actiontec.9.52901761p.home.html
"Actiontec
[phone]
4250 Buckingham Dr
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Map and Directions

Why is this surprising? Actiontec makes the routers and the
firmware, so they are the natural parties to fulfill the

The SFLC has sued Verizon (the case was then quickly dismissed with
prejudice against plaintiffs and without any settlement filed to be
"rolled into a court order"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation)>) and you've been
bragging about all plaintiffs being scared out of the water, Hyman.

But to wit:

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

Where is the complete corresponding source code regarding the complete
binary code above YOU MORON HYMAN?

Please share with us the location of the complete corresponding source
code (re: complete binary code at
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp) YOU MORON HYMAN,
please.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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
The SFLC has sued Verizon

True.

Post by Alexander Terekhov
(the case was then quickly dismissed with prejudice against plaintiffs

The case was quickly dismissed by the plaintiffs, not
against the plaintiffs, because the sides settled. It
is common to dismiss a case with prejudice once a
settlement is reached, so that the defendants can be
confident that the plaintiffs will not attempt to
re-litigate the issue.

Post by Alexander Terekhov
and without any settlement filed to be "rolled into a court order"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation)>)

As usual, your links demonstrate that you are wrong:
In other situations (as where the claims have been satisfied by
the payment of a certain sum of money) the plaintiff and defendant
can simply file a notice that the case has been dismissed.

Post by Alexander Terekhov
and you've been bragging about all plaintiffs being scared
out of the water

In each case filed by the SFLC, the defendants have settled and
have come into compliance with the GPL. I don't impute this to
fear. It is more likely the case that the defendants have been
careless with respect to the GPL, thinking of GPLed code as being
public domain rather than having a license which must be honored.
The lawsuit brings this to their attention forcefully, and then
they comply. Indeed they have no reason not to, since compliance
with the GPL is simple.

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
Where is the complete corresponding source code regarding the complete
binary code above?
Please share with us the location of the complete corresponding source
code (re: complete binary code at
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp)

The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is
accompanied by source found at
<http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/FiOSInternet/Networking/Troubleshooting/QuestionsOne/124346.htm>.
Verizon also makes source available through the offer of
a physical copy for no more than distribution costs ($10)
listed on the same page.

The manufacturers of the hardware also make source
available at <http://opensource.actiontec.com/>, and
offer physical copies for $10 as well.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
settlement is reached, so that the defendants can be
confident that the plaintiffs will not attempt to
re-litigate the issue.

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

"LAS VEGAS -- I just got out of a Q&A session with Verizon
Communications President and COO 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, whichwas 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..."

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

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

[Hyman Rosen]

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

As evidence that Verizon does know about the GPL, see
<http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/fiosinternet/networking/setup/questionstwo/98770.htm>
<http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/fiosinternet/networking/setup/questionstwo/98768.htm>
<http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/FiOSInternet/Networking/Troubleshooting/QuestionsOne/124346.htm>

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
As evidence that Verizon does know about the GPL, see
<http://www22.verizon.com/resi. . .

Verizon does know about many things and nobody disputes that Verizon
does know something about the GPL, you retard Hyman.

But:

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

Where is the complete corresponding source code regarding the complete
binary code above YOU MORON HYMAN?

Please share with us the location of the complete corresponding source
code (re: complete binary code at
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp) YOU MORON HYMAN,
please.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

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

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
Where is the complete corresponding source code regarding the complete
binary code above?
Please share with us the location of the complete corresponding source
code (re: complete binary code at
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp),
please.

The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is
accompanied by source found at
<http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/FiOSInternet/Networking/Troubleshooting/QuestionsOne/124346.htm>.
Verizon also makes source available through the offer of
a physical copy for no more than distribution costs ($10)
listed on the same page.

The manufacturers of the hardware also make source
available at <http://opensource.actiontec.com/>, and
offer physical copies for $10 as well.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
Where is the complete corresponding source code regarding the complete
binary code above?
Please share with us the location of the complete corresponding source
code (re: complete binary code at
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp),
please.

The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon

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

Post by Hyman Rosen
is accompanied

is it? Accompanied as in what, YOU MORON HYMAN?

Post by Hyman Rosen
by source found at
<http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/FiOSInternet/Networking/Troubleshooting/QuestionsOne/124346.htm>.

You must mean

http://opensource.actiontec.com/mi1424wr/ . . .

mention at

http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/ . . .

Well, Hyman: actiontec.com is NOT verizon.net, you retard.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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
actiontec.com is NOT verizon.net

"Rjack" wrote:
Agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a contractual or
quasi-contractual tripartite, or non-contractual set of relationships
when an agent is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the
Principal) to create a legal relationship with a Third Party.[1]
Succinctly, it may be referred to as the relationship between a
principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or impliedly,
authorizes the agent to work under his control and on his behalf. The
agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the principal or
bring him and third parties into contractual relationship. This branch
of law separates and regulates the relationships between:
* Agents and Principals;
* Agents and the Third Parties with whom they deal on their
Principals' behalf; and
* Principals and the Third Parties when the Agents purport to deal
on their behalf.

For a technical legal deconstruction see the American Law Institutes'
"Restatement of the Law (Third), Agency".

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
actiontec.com is NOT verizon.net

RJack didn't wrote that actiontec.com is verizon.net, YOU MORON HYMAN.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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
RJack didn't wrote that actiontec.com is verizon.net

In this matter, Actiontec is acting as Verizon's agent.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
RJack didn't wrote that actiontec.com is verizon.net

In this matter, Actiontec is acting as Verizon's agent.

Who said to you that Actiontec is Verizon's agent/not acting on its own
behalf, stypid Hyman?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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
Who said to you that Actiontec is Verizon's agent/not
acting on its own behalf

The fact that Verizon web pages point to Actiontec
web sites and use Actiontec addresses, as you yourself
showed.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Who said to you that Actiontec is Verizon's agent/not
acting on its own behalf

The fact that Verizon web pages point to Actiontec
web sites and use Actiontec addresses, as you yourself
showed.

Take your meds Hyman. If *you* would make a bunch of web pages to point
to Actiontec web sites and use Actiontec addresses to point to Actiontec
locations THAT WOULD NOT MAKE ACTIONTEC YOUR AGENT... do you agree
Hyman?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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]

If *you* would make a bunch of web pages to point to Actiontec
web sites and use Actiontec addresses to point to Actiontec
locations THAT WOULD NOT MAKE ACTIONTEC YOUR AGENT

I am not a large corporation with a business
relationship with Actiontec. I do not send
their routers to my customers. Their web site
does not contain PDF manuals which are branded
with my name, while they are branded as Verizon.

[RJack]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
actiontec.com is NOT verizon.net

"Rjack" wrote: Agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a
contractual or quasi-contractual tripartite, or non-contractual set
of relationships when an agent is authorized to act on behalf of
another (called the Principal) to create a legal relationship with a
Third Party.[1] Succinctly, it may be referred to as the relationship
between a principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or
impliedly, authorizes the agent to work under his control and on his
behalf. The agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the
principal or bring him and third parties into contractual
relationship. This branch of law separates and regulates the
relationships between: * Agents and Principals; * Agents and the
Third Parties with whom they deal on their Principals' behalf; and *
Principals and the Third Parties when the Agents purport to deal on
their behalf.
For a technical legal deconstruction see the American Law Institutes'
"Restatement of the Law (Third), Agency".

How can RJack be wrong when RJack addresses Hyman and then RJack is
right when Hyman addresses Alexander?

I'm confused.


"The Captain's scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by RJack
How can RJack be wrong when RJack addresses Hyman and then RJack is
right when Hyman addresses Alexander?
I'm confused.

What else is new?

When did I ever say you were wrong in your explanation of "agency"?

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available

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

The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is
accompanied by source found at
<http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/FiOSInternet/Networking/Troubleshooting/QuestionsOne/124346.htm>.
Verizon also makes source available through the offer of
a physical copy for no more than distribution costs ($10)
listed on the same page.

The manufacturers of the hardware also make source
available at <http://opensource.actiontec.com/>, and
offer physical copies for $10 as well.

[RJack]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by RJack

Post by Alexander Terekhov
At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to
disbar the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal
beagles from SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits
such as
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/
in which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly
frivolous 'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox
copyrights and (2) Erik Andersen is also utterly frivolous
'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined by Bruce Perens and other
contributors to the joint work known as busybox at
http://busybox.net/.

The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it
has filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the
GPL. No defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals
before

What's "automatic" and "involuntary" about dismissals that are filed
after settling?

Post by RJack
any judge could ever read their frivolous Complaints. Why why would
a plaintiff answer a Complaint that has been dismissed?

Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available in the course
of a settlement?

If the full force and credibility of your arguments turn on others
hurried typographical errors, you've got even bigger problems than I
first imagined. Retreat to that tactic implies an utterly desperate lack
of serious intellect.

"The Captain's scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[David Kastrup]

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup

Post by RJack

The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it
has filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the
GPL. No defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals before

What's "automatic" and "involuntary" about dismissals that are filed
after settling?

Post by RJack
any judge could ever read their frivolous Complaints. Why why would
a plaintiff answer a Complaint that has been dismissed?

Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available in the course
of a settlement?

If the full force and credibility of your arguments turn on others
hurried typographical errors, you've got even bigger problems than I
first imagined. Retreat to that tactic implies an utterly desperate
lack of serious intellect.

Well, appears like you have answered hurriedly again, since my reply had
nothing whatsoever to do with typographical errors. Maybe you'll appear
like less of an idiot if you actually read what you are responding to.

What that does imply for the imaginary problems you fancy me having will
likely remain your secret. And what this kind of evasive tactics and
nonsensical accusations imply for you in the category "utterly desperate
lack of serious intellect" is pretty easy for everyone to see.