|
From: | RJack |
Subject: | Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement |
Date: | Tue, 04 May 2010 16:13:35 -0000 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) |
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack <user@example.net> writes:David Kastrup wrote:Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:Defendants try making an exhaustive list of conceivable theories (even conflicting ones) for why a complaint should be heldHyman Rosen wrote:Samsung and several other defendants disagree with you stupid Hyman.On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual sense.http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.htmlIn particular, a copy of a GPL-covered work made for use does not become a copy which may be transferred under 17 USC 109 without the GPL being honored, any moreinvalid. They need just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell us when they choose to comply after all (as they have consistently ended up with so far)?Just show us the settlement agreements DAK. Just the agreements please.Why would they make the source code available without necessity?
Uh. Huh? http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz
Out of court settlements are private. But the results speak for themselves.
Yeah... For instance see: http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz Sincerely, RJack :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |