headers
Alexander Terekhov | 1 Apr 2006 16:07
Picon

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)


Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> doctrine of copyright misuse... GPL violation of which has raised to
> the level of antitrust violation according to Wallace (note that 2nd
> Wallace's case is still pending before Judge Young... and I just can't
> imagine that Judge Tinder's blackout regarding below cost pricing
> conspiracy causing antitrust injury could possibly withstand an appeal)

On 30/06/2006 Judge Yound ruled that Wallace has sufficiently alleged 
an antitrust complaint under section 1 of the Sherman Act, and that 
his claim may move forward. He denied Motion to Dismiss.

regards,
alexander.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Alexander Terekhov | 1 Apr 2006 16:28
Picon

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

Ok, ok. April 1st. 

regards,
alexander.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alexander Terekhov | 4 Apr 2006 17:10
Picon

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

Time to address this little bit of silly propaganda.

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> 
> One of Lex Terekhov's favorite "heroes" looses his "cause":
> 
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060320201540127
> 
>         Mr. Wallace's fourth Amended Complaint was dismissed and the
>         Free Software Foundation's Motion to Dismiss was granted. It's
>         the Order that tells Wallace to pay the Free Software
>         Foundation's costs. Judges do that when they'd like you to learn
>         a good lesson. It's a signal you shouldn't have brought the case
>         in the first place.

That seems to be at odds with what it says in FRCivP 54(d):

"... costs other than attorneys' fees shall be allowed as of course 
to the prevailing party ..."

Interestingly enough, the FSF has not filed a bill of costs. And it 
appears that the 14-day deadline for doing so has expired.

"... Failure to file such bill or motion or to obtain leave of Court 
for extensions of time within which to file shall be deemed a waiver 
of the right to recover taxable costs or attorney fees."

regards,
alexander.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra | 4 Apr 2006 17:43

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 17:10 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Time to address this little bit of silly propaganda.

> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > 
> > One of Lex Terekhov's favorite "heroes" looses his "cause":
> > 
> > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060320201540127
> > 
> >         Mr. Wallace's fourth Amended Complaint was dismissed and the
> >         Free Software Foundation's Motion to Dismiss was granted. It's
> >         the Order that tells Wallace to pay the Free Software
> >         Foundation's costs. Judges do that when they'd like you to learn
> >         a good lesson. It's a signal you shouldn't have brought the case
> >         in the first place.
> 
> That seems to be at odds with what it says in FRCivP 54(d):
> 
> "... costs other than attorneys' fees shall be allowed as of course 
> to the prevailing party ..."
> 
> Interestingly enough, the FSF has not filed a bill of costs. And it 
> appears that the 14-day deadline for doing so has expired.
> 
> "... Failure to file such bill or motion or to obtain leave of Court 
> for extensions of time within which to file shall be deemed a waiver 
> of the right to recover taxable costs or attorney fees."

The FSF doesn't seek every penny out of a lunatic... 
The horror... the horror...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alexander Terekhov | 4 Apr 2006 20:56
Picon

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)


Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> The FSF doesn't seek every penny out of a lunatic...
> The horror... the horror...

So was it way too pretty penny or just not worth filing a bill? I'm 
genuinely interested. After all it will add to FSF's Expenses... 
horror... horror... FSF is inefficient...

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/8557.htm

Only one star.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. And paid CEO around 7 percent of revenue in 2004.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
secretary | 5 Apr 2006 07:58

NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 5 April 2006 NYCBUG Meeting

<blockquote
  what="official NYCBUG announcement">

 From: "Announcements only list for NYCBUG \(announcements are not cross-posted to other lists\)." <announce <at> lists.nycbug.org>
 Subject: [announce] Wednesday, April 5 NYC*BUG

 April 05, 2006

 NEW Time & Location!
 And it is necessary to RSVP

 Please send an email to rsvp at lists dot nycbug dot org with `RSVP` and
 your full name in the subject line.  Cut off time is 1 pm on Wednesday.

 6:30 pm, Baruch College, CUNY
 Building H, Room 620
 E 25th Street between 3rd Ave & Lexington
 Map

 Past meetings have had a single speaker on a single topic. This time, we
 have a couple of speakers on a couple of useful topics for about 10
 minutes each. Then the floor will be open for *you* to open up a
 discussion on a topic you are dealing with now.

 We are looking for the meetings to be useful tools for what *you* as an
 admin or developer is facing now. This is the time to bring your funky
 solution or problem to the table, like we do with our talk list, and
 open up a live discussion.
 _______________________________________________
 announce mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
jantox | 6 Apr 2006 05:16
Picon

Question in using GPL code in commercial products

Say I downloaded an API that connects to SMS Centers and I use that API
together with my own code. Do I need to open up my own code?

P.S. I cant really understand GPL, sorry for my ignorance.
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Gordon Burditt | 6 Apr 2006 05:49

Re: Question in using GPL code in commercial products

>Say I downloaded an API that connects to SMS Centers and I use that API
>together with my own code. Do I need to open up my own code?

An API is not code, much less GPL'd code.

If you link the GPL'd library that implements the API, and
you distribute your code, you probably have to open up your
own code.

If you do not distribute your code, you do not have to open
up your code.

>P.S. I cant really understand GPL, sorry for my ignorance.

						Gordon L. Burditt
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Alexander Terekhov | 6 Apr 2006 11:05
Picon

Re: Question in using GPL code in commercial products


Gordon Burditt wrote:
[...]
> If you link the GPL'd library that implements the API, and
> you distribute your code, you probably have to open up your
> own code.

------
ICE (FSF's attorneys) on automatic aggregation of software copyrights:

In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software
copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the
GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed
under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based
on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) 
on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the 
other work under the scope of this License."

Linux kernel v. application:

And as the copyright notice in the kernel sources says, user
applications are not subject to the GPL.

Supported by Hollaar:

With dynamically-linked libraries, the application program being
distributed is no longer a compilation that includes the library.
Because the library is not being distributed with the application
program, no permission is needed from the copyright owner of the 
library for the distribution to users. Users must, of course, be
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Rob E | 8 Apr 2006 21:44
Picon

Re: FTPS client wanted

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:29:01 +0200, Angel Tsankov wrote:

> Can someone recommend a free, optionally GUI, FTP client with support for 
> AUTH TLS that has been ported for Windows? Support for AUTH SSL, 
> SSL connect and X.509 client auth is optional.

The FTP client that I know about for windows is FileZilla.  It supports
ftp, sftp via SSH2, ftp over SSL/TLS, ftp over TLS, and ftp of SSL.  I
don't know if this is what your asking -- but FileZilla appears to be a
nice client.

Take care,
rob
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane