Recommendation for a CL data structures library
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: [2nd CfP] 7th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP'10, June 21/22
Next: §§§ 2010 Cheap wholesale ED Hardy Suit, Baby Suit, Lacoste Suit ect at www.rijing-trade.com <Paypal Payment>
From: Alexander Terekhov on 26 Mar 2010 11:28 David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <terekhov(a)web.de> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > >> > >> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov(a)web.de> writes: > >> > >> > David Kastrup wrote: > >> > [...] > >> >> The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is > >> > > >> > Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: > >> > > >> > It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB > >> > contract. > >> > > >> > 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, but you still have the situation > >> that a contractual arrangement to which one party has not given its > >> implicit or explicit consent differs in the details of execution and > >> enforcement. > >> > >> For one thing, the license can't stipulate contractual penalties for > >> non-conformance. > > > > http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20061123091221786 > > > > "SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the > > Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC > > 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is "well settled" that > > nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); > > Get somebody to explain the difference of "contractual penalties" and > "nominal damages" to you. Did you read the rest of my quote, silly dak? > > The former can be an arbitrary amount agreed upon in advance by the > contract parties. In absence of such stipulation in contract, a non-breaching party must simply establish the damages sustained. "First, as IBM expert Professor J. R. Kearl will testify at trial, under the methodology of SCO's own experts (offered in support of SCO's affirmative case), IBM has suffered quantifiable damages resulting from SCO's wrongful conduct, including its GPL violations. (� 28; Ex. 591 �� 1.C, 33-34.) " regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)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 <hyrosen(a)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.)
From: David Kastrup on 26 Mar 2010 11:53 Alexander Terekhov <terekhov(a)web.de> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov(a)web.de> writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> >> >> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov(a)web.de> writes: >> >> >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> > [...] >> >> >> The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is >> >> > >> >> > Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: >> >> > >> >> > It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB >> >> > contract. >> >> > >> >> > 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, but you still have the situation >> >> that a contractual arrangement to which one party has not given its >> >> implicit or explicit consent differs in the details of execution and >> >> enforcement. >> >> >> >> For one thing, the license can't stipulate contractual penalties for >> >> non-conformance. >> > >> > http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20061123091221786 >> > >> > "SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the >> > Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC >> > 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is "well settled" that >> > nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); >> >> Get somebody to explain the difference of "contractual penalties" and >> "nominal damages" to you. > > Did you read the rest of my quote, silly dak? Sure. Nothing relevant as usual. >> The former can be an arbitrary amount agreed upon in advance by the >> contract parties. > > In absence of such stipulation in contract, a non-breaching party must > simply establish the damages sustained. You did not understand a word of what you were replying to, again. The whole point was that in the case of a _license_, as opposed to a contract, any such stipulation of a _penalty_ is _invalid_, and _only_ sustained damages can actually be claimed. -- David Kastrup
From: Alexander Terekhov on 26 Mar 2010 12:10 David Kastrup wrote: [...] > You did not understand a word of what you were replying to, again. The > whole point was that in the case of a _license_, as opposed to a > contract, any such stipulation of a _penalty_ is _invalid_, and _only_ > sustained damages can actually be claimed. Uh silly dak. A copyright license IS A CONTRACT in U.S.A., Germany, and elsewhere except the GNU Republic in alternative universe. http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Transactions/TakingTheCase.pdf "The GPL is not just a method for a licensor to give up rights that he could otherwise enforce in court; the GPL imposes obligations on the licensee as well, which the licensee must accept.27 It is likely that a court, in the U.S. or abroad, would recognize the GPL as a contract. In fact, the GPL has been cited as a contract, and breach of the GPL as a contract was alleged, in both of the first two U.S. federal court cases in which the GPL was implicated.28 27. See, e.g., Free Software Foundation, Inc., GNU General Public License, Version 2 �� 1�3, available at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.txt (June 1991) (imposing affirmative obligations on licensees). See also id. at � 5. . . . 28. See Countercl., at �� 110�118, Progressive Software Corp. v. MySQL AB, 195 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002); First Am. Compl. � 50, MontaVista Software, Inc. v. Lineo, Inc., No. 2:02 CV-0309J (D. Utah filed July 23, 2002) (�The aforesaid individual or joint acts of Defendants constitute a breach of the GPL.�). http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf "COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)" Go to doctor, silly dak. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)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 <hyrosen(a)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.)
From: David Kastrup on 26 Mar 2010 12:25 Alexander Terekhov <terekhov(a)web.de> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> You did not understand a word of what you were replying to, again. The >> whole point was that in the case of a _license_, as opposed to a >> contract, any such stipulation of a _penalty_ is _invalid_, and _only_ >> sustained damages can actually be claimed. > > Uh silly dak. A copyright license IS A CONTRACT in U.S.A., Germany, and > elsewhere except the GNU Republic in alternative universe. > > http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Transactions/TakingTheCase.pdf > > "The GPL is not just a method for a licensor to give up rights that he > could otherwise enforce in court; the GPL imposes obligations on the > licensee as well, which the licensee must accept.27 _Which_ _the_ _licensee_ _must_ _accept_. Nobody forces him. > It is likely that a court, "It is likely" in some arbitrary commentary is not the same as "IS A". Really, you should stop quoting stuff that contradicts you. > in the U.S. or abroad, would recognize the GPL as a contract. In fact, > the GPL has been cited as a contract, and breach of the GPL as a > contract was alleged, "was alleged". Great. > 28. See Countercl., at ¶¶ 110–118, Progressive Software Corp. v. MySQL > AB, 195 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002); First Am. Compl. ¶ 50, > MontaVista Software, Inc. v. Lineo, Inc., No. 2:02 CV-0309J (D. Utah > filed July 23, 2002) (“The aforesaid individual or joint acts of > Defendants constitute a breach of the GPL.”). Which is short for "constitute a breach of the terms and conditions of the GPL". > "COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)" Sigh. Look and behold, we have here a _count_ of charges that is supposed to be exhaustive in case the court finds some of the charges don't apply for whatever reason. If a court is going to entertain the line of reasoning "this looks like a contract, let's rule on that", you better want an argument in for that, just to make sure. You don't want to go to higher courts unnecessarily. But until such a reasoning appears in the _ruling_ but just in one of a count of charges, it has no legal precedence whatsoever. That this is "COUNT VIII" should tell you something about the priorities of this approach from the plaintiff. -- David Kastrup
From: Alexander Terekhov on 26 Mar 2010 12:46
David Kastrup wrote: [...] > But until such a reasoning appears in the _ruling_ but just in one of a > count of charges . . . Uh silly dak. http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf "Nature of Suit: 190" http://directory.westlaw.com/scope/default.asp?db=DOCK-INDEX-DCT&RS=W&VR=2.0 "NATURE OF SUIT (NOS) SEARCHING: The Nature of Suit (NOS) is a subject matter classification used in federal civil litigation. An NOS is a code that is selected at the outset of litigation when completing the Civil Cover Sheet (JS-44). Below is a table of generally accepted NOS codes and their related subject matter. Note: In the DOCK-INDEX-DCT database, NOS searching is limited to three individual NOS codes (e.g. 440,550,950), or a range of NOS codes (e.g. 510-555). NOS Description Case Type Code [...] 110 Insurance Contract 120 Marine Contract 130 Miller Act Contract 140 Negotiable Instruments Contract 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment Contract 151 Medicare Act Contract 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excl. Contract Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran's Benefits Contract 160 Stockholders' Suits Contract 190 Other Contract Contract [...] 820 Copyrights Property Rights 830 Patent Property Rights 840 Trademark Property Rights " regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)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 <hyrosen(a)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.) |