[provocative] Whom did the SFC pay to list boost developers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?
http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/ (Current Member Projects) "Boost provides free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries. Boost emphasizes libraries that work well with the C++ Standard Library. Boost libraries are intended to be widely useful, and usable across a broad spectrum of applications. The Boost license encourages both commercial and non-commercial use. Boost aims to establish existing practice and provide reference implementations so that Boost libraries are suitable for eventual standardization. Ten Boost libraries are already included in the C++ Standards Committee's Library Technical Report ( TR1) as a step toward becoming part of a future C++ Standard. More Boost libraries are proposed for the upcoming TR2." The context: (pacer) 03/23/2011 192 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from David Leichtman dated 3/23/2011 re: Requesting that the Reply and Kuhn Declaration be stricken, or in the alternative, that the Court consider Best Buy's responses to these new theories and arguments. ENDORSEMENT: Defendant's request is granted. The Court will consider Best Buy's response to the new issues raised in Plaintiffs' Reply, as set forth in this letter. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 3/23/2011) (jpo) (Entered: 03/23/2011) 04/14/2011 193 OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons in this opinion and order, plaintiffs' motion to join WD is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion (Docket No. 133). (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/14/2011) (rjm) (Entered: 04/15/2011) 04/26/2011 194 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Emmett J. McMahon, dated 4/25/2011, re: Counsel for the defendant Best Buy Co., writes to request a pre-motion conference regarding a motion to strike Plaintiffs' claim for "actual damages and any additional profits of [Best Buy] incurred as the result of infringement." ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. A premotion conference will be held on May 6 at 2:30. So Ordered. (Pre-Motion Conference set for 5/6/2011 at 02:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/25/2011) (lnl) (Entered: 04/26/2011) (details) http://www.terekhov.de/192.pdf http://www.terekhov.de/194.pdf Suggestion: Please remove boost from http://sfconservancy.org/members TIA. regards, alexander.
Sorry for top posting, and even more sorry for being dense, but what are you trying to say? For me it's not clear from your mail what problems we as Boost developers could face (and why?) if the mentioning of Boost is not removed from the SFC website. Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Terekhov Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 11:49 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] [provocative] Whom did the SFC pay to list boost developers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?
http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/ (Current Member Projects)
"Boost provides free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries.
Boost emphasizes libraries that work well with the C++ Standard Library. Boost libraries are intended to be widely useful, and usable across a broad spectrum of applications. The Boost license encourages both commercial and non-commercial use.
Boost aims to establish "existing practice" and provide reference implementations so that Boost libraries are suitable for eventual standardization. Ten Boost libraries are already included in the C++ Standards Committee's Library Technical Report ( TR1) as a step toward becoming part of a future C++ Standard. More Boost libraries are proposed for the upcoming TR2."
The context:
(pacer)
03/23/2011 192 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from David Leichtman dated 3/23/2011 re: Requesting that the Reply and Kuhn Declaration be stricken, or in the alternative, that the Court consider Best Buy's responses to these new theories and arguments. ENDORSEMENT: Defendant's request is granted. The Court will consider Best Buy's response to the new issues raised in Plaintiffs' Reply, as set forth in this letter. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 3/23/2011) (jpo) (Entered: 03/23/2011) 04/14/2011 193 OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons in this opinion and order, plaintiffs' motion to join WD is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion (Docket No. 133). (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/14/2011) (rjm) (Entered: 04/15/2011) 04/26/2011 194 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Emmett J. McMahon, dated 4/25/2011, re: Counsel for the defendant Best Buy Co., writes to request a pre-motion conference regarding a motion to strike Plaintiffs' claim for "actual damages and any additional profits of [Best Buy] incurred as the result of infringement." ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. A premotion conference will be held on May 6 at 2:30. So Ordered. (Pre-Motion Conference set for 5/6/2011 at 02:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/25/2011) (lnl) (Entered: 04/26/2011)
(details)
http://www.terekhov.de/192.pdf http://www.terekhov.de/194.pdf
Suggestion:
Please remove boost from http://sfconservancy.org/members
TIA.
regards, alexander.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:03:44PM -0500, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
Sorry for top posting, and even more sorry for being dense, but what are you trying to say? For me it's not clear from your mail what problems we as Boost developers could face (and why?) if the mentioning of Boost is not removed from the SFC website.
As far as I understand it, the TL;DR is: * SFC provides legal, administration and other services for member projects. * Boost is apparently a member project of this SFC. * SFC seems to have lost a lawsuit over use of the BusyBox project in some kind of closed home entertainment device, lost due to some legal technicality. * Thus, Boost should immediately stop being a SFC project for some undisclosed reason of Alexander.
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Terekhov Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 11:49 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] [provocative] Whom did the SFC pay to list boost developers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?
http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/ (Current Member Projects)
"Boost provides free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries.
Boost emphasizes libraries that work well with the C++ Standard Library. Boost libraries are intended to be widely useful, and usable across a broad spectrum of applications. The Boost license encourages both commercial and non-commercial use.
Boost aims to establish "existing practice" and provide reference implementations so that Boost libraries are suitable for eventual standardization. Ten Boost libraries are already included in the C++ Standards Committee's Library Technical Report ( TR1) as a step toward becoming part of a future C++ Standard. More Boost libraries are proposed for the upcoming TR2."
The context:
(pacer)
03/23/2011 192 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from David Leichtman dated 3/23/2011 re: Requesting that the Reply and Kuhn Declaration be stricken, or in the alternative, that the Court consider Best Buy's responses to these new theories and arguments. ENDORSEMENT: Defendant's request is granted. The Court will consider Best Buy's response to the new issues raised in Plaintiffs' Reply, as set forth in this letter. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 3/23/2011) (jpo) (Entered: 03/23/2011) 04/14/2011 193 OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons in this opinion and order, plaintiffs' motion to join WD is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion (Docket No. 133). (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/14/2011) (rjm) (Entered: 04/15/2011) 04/26/2011 194 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Emmett J. McMahon, dated 4/25/2011, re: Counsel for the defendant Best Buy Co., writes to request a pre-motion conference regarding a motion to strike Plaintiffs' claim for "actual damages and any additional profits of [Best Buy] incurred as the result of infringement." ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. A premotion conference will be held on May 6 at 2:30. So Ordered. (Pre-Motion Conference set for 5/6/2011 at 02:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/25/2011) (lnl) (Entered: 04/26/2011)
(details)
http://www.terekhov.de/192.pdf http://www.terekhov.de/194.pdf
Suggestion:
Please remove boost from http://sfconservancy.org/members
TIA.
regards, alexander.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Lars Viklund | zao@acc.umu.se
Hartmut Kaiser wrote: [...]
we as Boost developers ...
Please name "we", Kaiser.
FWIW, my first name is Hartmut and usually it's taken as an offense in Germany to refer to somebody by using his last name only.
To repeat:
Whom did the SFC pay to list boost developers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?
I don't care who paid SFC (although I doubt somebody did). I'm asking why Boost shouldn't be represented by SFC in the first place. Your initial mail uses Legaleeze to detail apparent facts; I'd prefer you used English instead. Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 08:50:49PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hartmut Kaiser wrote: [...]
we as Boost developers ...
Please name "we", Kaiser.
Whom did the SFC pay to list boost developers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?
How about that instead of using an accusing tone implying that there's shady deals and bribes going on, you should instead ask something along the lines of: --8<-- Hi. I've noticed that Boost is listed as a member project of the Software Freedom Conservancy organization. What kinds of services do they offer that we are using? Trademark protection, legal representation, handling of donations, other? It'd be awesomely nice if someone involved with this could talk about the history of this relationship, as I do not know why. --8<-- -- Lars Viklund | zao@acc.umu.se
Lars Viklund wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 08:50:49PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hartmut Kaiser wrote: [...]
we as Boost developers ...
Please name "we", Kaiser.
Whom did the SFC pay to list boost developers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?
How about that instead of using an accusing tone implying that there's shady deals and bribes going on, you should instead ask something along
Because of http://www.terekhov.de/194.pdf regards, alexander.
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Lars Viklund wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 08:50:49PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hartmut Kaiser wrote: [...]
we as Boost developers ...
Please name "we", Kaiser.
Whom did the SFC pay to list boost developers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?
How about that instead of using an accusing tone implying that there's shady deals and bribes going on, you should instead ask something along
Because of
That doesn't mention Boost developers at all. Do you disagree with SFC having Boost as a member? Here is the message that talks about Boost joining: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.announce/142 -- Jeremiah Willcock
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 09:28:44PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Lars Viklund wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 08:50:49PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hartmut Kaiser wrote: [...]
we as Boost developers ...
Please name "we", Kaiser.
Whom did the SFC pay to list boost developers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?
How about that instead of using an accusing tone implying that there's shady deals and bribes going on, you should instead ask something along
Because of http://www.terekhov.de/194.pdf
Would you please reveal any affiliations you have in this matter? This reeks of underhanded FUD spreading, and I'd rather not see any of that kind. I shall disclaim that I'm not in any way affiliated with SFC, Boost, Best Buy, BusyBox or any part of the court system you keep linking things from without saying anything concrete about. Stop being a scheming plotter and say in plain text why you are making a ruckus, and make a clear rational statement why you think that Boost should stop using the services of SFC. -- Lars Viklund | zao@acc.umu.se
Lars Viklund wrote: [...]
Would you please reveal any affiliations you have in this matter?
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm regards, alexander.
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 10:19:00PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Lars Viklund wrote: [...]
Would you please reveal any affiliations you have in this matter?
regards, alexander.
I'm done with this thread. Well trolled, sir. Have you've considered joining GNAA or NAMBLA? -- Lars Viklund | zao@acc.umu.se
On 4/30/11 11:50 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
To repeat:
Whom did the SFC pay to list boost developers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?
Okay, OKAY already! You win; it was me... it was all me. :-( I am actually the secret anonymous mastermind pulling the strings behind Richard Stallman and the SFC. I don't know how you managed to figure all of this out since I was convinced that I had covered my trail such that no one would be able to discover my true motive, but yes you are absolutely correct that the FSF and the GPL are just vectors for injecting a viral license into software to make it susceptible to attack by the legal system, allowing me to indirectly extort money from companies that make honest profits by making and selling products that people actually want to purchase. Adding Boost to the SFC was just a small part of this plot, of course, but it was important because it increased the perceived legitimacy of the SFC to speak on behalf of the so-called "free software movement" (HA!). The donations that I made to make this happen were subtle and I don't know that anyone involved other than myself even fully appreciated what happened, so the blame for the whole mess falls solely on myself. Now that the veil has been pierced, though, I feel such great shame about the whole affair that I want nothing to do with it anymore. So I beseech you all: please, if you have any conscience at all, listen to Alexander and pull Boost from the SFC. In shame, Greg
Gregory Crosswhite wrote: [... funny ...]
So I beseech you all: please, if you have any conscience at all, listen to Alexander and pull Boost from the SFC.
Why not? What does the SFC give to the ordinary boost developer? regards, alexander.
For one, it allows tax deductible donations to pay for expensive boost things like boostcon. Does it even need to do anything else? On Apr 30, 2011 3:45 PM, "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
[... funny ...]
So I beseech you all: please, if you have any conscience at all, listen to Alexander and pull Boost from the SFC.
Why not?
What does the SFC give to the ordinary boost developer?
regards, alexander.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes:
Matt Chambers wrote:
For one, it allows tax deductible donations to pay for expensive boost things like boostcon.
Eh? Tax evasion by "deductible donations to pay for expensive boost"? Be care careful, Chambers. Do not do it again!!! To boostcon: very interesting.... regards, alexander.
On 4/30/11 2:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Matt Chambers wrote:
For one, it allows tax deductible donations to pay for expensive boost things like boostcon. Eh? Tax evasion by "deductible donations to pay for expensive boost"?
Be care careful, Chambers. Do not do it again!!!
To boostcon: very interesting....
Alexander, you really need to be cautious, for you underestimate the powers with whom you meddle. It is one thing to have uncovered me, who at least has a small amount of conscience left, but if you keep digging then you will quickly run into those who do not have even that, and you may suddenly find yourself in a very uncomfortably spot... Cheers, Greg
On 4/30/2011 11:49 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: [stuff that has been known for some time or is relevant only to lawyers] Old FYI.. <http://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2007/08/0141.php>. ...It helps if people do a simple search. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
Rene Rivera wrote:
On 4/30/2011 11:49 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[stuff that has been known for some time or is relevant only to lawyers]
Old FYI.. <http://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2007/08/0141.php>.
...It helps if people do a simple search.
And that "affiliation" resulted in... what? Where is the report? regards, alexander.
"Boost provides free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries.
The SFC does not pay anybody to list Boost as a member project. The SFC is a US non-profit organization that provides legal and some financial services to open source projects (including Boost). Part of their work involves working with Google to help support funding for their Summer of Code program. They do the same for a number of open source projects. I suspect that the suit was brought on behalf of the author(s) of BusyBox and has absolutely nothing to do with Boost. Although it is nice to know that we have a representative willing to sue Best Buy to protect the rights reserved by Boost contributors. Andrew
The SFC does not pay anybody to list Boost as a member project. The SFC is a US non-profit organization that provides legal and some financial services to open source projects (including Boost). Part of their work involves working with Google to help support funding for their Summer of Code program. They do the same for a number of open source projects.
And let's not forget that the SFC handles most of the admin involved in running BoostCon. Both Boost and the SFC are non-profit organisations, and neither payes either anything if you see what I mean. John.
John Maddock wrote:
The SFC does not pay anybody to list Boost as a member project. The SFC is a US non-profit organization that provides legal and some financial services to open source projects (including Boost). Part of their work involves working with Google to help support funding for
"help support funding", Google, LOL!!!
their Summer of Code program.
http://sfconservancy.org/news/2008/mar/18/soc/ "The Software Freedom Conservancy is among the mentoring organizations accepted for participation in Google Summer of Code 2008. Students interested in helping to build infrastructure software for nonprofit organizations and small law offices are invited to read the posted ideas page and apply to the program."
They do the same for a number of open source projects.
And let's not forget that the SFC handles most of the admin involved in running BoostCon.
Now, don't tell me that boostcon gets its "most of the admin" for free from Bradley Kuhn. You're talking without checking the facts, Maddock. regards, alexander. -- 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.)
And let's not forget that the SFC handles most of the admin involved in running BoostCon.
Now, don't tell me that boostcon gets its "most of the admin" for free from Bradley Kuhn.
You're talking without checking the facts, Maddock.
What facts? The ethos of this list is that: 1) You are polite. 2) You state your point clearly. 3) You back up what you're saying. Frankly you've done none of the above, so I think I'm done with this thread now. Regards, John.
Andrew Sutton wrote: [...]
nice to know that we have a representative willing to sue Best Buy to protect the rights reserved by Boost contributors.
http://terekhov.de/178.pdf "... Conservancy Project Membership, http://sfconservancy.org/members/.............................................. Current Member Projects, http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/ (last accessed February 9, 2011)....................4 Member Project Services, http://sfconservancy.org/members/services/ (last accessed February 9, 2011)..................4 [...] The second Plaintiff is the Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy), which is not an assignee of any registered copyright in BusyBox. (Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. A, at 86:23-87:10.) According to its website, the Conservancy takes applications from Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects.1 Projects whose applications are accepted become a Member Project of the Conservancy.2 The Conservancy then provides services, such as administrative support, and it also provides a shield or protection from personal liability for the developers of the project.3 The Conservancys web site advises that its directors believe strongly in the principles of software freedom and that they oppose[] the notion of patents that cover software.4 Thus, the Conservancy is opposed to proprietary rights in software. The Conservancy identifies BusyBox as a Member Project, without identifying any particular individual or developer as a member.5 Indeed, there are multiple BusyBox authors who are not represented by the Conservancy. (Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. A, at 95:24-96:2, 102:9-104:22.) Thus, while the Conservancy claims that it has some kind of enforcement rights in a BusyBox Member Project, and it seeks to enjoin any use of any version of BusyBox, it does not represent all the copyright owners in BusyBox. On September 5, 2010, nine months after suit was filed, Mr. Andersen, a work from home father (Motion, Dkt. No. 164 at 19), entered into an Amended and Restated Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement (Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement) with the Conservancy that provides that the Conservancy can conduct license compliance enforcement efforts on behalf of Projects not members. (Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. C, at 3, ¶ 5.) It explicitly provides that recovered funds, or damages, obtained in enforcement actions, be deposited in a Project Fund, and managed by the Plaintiffs under precise terms. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.) Thus, both Plaintiffs in this case contemplated monetary recoveries in enforcement actions, like this one. The Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement does not contemplate that fiscal recoveries would be insufficient to remedy any violations. Indeed, the Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement, written after Plaintiffs sued Best Buy, does not even consider that irreparable harm may arise from any alleged non-compliance. ..." regards, alexander. -- 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.)
participants (9)
-
Alexander Terekhov -
Andrew Sutton -
Gregory Crosswhite -
Hartmut Kaiser -
Jeremiah Willcock -
John Maddock -
Lars Viklund -
Matt Chambers -
Rene Rivera