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: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:57 -0000
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

Hello, Rjack!

In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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!

Some posts are so week that they barely deserve a reply.  Your reasoning
here falls into that category.  However, I will reply nevertheless.

"Doing gnu enforcement" doesn't imply solely lawyers' work.  There is
clearly and obviously non-lawyers' work involved, all the way from high
level meetings deciding strategy right down to dropping letters into the
nearest postbox.

> 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.

You're fantasising here to the extreme.  I'd advise you to keep such
extreme fantasies to yourself.  The time for you to gloat is when a judge
or a jury agrees with you.

> Sincerely,
> RJack :)

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).



reply via email to

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