[LOL] Hey Alan, Pee Jay's mind is going to explode soon
Alexander Terekhov
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100403103524185#comments
"Enforcement of the GNU GPL in Germany and Europe, by Till Jaeger
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 12:07 PM EDT
Terekhov will not be happy about this article.
Enforcement of the GNU GPL in Germany and Europe, by Till Jaeger - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 01:14 PM EDT
Nothing to see here. Move along... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 01:18 PM EDT
Enforcement of the GNU GPL in Germany and Europe, by Till Jaeger - Authored by: AMackenzie on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 02:09 PM EDT
Enforcement of the GNU GPL in Germany and Europe, by Till Jaeger - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 04:30 PM EDT
Enforcement of the GNU GPL in Germany and Europe, by Till Jaeger - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 05:44 PM EDT
Terekhov-Versa-Bosch-Humax-Western Digital-Samsung connection - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 07:46 AM EDT
Terekhov-Versa-Bosch-Humax-Western Digital-Westinghouse-Samsung connection - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 07:55 AM EDT "
"Enforcement of the GNU GPL in Germany and Europe, by Till Jaeger
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 12:07 PM EDT
Terekhov will not be happy about this article. "
"Enforcement of the GNU GPL in Germany and Europe, by Till Jaeger
Authored by: AMackenzie on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 02:09 PM EDT
No doubt about that. But why is this of any importance? What does it matter
what a software engineer from Baden Württemberg thinks about GPL enforcement?
Do you know something about him that I don't? "
"Enforcement of the GNU GPL in Germany and Europe, by Till Jaeger
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 04:30 PM EDT
Do we know anything that you don't?
Just that he is one of the most prolific (and successful) people at enforcing
the GPL in court. Probably even more so than the FSF. (Note that the FSF prefer
to settle out of court. I think Harald does too, but living in Germany he's much
more trigger-happy about getting injunctions, as he has to be because of the
peculiarities of German law.)
Cheers,
Wol "
"Enforcement of the GNU GPL in Germany and Europe, by Till Jaeger
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 05:44 PM EDT
I think you are not understanding each other.
I think he meant Terekhov.
He is only significant if it turns out he's
behind things like Psystar and Dan Wallace's
equally failed attack on the GPL. "
"Terekhov-Versa-Bosch-Humax-Western Digital-Samsung connection
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 07:46 AM EDT
"I think he meant Terekhov.
He is only significant if it turns out he's
behind things like Psystar and Dan Wallace's
equally failed attack on the GPL."
PJ, don't you think that Terekhov is behind Versa-Bosch-Humax-Western
Digital-Samsung attack on the GPL as well?
See 1:09-cv-10155-SAS Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc.
et al.
Versa:
"On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are
barred, limited and/or excluded on the grounds that the alleged license at issue
in this case and/or certain provisions contained therein are illegal,
unconscionable and barred by public policy as well as by statutory and case
law."
Bosch:
"The GNU General Public License, Version 2, as alleged by Plaintiffs, is
not enforcable."
Humax:
"Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought because their actions
constitute a misuse of the copyright."
Western Digital:
"Plaintiffs claims are barred by the first sale doctrine."
"Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are barred by the First Sale
doctrine."
Samsung:
"As a further, separate and distinct Ninth Affirmative Defense to the
Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that
Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse. Defendants
are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Plaintiffs’ claims are
barred because Plaintiffs have used the alleged copyrights at issue in this case
to engage in anticompetitive behavior under United States law."
"As a separate and distinct Twelfth Affirmative Defense and each claim for
relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claim for copyright
infringement is barred under at least the provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), as
Defendant was licensed and any copies alleged to be infringing were, therefore,
lawfully made." "
"Terekhov-Versa-Bosch-Humax-Western Digital-Westinghouse-Samsung connection
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 07:55 AM EDT
Westinghouse:
"Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are barred by the First Sale
doctrine." "
regards,
alexander.
P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."
Hyman Rosen <hyr...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."
Hyman Rosen <hyr...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Hyman Rosen
> due to her "if it turns out Terekhov is behind attacks on the GPL" paranoia.
I know that creating single-spaced incomprehensible screeds
is the hallmark of every good crank, and I know that properly
formatting errors doesn't make them any less wrong, but really,
if you're trying to make some point through your quotes, you
should try to format your messages so that readers don't give
up in incomprehension.
Alexander Terekhov
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> should try to format your messages so that readers don't give
> up in incomprehension.
Try
you idiot Hyman.
Hyman Rosen
> Try
> http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/tree/browse_frm/thread/a5c349a25ca65991/214ecbb400cbe67a?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fgnu.misc.discuss%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fa5c349a25ca65991%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_214ecbb400cbe67a
Huh? That's exactly the same newsgroup message, looked
up in Google Groups. The message contains what seem to
be a variety of quotes from various sources and also (I
think) comments by you, without any indentation to show
which parts are responses to which other parts.
I suppose it's your choice as to whether you want your
posts to be incomprehensible instead of just wrong, but
I wrote just in case you prefer the latter and were
producing the former accidentally.
David Kastrup
I don't have the impression that comprehensibility would actually
benefit his goals. Whether he realizes that is a different question.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... indentation ...]
Uh idiot Hyman...
For indentation, go to
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100403103524185#comments
and search for "Terekhov", silly Hyman.
Alexander Terekhov
Said MORON dak who wrote in 2004:
http://forum.golem.de/read.php?44,216061,page=1
"Man kann niemanden wegen Verstoßes gegen die GPL verklagen, da die GPL
kein Vertrag und kein Gesetz ist."
MORON dak in 2010:
----
> http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
>
> "The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor
> the right to copy, ..."
Germany might call things different ...
----
Uh clown dak, LMAO!
Hyman Rosen
> Uh idiot Hyman...
> For indentation, go to
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100403103524185#comments
> and search for "Terekhov", silly Hyman.
The point of communication is to communicate. If you
choose not to expend effort on making your Usenet posts
understandable (correct would be asking too much), why
would you expect that readers would expend effort to
understand them? Why would you pour a mess of text into
a Usenet post if you believe the better way to read it
is on a website? Don't you think you would be better off
being neatly wrong instead of sloppily wrong?
Alexander Terekhov
Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> On 4/8/2010 12:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Uh idiot Hyman...
> > For indentation, go to
> > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100403103524185#comments
> > and search for "Terekhov", silly Hyman.
>
> The point of communication is to communicate.
Here's the communication: STOP BEING UTTER IDIOT HYMAN!
David Kastrup
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>
>> On 4/8/2010 12:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> > Uh idiot Hyman...
>> > For indentation, go to
>> > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100403103524185#comments
>> > and search for "Terekhov", silly Hyman.
>>
>> The point of communication is to communicate.
>
> Here's the communication: STOP BEING UTTER IDIOT HYMAN!
I don't see him attempting to compete with you in that area.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov
Said IDIOT dak who wrote in 2004:
http://forum.golem.de/read.php?44,216061,page=1
"Man kann niemanden wegen Verstoßes gegen die GPL verklagen, da die GPL
kein Vertrag und kein Gesetz ist."
UTTER IDIOT dak in 2010:
----
> http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
>
> "The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor
> the right to copy, ..."
Germany might call things different ...
----
regards,
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>>
>> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 4/8/2010 12:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> >> > Uh idiot Hyman...
>> >> > For indentation, go to
>> >> > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100403103524185#comments
>> >> > and search for "Terekhov", silly Hyman.
>> >>
>> >> The point of communication is to communicate.
>> >
>> > Here's the communication: STOP BEING UTTER IDIOT HYMAN!
>>
>> I don't see him attempting to compete with you in that area.
>
> Said IDIOT dak who wrote in 2004:
>
> http://forum.golem.de/read.php?44,216061,page=1
>
> "Man kann niemanden wegen Verstoßes gegen die GPL verklagen, da die GPL
> kein Vertrag und kein Gesetz ist."
>
> UTTER IDIOT dak in 2010:
>
> ----
>> http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
>>
>> "The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor
>> the right to copy, ..."
>
> Germany might call things different ...
And actually, Germany _does_ call things different. The original text
is:
Diese drei Softwareprogramme werden ausschließlich unter der GNU
General Public License (GPL) lizensiert.
Die GPL gestattet jedermann, der einen solchen Vertrag als
Lizenznehmer schließen will, die Vervielfältigung, Verbreitung und
Veränderung der Software, wenn die Weitergabe ebenfalls wieder unter
den Bedingungen dieser Lizenz erfolgt, insbesondere auf die GPL
hingewiesen, der Lizenztext der GPL beigefügt, der Quellcode
zugänglich gemacht und auf einen Gewährleistungsausschluss
hingewiesen wird.
Translated properly: The GPL permits anyone who desires to enter into
such a contract as a licensee, the reproduction [...] as long as the
redistribution happens under the very same conditions of this license
[...].
So the wording of the verdict makes clear that the GPL is the
_permission_ to enter into a contractual relation, but not a contract in
itself.
Seems like the translation you cite does not fully reflect the original
wording.
When you have time for it, you may want to wipe the foam off your mouth.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> So the wording of the verdict makes clear that the GPL is the
> _permission_ to enter into a contractual relation, but not a contract in
Hey dak,
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drogenbesitz
Hth.
RJack
> due to her "if it turns out Terekhov is behind attacks on the GPL"
> paranoia.
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100403103524185#comments
>
> "Enforcement of the GNU GPL in Germany and Europe, by Till Jaeger
> Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 12:07 PM EDT
>
> Terekhov will not be happy about this article.
Pee Jay is the software world's embodiment of the current paranoid
Birther movement which claims President Obama is not a U.S. citizen.
Despite the fact that the Supreme Court held in 1927 that an
intellectual property license is a contract, Pee Jay continues
to claim that a license is not a contract to be interpreted under
state common law:
"The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling"
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851
Despite the fact that no U.S. federal court in the past 83 years
has held a copyright license to be anything other than a contract, Pee
Jay will remains in her cocoon of denial. Just as the Birthers claim
that the President's Hawaiian birth certificate is fake, her Groksters
will refuse to accept any court decisions of record.
Pee Jay has made voluminous citations to U.S. court decisions when she
has felt the need to support a legal claim. (She's a paralegal) So...
how many court decisions has she quoted to support her facetious claim
that "a license is not a contract"? Zero -- she can't because she is a
paranoid whack job. Arguing with Pee Jay is like talking to a wall. She
makes SCO's scoundrel, Darl McBride, seem almost honest in contrast.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
Alan Mackenzie
[ snip ]
If there was any meaning, any point made in the snipped "material", it
totally escapes me. Any chance you might like to restate your point in a
concise and clear paragraph? I'm assuming that you had some point to
make.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Alexander Terekhov
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> If there was any meaning, any point made in the snipped "material", it
> totally escapes me. Any chance you might like to restate your point in a
> concise and clear paragraph? I'm assuming that you had some point to
> make.
The point is the following, silly Alan.
PJ wrote on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 05:44 PM EDT:
-----
I think you are not understanding each other.
I think he meant Terekhov.
He [Terekhov] is only significant if it turns out he's
[Terekhov is] behind things like Psystar and Dan Wallace's
equally failed attack on the GPL.
-----
Anonymous replied on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 07:46 AM EDT:
-----
PJ, don't you think that Terekhov is behind Versa-Bosch-Humax-
Western Digital-Samsung attack on the GPL as well?
Versa:
Bosch:
Humax:
Western Digital:
Samsung:
-----
Anonymous added on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 07:55 AM EDT:
-----
Westinghouse:
"Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are barred by the First Sale
doctrine." "
-----
Got it now, silly Alan?
Alan Mackenzie
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> wrote:
>> [ snip ]
>> If there was any meaning, any point made in the snipped "material", it
>> totally escapes me. Any chance you might like to restate your point
>> in a concise and clear paragraph? I'm assuming that you had some
>> point to make.
> The point is the following, Alan.
OK, this is better than your opening post, but still not very good. You
haven't written a concise clear paragraph explaining what you're trying
to say. However, .....
> PJ wrote on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 05:44 PM EDT:
> -----
> I think you are not understanding each other.
> I think he [AMackenzie] meant Terekhov.
Yes, I did mean you.
> He [Terekhov] is only significant if it turns out he's
> [Terekhov is] behind things like Psystar and Dan Wallace's
> equally failed attack on the GPL.
> -----
I didn't write that. I think PJ did. Have you had any part in Psystar's
activities or Dan Wallace's?
> Anonymous replied on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 07:46 AM EDT:
Was that "anonymous" you, by any chance?
> -----
> PJ, don't you think that Terekhov is behind Versa-Bosch-Humax-
> Western Digital-Samsung attack on the GPL as well?
Have you had anything to do with these matters?
> See 1:09-cv-10155-SAS Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best
> Buy Co., Inc. et al.
> Versa:
> "On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs?
> claims are barred, limited and/or excluded on the grounds that
> the alleged license at issue in this case and/or certain provisions
> contained therein are illegal, unconscionable and barred by public
> policy as well as by statutory and case law."
> Bosch:
[ .... ]
> Anonymous added on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 07:55 AM EDT:
> -----
> Westinghouse:
> "Plaintiffs? claims for relief are barred by the First Sale
> doctrine." "
> -----
> Got it now, Alan?
No. You've dumped a load of material from Groklaw onto gnu.misc.discuss,
and by doing so you're presumingly making some point. What point,
exactly, escapes me. Perhaps you would be kind enough to state clearly
and explicitly what your point is.
> regards,
> alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
> > PJ wrote on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 05:44 PM EDT:
>
> > -----
> > I think you are not understanding each other.
> > I think he [AMackenzie] meant Terekhov.
>
> Yes, I did mean you.
>
> > He [Terekhov] is only significant if it turns out he's
> > [Terekhov is] behind things like Psystar and Dan Wallace's
> > equally failed attack on the GPL.
> > -----
>
> I didn't write that. I think PJ did. Have you had any part in Psystar's
> activities or Dan Wallace's?
YES, I'M THE COMMANDER BEHIND ALL ANTI-GPL ACTIVITIES! LOL.
Seriosly, as for Dan Wallace, I've told him
"I suggest you file a request for hearing en banc. If the
price for doing it is a restraint, please let me know."
to under Easterbrook's moronic ruling in which the Chief Judge managed
to confuse the GPL with public domain and the rest of FOSS, other silly
reasonings aside for a moment, but Dan Wallace declined.
He replied:
------
"And so it is with operating systems. Many
more people use Microsoft Windows, Apple OS X, or Sun
Solaris than use Linux. IBM, which includes Linux with
servers, sells mainframes and supercomputers that run
proprietary operating systems. The number of proprietary
operating systems is growing, not shrinking, so competition
in this market continues quite apart from the fact that the
GPL ensures the future availability of Linux and other
Unix offshoots." -- Easterberook
This appellate level ruling completely peels The United States
Department of Justice's Antitrust Division off Microsoft's back.
Microsoft is is now FREE, FREE, FREE to leverage its' software
patents against open source software.
This ruling signed a death warrant for free software. So why
intercede?
Daniel
------
David Kastrup
> Seriosly, as for Dan Wallace, I've told him
>
> "I suggest you file a request for hearing en banc. If the
> price for doing it is a restraint, please let me know."
> He replied:
> This appellate level ruling completely peels The United States
> Department of Justice's Antitrust Division off Microsoft's back.
>
> Microsoft is is now FREE, FREE, FREE to leverage its' software
> patents against open source software.
>
> This ruling signed a death warrant for free software. So why
> intercede?
There are a lot of death warrants being signed for free software, not
least of all in this group.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov
http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2010/mar10/03-03IODataPR.mspx
(I-O Data Signs Linux Software Patent Agreement With Microsoft)
"... the company has entered into more than 600 agreements and continues
to develop programs that make it possible for customers, partners and
competitors to access its IP portfolio. The program was developed to
open access to Microsoft�s significant research and development
investments and its growing, broad patent and IP portfolio. In recent
years, Microsoft has entered into patent agreements with other leading
companies that use Linux for their embedded devices, including Brother
International Corp., Fuji Xerox Co. Ltd., Kyocera Mita Corp., LG
Electronics, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and TomTom International BV."