gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud


From: RJack
Subject: Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:56 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/10/2010 10:30 AM, RJack wrote:
Blowhard Bradley Kuhn, president of the Software Freedom Conservancy
is at it again. He recently opined, "Usually, anytime I do GPL
enforcement for BusyBox the facts are never in dispute. The typical
situation is that a firmware is distributed on the device that
clearly contains BusyBox and no source nor offer for source code is
included. So it was with Westinghouse."
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/7145/1/

Mr. Kuhn who is a computer science major, is "enforcing the GPL".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_M._Kuhn

How's that for a frank admission of the unauthorized practice of law
(a criminal offense in many jurisdictions)?

Mr. Kuhn conveniently forgot to mention the prevailing law of the
Second Federal Circuit where the Best Buy Inc. cases are being
heard:

"The Copyright Act authorizes only two types of claimants to sue for
 copyright infringement: (1) owners of copyrights, and (2) persons
who have been granted exclusive licenses by owners of
copyrights.[Note 3]

[Note 3] ... We do not believe that the Copyright Act permits
holders of rights under copyrights to choose third parties to bring
suits on their behalf. While F.R.Civ.P. 17(a) ordinarily permits the
real party in interest to ratify a suit brought by another party,
see Urrutia Aviation Enterprises v. B.B. Burson & Associates, Inc.,
406 F.2d 769, 770 (5th Cir.1969); Clarkson Co. Ltd. v. Rockwell
Int'l Corp., 441 F.Supp. 792 (N.D.Calif.1977), the Copyright Law is
quite specific in stating that only the "owner of an exclusive right
under a copyright" may bring suit. 17 U.S.C. Sec. 501(b) (Supp. IV
1980)."; Eden Toys Inc v. Florelee Undergarment Co Inc, 697 F.2d 27
(2nd Cir 1983).

There is no such thing as a "copyright enforcement agent" under
federal law. Which GNU legal beagles out there dreamed up this
idiotic fraud about the Software Freedom Conservancy? The internet
is abuzz with the sounds of utter gibberish about how the "GPL WINS
AGAIN!".

The sound of silence concerning Mr. Kuhn's activities is deafening!

Where are all the good soldiers such as Hyman Rosen, David Kastrup, Znu
and the legion of Free Softies our there? Cat suddenly got their tongue?
Were they caught with their pants down? However will the Software
Freedom Conservancy survive without it's loyal troopers?


Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

Theirs was not to reason why. Theirs was not make Reply.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]