giovanni_re | 18 Apr 07:20 2010
Picon

GNU at BerkeleyTIP-Global meeting on Sunday April 18 12N-3P, & April 27

Come discuss GNU stuff. :)  Join via VOIP or come to Berkeley
http://sites.google.com/site/berkeleytip/voice-voip-conferencing
FSCafe at Moffitt at UCBerkeley, opens 1pm, but can connect from outside
at 12N.

Hot topics: Ubuntu 10.04, Free Culuture, VOIP, Set up the web server &
mail list & asterisk/freeswitch on the BTIP box with Ubuntu 10.04?

Tues April 27 5-6P VOIP online meeting also.

http://sites.google.com/site/berkeleytip/

Join the mail list, tell us what you're interested in.
http://sites.google.com/site/berkeleytip/mailing-lists
Hyman Rosen | 1 Apr 05:27 2010
Picon

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 4:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> "It will be unprofitable
> THAT'S AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY

No, it's not. There is no public policy that it must
be possible to profit in certain fields of endeavor.
Hyman Rosen | 1 Apr 05:48 2010
Picon

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

On 3/29/2010 4:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/21_04_04.pdf

This is a quote of one person's opinions, not of a
decided case, so it needs to be understood in that
light.

> "A licensor who contractually prohibited the combination of its
> software with other programs in situations where adaptation rights
> are not affected would exceed the scope of its copyright by seeking
> to control external activities and subject matter—namely, the use of
> independent programs.

Fortunately, the GPL does not prohibit this, so any analysis
of the consequences of such a prohibition is irrelevant to
the GPL.

<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
     A “covered work” means either the unmodified Program or
     a work based on the Program.
     ....
     You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do
     not convey, without conditions so long as your license
     otherwise remains in force.
Hyman Rosen | 1 Apr 05:53 2010
Picon

Re: SFLC admits the fraud on the copyright office, and the court

On 3/29/2010 6:32 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> "Plaintiffs deny the allegations of Paragraph 6 of Best Buy's
> Counterclaims to the extent they assert that Mr. Andersen alleges he is
> the author, developer and owner of “[all of] the” copyrights in BusyBox.
> Plaintiffs admit that they allege that Mr. Andersen is the author and
> owner of copyrights in portions of BusyBox.  "

<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.
Hyman Rosen | 1 Apr 06:44 2010
Picon

Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

On 3/31/2010 6:03 PM, RJack wrote:
> That business model is about to collapse for some companies.

The business model of manufacturing automobiles and selling
them to consumers has also collapsed for some companies. That
some companies fail is not proof that their business model is
wrong. Ability and luck have their parts to play.

> Novell and Red Hat won't be too far behind.

Gee, an anti-GPL Usenet crank predicts that companies with
successful GPL-based businesses will collapse. Surprising!
RonB | 1 Apr 07:53 2010
Picon

Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:03:56 -0500, RJack wrote:

> Uhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's about the futility of the "licensed at no charge"
> anti-intellectual property GPL and the "ancillary services" business
> model built around it. That business model is about to collapse for some
> companies. SCO tries a business modeled around the GPL and collapsed.

No, they collapsed when they got away from the GPL business and tried to 
sue former partners.

But don't let facts get in your way.

--

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
Alexander Terekhov | 1 Apr 13:20 2010
Picon

Re: SFLC admits the fraud on the copyright office, and the court


Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
>      notices did. The significance of registration is that it is a
>      prerequisite to a suit to enforce a copyright.

Yes silly Hyman, but

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/intellectual-property-copyright/125937-1.html

"Fraud on the Copyright Office. (The Law of the Line).

By Griffiths, Jackson Godbey
Publication: Hawaii Business 
Date: Friday, March 1 2002 

Fraud on the Copyright Office can invalidate a copyright registration.
As you may recall, copyright registration is not a prerequisite to
ownership of a copyright; copyright springs into existence automatically
when a work of authorship is fixed in a tangible medium. But copyright
registration is required to bring an infringement suit, and fraud on the
Copyright Office will defeat registration and thus destroy the
jurisdictional basis for a copyright infringement case. 

Fraud requires a specific intent to deceive or cheat, but that can be
shown by circumstantial evidence. So, fraud on the Copyright Office
generally arises in the context of a mistake in a copyright registration
that the defendant, the accused infringer, will try to argue was
deliberate. If the defendant can show that the mistake was deliberate
and material, and therefore fraud on the Copyright Office, then the
(Continue reading)

Alexander Terekhov | 1 Apr 15:06 2010
Picon

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
>      A “covered work” means either the unmodified Program or
>      a work based on the Program.

Uh stupid Hyman... yes, I've been telling you all along that the GPL
doesn't cover non-GPL'd works included in compilations (aka collective
works, aka "mere aggregations" in GNU-speak).

http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf

"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." Plaintiff's mischaracterization
of the GPL in his Response has no bearing on the resolution of the
pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself.
"[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with
the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." Centers v.
Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005)"

Philip A. Whistler (#1205-49)
Curtis W. McCauley (#16456-49)
Attorneys for Defendant, Free Software Foundation, Inc.

(Continue reading)

Alexander Terekhov | 1 Apr 15:34 2010
Picon

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 3/29/2010 4:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > "It will be unprofitable
> > THAT'S AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY
> 
> No, it's not. There is no public policy that it must
> be possible to profit in certain fields of endeavor.

Uh stupid Hyman...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZO.html#FN18

See also:

http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/02/whats-point-of-copyright.html

"What I mean is that the purpose of copyright is (as Yglesias says) to
encourage creation of works -- by (as Bunch says) "protect[ing] the
intellectual property created by artists so they are rewarded for their
efforts." But what's important isn't what I think; what really matters
is what Justice Ginsburg, joined by six other members of the Supreme
Court, said in footnote 18 of Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003)
about this very subject:

Justice Stevens’ characterization of reward to the author as “a
secondary consideration” of copyright law, post, at 6, n. 4 (internal
quotation marks omitted), understates the relationship between such
rewards and the “Progress of Science.” As we have explained, “[t]he
(Continue reading)

RJack | 1 Apr 17:55 2010
Picon

Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 3/31/2010 6:03 PM, RJack wrote:
>> That business model is about to collapse for some companies.
> 
> The business model of manufacturing automobiles and selling them to 
> consumers has also collapsed for some companies. That some companies 
> fail is not proof that their business model is wrong. Ability and 
> luck have their parts to play.
> 
>> Novell and Red Hat won't be too far behind.
> 
> Gee, an anti-GPL Usenet crank predicts that companies with successful
>  GPL-based businesses will collapse. Surprising!

Really... you're finally gettin' it Hyman! A proud anti-GPL crank
perfunctorily and presciently predicts the GPL will be ruled
unenforceable under U.S. law, after which, Red Hat and Novell collapse.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

Gmane