author: Walter Eric Johnson

subject: Re: Prove It:  Final Post

text:
On Sun, 10 Aug 1997 18:29:34 -0700, Anthony Stephen Szopa ([email]), waived his fifth amendment rights and wrote:
: Here is the core basis of my unbreakable encryption / decryption
: process.  The actual software is much more sophisticated.  If you cannot
: decrypt messages encrypted with just the encryption core basis you have
: no hope of decrypting a message encrypted using the fully developed
: encryption software.
:
: Encryption process:
:
: Here is the example message:
:
: 	See my house.
:
: Now here's the ascii code decimal equivalents:
:
: S  ==  083
: e  ==  101
: e  ==  101
: (space)  ==  032
: m  ==  109
: y  ==  121
: (space)  ==  032
: h  ==  104
: o  ==  111
: u  ==  117
: s  ==  115
: e  ==  101
: .  ==  046
:
: The following arrays will be used to encrypt the above message.
:
: 1)  0839726154		21) 1026983745
: 2)  7918052346		22) 8231079564
: 3)  4826590713 a	23) 4126957038
: 4)  1087295463 b	24) 3857962014
: 5)  1963485270		25) 0675382419
: 6)  1087295463 b	26) 7891450263 g
: 7)  1362074895		27) 6324780591
: 8)  4826590713 a	28) 7243968051
: 9)  7890625431		29) 7398415062
: 10) 3687254901		30) 7891450263 g
: 11) 5369712048 c	31) 0465918273
: 12) 0362798541 d	32) 4921350687
: 13) 9082437516 e	33) 1395804672
: 14) 9082437516 e	34) 5062748391
: 15) 3629574018		35) 5274301689
: 16) 0362798541 d	36) 3925681047
: 17) 0763895124		37) 0751628439
: 18) 7856012439 f	38) 7654093821
: 19) 5369712048 c	39) 5324780691
: 20) 7856012439 f
:
: (Note:  some arrays are repeated (see letters for correspondence.)  No
: digits repeated in each array.)
:
: The encryption process:
:
: Each ten-element digit array has its element positions numbered left to
: right 0 - 9.  Use the three digit ascii code decimal equivalent of each
: ascii character to index each array using one digit from the ascii code
: for each array in turn.  Transform each digit from the ascii code into
: the digit that occupies the particular element position in each array.
:
: The encryption using each array in sequence beginning with 1):
:
: S == 083:
: 0 -> 0		8 -> 4		3 -> 6
: 1)  0839726154	2)  7918052346	3)  4826590713
:
: e == 101:
: 1 -> 0		0 -> 1		1 -> 0
: 4)  1087295463	5)  1963485270	6)  1087295463
:
: e == 101:
: 1 -> 3		0 -> 4		1 -> 8
: 7)  1362074895	8)  4826590713	9)  7890625431
:
: (space) == 032:
: 0 -> 3		3 -> 	9		2 -> 	6
: 10) 3687254901	11) 5369712048	12) 0362798541
:
: m  ==  109:
: 1 -> 0		0 -> 9		9 -> 8
: 13) 9082437516	14) 9082437516	15) 3629574018
:
: y  ==  121:
: 1 -> 3		2 -> 6		1 -> 8
: 16) 0362798541	17) 0763895124	18) 7856012439
:
: (space)  ==  032:
: 0 -> 5		3 -> 6		2 -> 2
: 19) 5369712048	20) 7856012439	21) 1026983745
:
: h  ==  104:
: 1 -> 2		0 -> 4		4 -> 9
: 22) 8231079564	23) 4126957038	24) 3857962014
:
: o  ==  111:
: 1 -> 6		1 -> 8		1 -> 3
: 25) 0675382419	26) 7891450263	27) 6324780591
:
: u  ==  117:
: 1 -> 2		1 -> 3		7 -> 2
: 28) 7243968051	29) 7398415062	30) 7891450263
:
: s  ==  115:
: 1 -> 4		1 -> 9		5 -> 0
: 31) 0465918273	32) 4921350687	33) 1395804672
:
: e  ==  101:
: 1 -> 0		0 -> 5		1 -> 9
: 34) 5062748391	35) 5274301689	36) 3925681047
:
: .  ==  046:
: 0 -> 0		4 -> 0		6 -> 0
: 37) 0751628439	38) 7654093821	39) 5324780691
:
: The encrypted message:
:
: 046010348396098368562249683232490059000
: 046010348396098368562249683232490059000 (confirmed)
:
: Decrypting the encrypted message:
:
: Simply reverse the above process.  I will only demonstrate the
: decryption of the first character of the message.  You can work out the
: rest of the details.
:
: Take the first digit of the encrypted message: "0".  Find this digit in
: the first array.  This digit corresponds to array element zero in the
: first array.  Use this array position to translate back to the original
: digit from the ascii character.
:
: encrypted ascii character 046:
: 1)  0839726154	2)  7918052346	3)  4826590713
: 0 -> 0		4 -> 8		6 -> 3
:
: Thus the first character of the encrypted message decrypts to 083 which
: is ascii character "S".  Follow this same procedure for every three
: encrypted digits to obtain the original text from the encrypted message.
:
: Now here is your dilema:
:
: I claim that by properly choosing the decrypt arrays I can decrypt the
: above encryted message into any possible message given the encrypted
: message and the 3,628,800 possible arrays.  In fact, I claim I can
: decypt the above encrypted message to read:  "I have money." or any
: other message that makes sense or not consisting of 13 ascii characters.
:
: Here is proof:
:
: Decrypt the above encrypted message using the following array set B:
:
: 1)  0839726154		21) 1026983745
: 2)  7918052436		22) 8231079564
: 3)  4826590713		23) 4126957038
: 4)  0187295463		24) 3857462019
: 5)  3961485270		25) 0675382419
: 6)  1807295463		26) 7891450263
: 7)  1362074895		27) 6324780591
: 8)  4826590713		28) 7243968051
: 9)  7690825431		29) 7398415062
: 10) 3687254901		30) 2891450763
: 11) 5368712049		31) 0465918273
: 12) 0352798641		32) 9421350687
: 13) 9082437516		33) 1095834672
: 14) 0982437516		34) 5062748391
: 15) 3629574081		35) 7254301689
: 16) 0362798541		36) 3925681047
: 17) 6703895124		37) 0751628439
: 18) 7856012439		38) 7654093821
: 19) 5369712048		39) 5324780691
: 20) 7856012439
:
: 046010348396098368562249683232490059000 (confirmed)
:
: Prove it to yourself.  The encrypted message now decrypts to: "I have
: money." when using array set B.  But we know that the original message
: was:  "See my house." when the first array set was used.
:
: I claim that for any 13 character message you give me I can find 39
: arrays that will decrypt the above 39 digit encrypted message into the
: message you give me.
:
: So, now, how many of you think you can decrypt the following message
: with 100% certainty?  Or if you do decrypt a message from the below
: encrypted message tell us what you think the odds are that the message
: you decrypt is the correct original message.
:
: Let's play a game:  suppose the fate of the world is at stake and you
: have only one guess to decrypt the following message in order to save
: the entire world.  Please, for God sake, tell us all what the decrypted
: message is!
:
: Based upon the above process and argument I claim the following message
: is unbreakable.  Do you agree?  If not, prove it by decrypting it.  You
: get one chance to save the world.
:
:
: The test encrypted message:
:
: 114474927109569069537333738393932058904
:
: You must take a position on this post.  You cannot avoid it.  Whatever
: your response or reaction is is your position.  To refuse to act is
: still an action.  It is the act of not acting.  Please, now, tell us
: all; show us all.

That was one of the three methods I guessed by your earlier
post, but not what I figured was likely because of the huge
keys you would have to distribute.  You still haven't described
your random number generator.

For what its' worth, I think the scheme would take a fairly
sizable amount of text to break and would depend on the random
number generator.

Eric Johnson


author: John H Meyers

subject: Re: Prove It:  Final Post

text:
Anthony Stephen Szopa <[email]> writes:

  But if those 39 arrays are then all independent from one another, they
  can not be generated from any one key shorter than 39*log[2](10!) bits,
  which is more than eight times the length of the encrypted text.

  Since you only need one times the length of the encrypted text
  for a true OTP, what's the use of this?

-----------------------------------------------------------
With best wishes from:   John H Meyers   <[email]>


author: The Macks

subject: Re: Prove It:  Final Post

text:
There are two weaknesses in this system. One, the first digit in
every character's ASCII code is almost always a 0 or a 1, and I think
that this method is crackable by known-plaintext. (Like an OTP) Second,
I believe a Kerchoff Superimposition could crack a bunch of messages
encrypted with the same key.

	Ryan Mack


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Prove It:  Final Post

text:
In article <[email]>, Anthony Stephen Szopa <[email]> writes:

Yes, I agree.  Even your plaintext is unintelligible.  You need
to describe how the arrays are determined.

Roger


author: Harold Lockhart

subject: Re: Prove It:  Final Post

text:
Anthony Stephen Szopa wrote:

...

Anthony Stephen Szopa either

1) is so arrogant in his belief of his own knowledge that he refuses to
even attempt to understand the valuable (free) information being given
to him by the highly knowledgeable experts posting here, or

2) has such a weak grasp of the English language that he is not able to
understand the objections to his scheme, or

3) has perpetrated one of the longest, most subtle and successful trolls
I have ever seen.

I originally thought #1, but I am now leaning towards #3. ;-)

Hal

=================================================================
Harold W. Lockhart Jr.            Platinum Solutions Inc.
Chief Technical Architect         8 New England Executive Park
Email: [email]            Burlington, MA 01803 USA
Voice: (617)273-6406              Fax: (617)229-2969
=================================================================


subject: Re: Prove It:  Final Post

text:
At this point, it should be quite obvious to all of us that Anthony's
claims about his encryption method are nothing but hot air.  The
bad part is that he seems to believe what he is saying.

Let's go back over what he did.

His basic encryption method using 3 tables of 10 digits each per
character is extraordinarily wasteful.  If we generalize his
structure and then use the most efficient variation, we end up
with the stand xor against the random key.  Anthony's encryption
scheme (ASSES?) creates an encoded text 3 times bigger than the
raw text and would require a key at least 10 times bigger if he
was doing a one time pad as he claims.

So the basic encryption scheme is grossly inefficient.

He has not posted anything about the method he uses to generate
the random numbers except to say that it is similar to Keno.
He has however presented a sample of his tables earlier and
on his web page.  They are somewhat interesting to look at:
(reformatted by me, but the numbers haven't changed)

:  1) 0839726154  2) 7918052346  3) 4826590713  4) 1087295463
:  5) 1963485270  6) 1087295463  7) 1362074895  8) 4826590713
:  9) 7890625431 10) 3687254901 11) 5369712048 12) 0362798541
: 13) 9082437516 14) 9082437516 15) 3629574018 16) 0362798541
: 17) 0763895124 18) 7856012439 19) 5369712048 20) 7856012439
: 21) 1026983745 22) 8231079564 23) 4126957038 24) 3857962014
: 25) 0675382419 26) 7891450263 27) 6324780591 28) 7243968051
: 29) 7398415062 30) 7891450263 31) 0465918273 32) 4921350687
: 33) 1395804672 34) 5062748391 35) 5274301689 36) 3925681047
: 37) 0751628439 38) 7654093821 39) 5324780691

So we have 40 entries.  Just looking at them, several things
stick out.  First of all, seven sets of tables are identical:

	12 and 16 (0362798541) are identical
	 4 and  6 (1087295463) are identical
 	 3 and  8 (4826590713) are identical
	11 and 19 (5369712048) are identical
	18 and 20 (7856012439) are identical
	26 and 30 (7891450263) are identical
	13 and 14 (9082437516) are identical

Hmmm. 	1 pair of identical tables are adjacent: 13 and 14
	2 pairs of identical tables are separated by 2:
			4 and 6, 18 and 20
	2 pairs of identical tables are separated by 4:
			12 and 16, 26 and 30
	1 pair of identical tables is separated by 5:
			3 and 8
	1 pair of identical tables is separated by 8:
			11 and 19

Random?  Yeah, sure.

I wonder if there is any significance to the fact that for
the two pairs of with an equal separation, the two pairs
are a distance of 14 apart.

His claims to have solved the key problem are absurd.  What he
is doing is apparently going through some minor hocus pocus to
confuse the issue and providing the recipient with a seed
value to rebuild the key.  Thus, he proves his claims of one
time pad to be based on his own ignorance.

Exactly what he is doing about the keys is still not clear.
Perhaps I missed a posting of his or perhaps he has not made
himself clear (probably the latter).  His software requires
50 - 550 MB of free disk space which I assume has something
to do with the keys.

For what it's worth, I have developed my own code to express
my opinion of his scheme, but I don't claim it is unbreakable.
In fact, I don't really care if anyone breaks it.  So, in code,
here is my opinion of the scheme:

				2

Eric Johnson


author: Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.

subject: Re: Prove It:  Final Post

text:
On Sun, 10 Aug 1997 18:29:34 -0700, Anthony Stephen Szopa
<[email]> wrote:

I assert the following:

1. 1==1

2. "I've solved the problem of faster-than-light travel."

Now if anyone can disprove #1, I invite you to try and disprove #2.

Somehow I don't think we'll be that lucky.


author: Anthony Stephen Szopa

subject: Re: Prove It:  Final Post

text:
Walter Eric Johnson wrote:

What do you not understand about this post?

What do you disagree with?

Can you crack the test encrypted message?

This is true.  (Although you might be able to guess from the available
info.)  But this is not my point here.  My point is to prove my claim
that my method of encryption is unbreakable.  The random number
generator is significant only as it concerns creating different
one-time-pads.  But how about the encryption process and it's claim of
unbreakability?  Can you break the encrypted test message?

If you understand everything I've written in this post and if you have
nothing to disagree with in this post and you cannot crack this short
test encrypted message based upon the complete description I've provided
I leave it to you and our readers to consider further and to draw your
own conclusions.

I don't think what you have written here is in precise enough language
for me to understand exactly what you mean.

But I can say this:  if you try every possible combination of all the
possible arrays in the decryption process and still cannot tell me what
the exact original message is because you don't have enough information
then this encryption process is unbreakable.

This is true because you cannot generate any more information than all
the information that is generated by trying every possible combination
of all the possible arrays!  Do you agree?

Basically, what you are trying to convince us here of is that by trying
every possible combination of all the possible arrays that you will
generate the original encrypted message.  Of course, you have to.  I
agree.  But so what.  I claim this isn't cracking an encrypted message.
Of all the billions and billions of possible decryptions you still can't
tell me anything more than, "Well, it has to be one of these billions
and billions".  In otherwords, you cannot tell me what the original
message is and therefore you or anyone else can't decrypt the message!

Thanks for finally taking the time to consider what I have to say.


author: Rjack

subject: The GPL means what you want it to mean

text:
Don't like the GPLv3's provisions? Just issue an exception to its
terms when convenient!

"I wanted to note that the FSF has just released an exception (the
first?) to GPL3 under Section 7 (that allows "additional permissions"
to negate other terms of the GPL3) that is quite interesting in this
context."
http://lwn.net/Articles/326854/rss

If you write a new law and subsequently don't like it then just
announce it doesn't *really* mean what says it means. ROFL.

"Developing nonfree software is not good for society, and we have no
obligation to make it easier. We decided to permit this because
forbidding it seemed likely to backfire, and because using small
libraries to limit the use of GCC seemed like the tail wagging the dog."
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

The GPLv3 has 5645 words when you include the "How to apply..."
addendum. If that weren't confusing enough, you may now go out into
the cyberworld and find what new exceptions the Masters of the
Universe have added -- before they sue you in federal court in New
York for violation of their 5645 word copyright contract that doesn't
mean what they said it means. ROFL.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


author: Hadron

subject: Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

text:
RonB <[email]> writes:

Sound's about right. You certainly didn't have a clue about UI
consistency and made yourself look pretty ignorant there. So same there
then?


author: Thufir Hawat

text:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:57:33 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Hear, hear.

-Thufir


text:
Rjack <[email]> writes:

Are you two guys still arguing? Peter Koehlmann said it was all
ridiculously simple and even a retard could understand it or words to
that affect.


author: David Kastrup

text:
Rjack <[email]> writes:

You are confused.  The whole point of the explicitly relinquished
(rather than ascertained) rights is to _quell_ any such controversy from
the start.  By making explicitly clear that the compiled code is not
covered by demands derived from compiler copyright (by volition of the
compiler writers in addition to whatever copyright law might or might
not dictate), users have one thing less to worry about.


text:
Rjack <[email]> writes:

I was just operating under the directive "don't attribute to malice what
can be explained by stupidity".

No.  "could".  As decided by a court of law with judges in whatever good
or bad mood.

I don't do anything of the sort.  The impression is that people might
_fear_ that their might be a reasonable amount of expectation they could
go to court for it.  Most people prefer not to go there in the first
place, regardless of their chances.  This possible fear is dispelled
with regard to stuff compiled by GCC.

It is easy for you to say that since you are not an involved party and
don't have to fear any damages.  When an involved party, however, states
its full intent to relinquish all possibly purported rights and not sue
for them, it is one thing less to worry about.

Only an idiot can construe intimidation from a written guarantee not to
sue for a possibly contentious issue.


text:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44:43 -0400, Rjack wrote:

What's your argument that isn't enforceable?

-Thufir


text:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote:

Why not extend that argument to the conclusion:  don't use any license at
all.  Sqlite is public domain.  You're free to develop public domain
software on your own.  However, you're not likely to ever see a penny for
your efforts.

-Thufir


text:
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote:

I never changed the argument, but extended your argument to its logical
conclusion.

Well, sqlite is in the public domain according to wikipedia, which, for a
layman like me, is sufficient evidence of its licensing.

The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless.
And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother?  Just license
it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain.  That's the conclusion
which can be drawn from your argument.

-Thufir


text:
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:20:08 -0400, Rjack wrote:

It's just as much a contract as any other EULA.

-Thufir


text:
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:20:08 -0400, Rjack wrote:

Only if you choose to accept the GPL, only if you accept it.  If you
decline to accept it, that's fine, you can then contact the copyright
holder to make arrangements for distribution.

-Thufir


author: SomeBloke

text:
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:00:34 -0400, Rjack wrote:

Why should I care what the Federal court in New York decides when I live
3300 miles away across the Atlantic?

There is also the point that the GPLv3 is not the be all and end all of
the license. You can mix and match licenses depending on the source of
the libraries and/or purpose.

It looks to me that the exception to the GPLv3 license as it applies to
the GNU GCC compiler allows for altered licensing in respect of
proprietary modules used overall within an application.

But then I am not a lawyer so take the above with a large pinch of salt!
If I'm wrong I'm sure that someone will correct me!


author: Alexander Terekhov

text:
Rjack wrote:
[...]

"Since all of the object code that GCC generates is derived from these
GPLed libraries, that means you would be required to follow the terms of
the GPL when propagating any of that object code. You could not use GCC
to develop your own GPL-incompatible software."

LMAO!

Just love it.

regards,
alexander.


text:
Thufir Hawat wrote:

Your whining continues obsessively Alan. Since you obviously don't
understand kill-files:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file
please read up on the merits of kill-files and then implement one. A
kill-file will save you untold anguish, as the characters from my
posts that appear on your LCD screen will certainly force you to read
them.


text:
Hadron wrote:

I believe Alan Mackenzie changed the "retard" description to "normally
intelligent child".

We need to tread carefully here since there'll soon be charges and
counter charges of ad hominen attacks and generally unacceptable
social behaviors.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
David Kastrup wrote:

Sorry, but "confusion" does not reign on my part. You missed point of
my assertion. This discussion is not occurring in a neutral context.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

By using terminology such as "explicitly relinquished (rather than
ascertained) rights", you are implying that the GPL, if it were not
for the "exception" stated by the Free Software Foundation, *would*
have legal consequence. By claiming, "By making explicitly clear that
the compiled code is not covered by demands derived from compiler
copyright. . .", you leave the impression that the compiler license
(the GPL) requirements *are* enforceable in other contexts. But they
aren't.


text:
David Kastrup wrote:

Which implies the GPL is enforceable. Which it is not.

Thank you!

You just summarized the most important reason that people should avoid
the GPL at all costs. "Free Software" is highly restrictive software
and isn't "free" at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as
BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled
into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice
socialism in software licensing as a religion.

And only a fucking Freetard moron such as yourself could twice fail to
grasp the propaganda method to which I was referring in my original
comment which compared the tactics of creationists to those of the
Free Software Foundation.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
Thufir Hawat wrote:

The GPL is unequivocally a contract under U.S. law. (More specifically
it is a contract for a "grant of permission" or license.)

Section 2(b) states:

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License."

To summarize, this means the GPL is a contract to requiring that:

1) "you must cause"

2) "any work to be licensed as a whole"

3) "to all third parties"

4) "under the terms of this License"

Therefore the *distributor* of GPL licensed code must cause a new
contract to be formed between himself and the members of the general
public that covers the created derivative work "as a whole".

The GPL is a 'contract to make a contract' with the general public to
distribute a derivative work. The GPL is therefore a "contract to make
a contract". So. . . how is a contract between two parties to make a
*new* contract with a *yet to be identified* third party for a *yet to
be created* "derivative of a derivative" work going to be enforced?

The short answer is it can't be enforced. See:

"[A] contract to make a contract is enforceable only where all
material terms have been agreed upon. 1 Corbin, Contracts, sec. 2.8,
at 131, 133-34 (Perillo ed. 1993). Prisma Zona's own statements, and
the service contract drafts which it attaches, show that material
issues were still open."; Prisma Zona Exploratoria de Puerto Rico,
Inc. v. Calderï¿½n 310 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002).

"Under Michigan law, "[t]o be enforceable, a contract to enter into
a future contract must specify all its material and essential terms
and leave none to be agreed upon as the result of future
negotiations." Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. v. Waldo, 286 N.W. 630, 632
(Mich. 1939)ï¿½

ï¿½To constitute a valid contract, the parties must assent to the same
thing in the same sense, and their minds must meet as to all the
terms. If any portion of the proposed terms is not settled, or no mode
agreed on by which they may be settled, there is no agreement. Gregory
v. Perdue, Inc., 47 N.C. App. 655, 657, 267 S.E.2d 584, 586 (1980). .
. A "'contract to make a contract'" is not an enforceable agreement.
Northington v. Michelotti, 121 N.C. App. 180, 184, 464 S.E.2d 711, 714
(1995)(quoting 1 Joseph M. Perillo, Corbin on Contracts,
ï¿½2.8(a)(revised edition 1993))." Wilkerson v. Carriage Park
Development Corp., 130 NC App 475 (08/04/1998 97-1387)

"ï¿½If the document or contract that the parties agree to make is to
contain any material term that is not already agreed on, no contract
has yet been made; and the so called "contract to make a contract" is
not a contract at all.ï¿½" Hansen v. Catsman, 123 N.W.2d 265, 266 (Mich.
1963).

The GPL is also preempted by 17 USC sec. 301(a).

"Sec. 301. Preemption with respect to other laws
(a) On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that
are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope
of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that
are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the
subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103,
whether created before or after that date and whether published or
unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no
person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such
work under the common law or statutes of any State."

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
Thufir Hawat wrote:

You're free to change the argument any new conclusion you wish. Short
of waiting seventy five years after its creation, it is difficult to
place a work in the "public domain". You must somehow unequivocally
and publicly relinquish all claims of ownership. Some Circuits would
probably disagree with that broad assertion.

I was comparing "Free Software licensed code" and "permissively
licensed code". So what is the point you wish to make?


text:
"Thufir Hawat" <[email]> wrote in message
news:FuDBl.727$[email]...
That is exactly correct.  I think that is the essence of open source.
Anyone who needs a basic function in their own application should be free to
adopt one freely handed out by someone else.  Since it is freely
distributed, there is absolutely no obligation.  Anyone so proud of their
incremental innovation that improves the original that they want to brag to
the world is also free to publish their dependent work.  Anyone who doesn't
see the value in such a publication or who hasn't made any such change would
naturally refrain from any disclosure.

The internet is full of sites and included articles describing this very
kind of software and many developers have taken advantage of such articles
to solve their own problems and to learn how to do a variety of things.
There seems to be enough disclosure by those who learn a little so as to
keep the ball rolling.

All this makes Stallman and the FSF appear to be a sort of dog in the
manger, denying access to those who might avail themselves of some learning
or avoid some rote efforts.  I do not think that anyone who included any
such GPL solftware into their product could make any money from the effort
either, just as they could not from public domain software.  There is
nothing that anyone trying to sell a product rather than give it away could
sell other than their own innovation since the original functionality is
still available to anyone at no charge.  If I stole the code for FireFox and
used it unchanged in a new product that I called HoundDog, I would never
recover my costs of promoting it via license fees.  I doubt that I would
ever sell a single copy.  If I added some functions that made it more
valuable and likely to appeal to consumers, however, I could possibly
benefit, but, again, it is doubtful that anyone could really innovate
anything in this realm.


text:
Thufir Hawat wrote:

The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code
and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed
zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion.

The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using
permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs
will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of
wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a
religion.

If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should
be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since
is certainly not *my* argument.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


author: Alan Mackenzie

text:
In gnu.misc.discuss Thufir Hawat <[email]> wrote:

The GPL isn't a EULA, except perhaps the tiny part of it that says "you
may run this program unconditionally".  The concept of "end user" is
absent in free software licensing, and the GPL goes to considerable
lengths to ensure that nobody is relegated to the status of an "end
user", except by choice.

The GPL is a license for distributing and changing software, not for
using it.


text:
"Alexander Terekhov" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in nature and it
is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the compiler output,
constructed of some collection of these constructs based on the programmer's
arrangement of source code syntax and order, would ever be a unique
expression fixed in a media as defined by the copyright laws.  This whole
discussion is akin to the arguments in theology regarding how many angles
can dance on the head of a pin.

The idea behind the work is not copyrighted material and if it is not
protected by a patent, anyone can use the idea by putting it into their own
words.  You can use the plot and storyline of a novel, making up your own
characters and filling in your own details and publish it without much fear
of copyright violation.  It is the artistic elements that are protected.

The same holds true of a computer program.  If you take the central idea,
concept, method, etc., and re-code it in your own work, it is not a
copyright issue.  Even if it works exactly the same, i.e. the "look and
feel" are identical to some other work, it is not subject to copyright
claims.  That seems to be overlooked by the GPL advocates today.  Very
little of what they think they are protecting is protected.


text:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <[email]> wrote:

Hi, Rjack, please understand - I'm not whining, I'm trying to help you
get your point across; I'm giving you feedback intended to be helpful.

That's like saying an air raid shelter will save the anguish of bombs.

Again, as a matter of interest, there are two different verbs in German
meaning to persuade: "ueberzeugen" means to persuade by means of reason;
"ueberreden" means to "persuade" by browbeating, shouting, intimidation.
What you are trying to do here is the latter.  It's a shame there aren't
two corresponding words in English.

You may not have noticed, but nobody's engaging you any more in serious
debate about your idea.  It's been exhausted, talked out.  You even admit
you've posted several hundred times on the topic.  Why can't you talk
about something else, something others are interested in too?  That's
what newsgroups and mailing lists are for.


text:
"Rjack" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Fire and counter-fire, it just causes a deterioration in any conversation,
productive or not.  We should all refrain from firing the first and/or next
shot.


text:
Rjack wrote:

I disclaim any actual knowledge of the law in non-US based
jurisdictions I will speculate that the GPL would be ruled
unenforceable in England as a matter of English contract law.
American common law is historically based upon English
common law:

"1.  This Act shall be known as THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, and is in Four Divisions, as follows:
. . .
22.2.  The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to
or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the
Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all
the courts of this State."


text:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <[email]> wrote:

:-)  The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky document with
hidden traps waiting to snap.  A normally intelligent child could
understand it.  If you conform to its requirements, which are few and
clear, you won't have any problem with "wild-eyed socialist zealots".  If
you don't like those requirements, use other code instead.

It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own interpretation of
some judges' decisions, that licensing code under the GPL is tantamount
to making it public domain.


text:
Rjack wrote:

... so poor rjack has a problem, he wants to steal some code GPL code but
does not dare. so he tries to talk the code writers into using BSD licence,
so that he can legally steal their code. oh, and is he upset that they dont
want to licen? you can bet on that ...

oh my, you should have spent your energy on learning ... but so .. just
words in the wind ... LOL

nik


author: JEDIDIAH

text:
On 2009-04-06, Rjack <[email]> wrote:

   Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see
what happens.

[deletia]

   The "burdens" of GPL software are no different than any other
code that isn't public domain or effectively so.

   You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has
offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their
living room floor and carting it off.


text:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Your remark concerning "use" is interesting. There is a subtle
distinction between "use" in the context of patents and that of
copyrights. The patent grant states:

"35 U.S.C. 154(a)(1) Every patent shall contain a short title of the
invention and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, of the
right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or
selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the
invention into the United States, and, if the invention is a process,
of the right to exclude others from using, offering for sale or
selling throughout the United States, or importing into the United
States, products made by that process, referring to the specification
for the particulars thereof."

Here "using" is a *broad* grant concerning *any* use of the invention
that falls within the limits of the patent specification. This defines
"scope of use" in patent cases that gives rise to infringement.

The Supreme Court has stated:
"The owner of a patent may assign it to another and convey (1) the
exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention throughout the
United States; or (2) an undivided part or share of that exclusive
right; or (3) the exclusive right under the patent within and through
a specific part of the United States. . . Conveying less than title
to the patent or part of it, the patentee may grant a license to make,
use, and vend articles under the specifications of his patent for any
royalty, or upon any condition the performance of which is reasonably
within the reward which the patentee by the grant of the patent I
entitled to secure."; United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U.S.
476 (1926).

The crucial idea is that the restriction must remain within the scope
of the enumerated right: "[Is] reasonably within the reward which the
patentee by the grant of the patent is entitled to secure." (supra).
Therefore in patent cases "use" is a broad "in rem" right giving rise
to infringement that violates 35 U.S.C. 154.

In copyright matters there is no broad right to "use" a work.
In copyright "scope of use" must *directly* limit one of the
the *specific* enumerated rights in listed in 17 U.S.C. 106:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to
the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic
works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to
perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic
works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works,
including the individual images of a motion picture or other
audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work
publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

So unlike patent cases, in most (not all) copyright suits alleging
"use" violation it is a matter of breach of contract and not
copyright infringement.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
amicus_curious wrote:

The Free Software Foundation loves to start controversies about
matters such as "GCC generated object code" for good reason. It is the
same strategy used by religious fundamentalists when arguing against
evolution being taught in the schools. By setting the stage whereby
people are debating such minor nuances, an underlying impression is
generated that the GPL is actually a legally enforceable document.
This is how fundamentalists manage to elevate "creation theory" to
the level of scientific theory in serious discussions.

In certain respects, you have to credit the Free Software Foundation
for being politically astute. They began years ago claiming that their
marvelous license wasn't a contract. Despite the best efforts of
people like Professor Micheal Davis of Cleveland State University to
explain to Richard Stallman that the GPL would be considered a legal
contract:

"So. Why is this an issue? To allow the GPL legal effect but to avoid
some real or imagined consequences of it being treated as a contract
by the law? I'm afraid you can't have one without the other; to
repeat, if it's enforceable, it is, in essence, and in the end, a
contract."
http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html

The "real or imagined consequences of it being treated as a contract
by the law" are two-fold. First, as a matter of contract law the GPL
is unenforceable. Second, as a matter of copyright law it is preempted
by 17 USC sec. 301.

The FSF persisted in claiming that the "GPL was a license not a
contract", http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ , and an urban legend was
cleverly established.

Hundreds of RMS's acolytes and other blogs repeated this mantra with
unstoppable fervor. The Free Software Foundation has *never* advanced
a legal argument to refute the fact that the GPL is contractually
unenforceable and preempted by the Copyright Act. The FSF to this day
has never admitted that a copyright license is a contract. They file
groundless lawsuits and then immediately voluntarily dismiss them
without court review in an effort to convince folks that the GPL
has legal teeth.

People should never allow the GPL to be *assumed* to be legally
enforceable until the FSF abandons the utterly crackpot legal theory
that "a license is not a contract". Any discussions about the claims
of GPL effects on details such as "GCC generated object code" simply
generate further support for the false assumption that the GPL is an
enforceable license.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Perhaps you should drop your attempts to "help" me get my point across
as futile. Try and read a good book instead. Coffee goes well with a
good book.

You are simply insulting anyone who hasn't decided to kill-file my
posts. Are other readers of Usenet to dumb to make up their own minds?
Your condescension is no more effective than are your insults.

Buzz bombs over London huh?

Wow! Your teutonic superiority is self-evident. You're a veritable
Houston Stewart Chamberlain.

Screen out the noise. That's what kill-files are for.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
amicus_curious wrote:

Quite true. Turning the other cheek *is* a virtue... Occasionally
though, after your cheek turns red, it is difficult to aspire to
mankind's higher calling.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


author: Rahul Dhesi

text:
Rjack <[email]> writes:

Interesting. When I quoted an Australian law professor in the context of
defining common law contract terms, Rjack took exception, because he
thought such things are determined by the US Circuit courts.  Now he has
reversed himself and suddenly English common law is viable again.

What new profound insights will we he provide us with next? Stay tuned!


text:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:

You are not entitled to make up your own facts. Where have I ever
claimed that GPL licensed code is "tantamount"to public domain code?
Please use Google and all the resources at your disposal to
demonstrate that I have claimed such a thing.

I have long argued that users who rely on GPL licensed code have
grounds for a contract claim of promissory estoppel.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
JEDIDIAH wrote:

GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying
to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal
contract.


text:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <[email]> wrote:

[ .... ]

That's a non-sequitur.  There's no logical implication of your last
paragraph by your second last.  Anyhow, my point was more about the
"end" in "end user".  As soon as somebody is an "end user", the GPL
imposes no restrictions or conditions of any kind on her.  It is only
when her use is other than an "end use" that the GPL becomes important.


text:
Rjack <[email]> writes:

[ a long, tedious, legal argument ]

More and more, when I read Rjack's flawed and tedious arguments that
despite quoting many alleged legal authorities repeatedly come to
erroneous conclusions, I'm reminded of the lawsuit filed by a plaintiff
identifying himself as Daniel Wallace.  Just like Rjack goes on and on,
so did Wallace. Each time his complaint in court proved to be worthless,
he amended it and refiled it, and kept going until the judge finally
told him he had had enough chances.  Wallace still didn't give up -- he
kept going until the Seventh Circuit, too, told him enough.
<http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/157903>.

Rjack, like Wallace, won't give up. As soon as he loses the argument, he
reposts it under a new subject heading.

Rjack, like Wallace <http://www.danwal.com/rescission.html>, makes a big
deal of the word "rescission" and apparently does not distinguish
between that and cancellation of a contract.

Rjack, like Wallace <http://www.danwal.com/preemption.html>. focusses a
bit too much on preemption.

Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace?


text:
"Rjack" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Just take the other person's lack of discipline as a victory for your own
position.  After all, it is no money out of your pocket and your family will
still love you.


text:
"Rahul Dhesi" <[email]> wrote in message
news:gr82or$kjb$[email]...
The two are not really in conflict.  If a circuit court rules on some
specific element that would seem to apply to a subsequent case, it would be
cited as a governing decision.  In the absence of any such previous
decision, an argument would revert to some construct of the common law.  Or
if you were on the wrong side of the circuit court decision, you might also
argue some other spin on things.  It is what makes the whole thing so
interesting.  You just never know.


text:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:

Which part of:

"The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to
or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States,..."

are you failing to grasp? Doesn't the grammatical construction, "so
far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with. . ." carve an
exception for US Circuit interpretation?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <[email]> wrote:

Sorry, my mistake.  You haven't claimed "tantamount to".  Your claims
are "tantamount to".  That is my claim.  ;-)

Whatever that means, exactly.  ;-)  You have repeatedly asserted that
the GPL isn't a license, that it's a contract, and that one of upshots
is that companies can violate the GPL without the copyright holders being
able to stop the violation by injunction, or receive monetary damages.
(I'm not quite sure you've said that last bit, but I think you have).
This seems to me to being the same in practice as being in the public
domain.

Where do you see the difference, in practice, between software being in
the public domain, and software being licensed under the GPL, understood
as you understand it?


text:
On 2009-04-06, Rjack <[email]> wrote:

   Nice self-nuke on your part there...

   You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing.


text:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:

The GPL is legally important only in the sense that it generates
grounds for claims of promissory estoppel for users of GPL'd code.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:

Is that like being a "bit too much" pregnant"? He. He.

It *wasn't* Rjack, Wallace or any other laymen who held:

"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.  101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them".

It *was* the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in
Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749,
(2006). Your arguments should aim to refute that principle.

Likewise, it *wasn't* Rjack, Wallace or any other laymen who held:

"Copyright preemption is both explicit and broad: 17 U.S.C. ï¿½ 301(a)
prohibits state-law protection for any right equivalent to those in
the Copyright Act. . . We have held that "[s]ection 301(a) [of the
Copyright Act] preempts a state-created right if that right may be
abridged by an act which, in and of itself, would infringe one of the
exclusive rights listed in ï¿½ 106".

It *was* the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
G.S. Rasmussen & Assoc. v. Kalitta Flying Service., 958 F.2d 896
(1992). Your arguments should aim to refute that principle.

I wish to thank you Rahul, for finally abandoning any claim of success
using logical argument supported by legal authority. Your surrender
to ad hominem tactics demonstrates that you have finally abandoned
rational argument for claims of legal enforceability for the GPL.
You deserve credit for showing your true colors -- a white flag
of surrender.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
"Rahul Dhesi" <[email]> wrote in message
news:grlfag$9ej$[email]...
A very major difference is that judges were ruling against Wallace and that
has not yet happened to Rjack.


text:
amicus_curious wrote:

I *know* it will be no money out of my pocket -- wife has already
spent it all. I can't talk back to her, so I have to vent my
frustration elsewhere. That's why I'm so irritable at times.


text:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Code in the public domain doesn't have ownership or other rights
attached to it. That's a BIG, BIG, difference between code in the
public domain and code subject to claims of promissory estoppel.
Claims of promissory estoppel would give a particular litigant rights
to use the code IF the claim meets the criteria:

"Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A
promisor ï¿½ one who makes a promise ï¿½ makes a gratuitous promise that
he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of
a definite and substantial character on the part of the promiseeï¿½one
to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on
the promise. A substantial detriment ï¿½ that is, an economic loss ï¿½
ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be
avoided only by enforcing the promise."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel

For example, if someone uses your licensed code and invests a million
dollars in developing and improving the code then they shouldn't be
out a million dollars because the copyright license that *you* offered
turns out to be legally unenforceable. This principle is implicit in
the rule of contract interpretation which holds that contracts are
construed against the offering (drafting) party.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
"JEDIDIAH" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I don't think that you understood the analogy.  Let me put it in what might
be a more understandable form.  Say you go to Chicago for the Open Source
Expo and you and your buddies, being new to the big city, are wandering up
State Street and get enticed into a titty bar.  Then some sweet honeys cozy
up to you and ask you to buy them a drink.  "Sure!", you say, flattered by
such attention.  Then later you find that the tab for the girls' drinks are
not what you expected and are some $50 apiece.  "Pay up or we will call the
cops!" is what you are told.

Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using
the "free" GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC.
"Ignorance is no excuse!", they say, "What's yours is now ours, you have
been touched!"


text:
JEDIDIAH wrote:

Only in the mythical land of GNU where many marvelous fantasies
become aq reality to its residents...


text:
"amicus_curious" <[email]> writes:

Ah yes! I had forgotten that Rjack has overruled the CAFC (repeatedly).
I appreciate the correction.


text:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <[email]> wrote:

Well thanks, and all that, but the above is in legalese.  Presumably it
means something to lawyers.  Where's the BIG, BIG, difference, when the
legalese is translated into English?

You've asserted, occasionally, that the GPL is unenforceable.  Assuming
for the current purposes that you're right, then your last paragraph
seems pretty much the same as saying that if the code is GPL'd,
he can freely invest a million dollars in a way which violates the GPL,
yet not be subject to any sanctions by the copyright holder.

This is, in effect, the same as GPL code being in the public domain.
Isn't it?


text:
amicus_curious wrote:

AHAH !!!!!!

By using the analogy of a "titty bar" you are displaying your ugly
misogynist side. Your sexist remarks have set women's rights
back at least a half century.

FOR SHAME !!!!


text:
On 2009-04-06, amicus_curious <[email]> wrote:

...except the GPL is very plain and out in the open.

The intent of RMS is very clear and rather blunt.

The only way you can "misunderstand" anything is if it were
your original intent to try and "take advantage" to begin with.

The terms are by no stretch of the imagination hidden.

Neither is the intent of the proprietor.


text:
"amicus_curious" <[email]> writes:

You have pointed out a potentially serious problem.  Many anti-GPL
people are trying to deceive software users into misappropriating
GPL-licensed software, by telling them that the GPL is illegal,
unenforceble, against public policy, etc.  Later on, when the victims of
this deception find that the GPL is actually being enforced, they may
get into trouble.

I'm not sure how actually serious this problem is. That would depend on
how gullible software users are. Do they believe everything they read
on Usenet? I suspect most of them are too smart to be fooled.


text:
On 2009-04-06, Rjack <[email]> wrote:

    No. You are the one in some sort of fantasy land.

    Don't wander into Texas with an attitude like this.

    You might end up dead.


text:
"Rahul Dhesi" <[email]> wrote in message
news:grli7b$f2s$[email]...

The CAFC decision was not so clear regarding the "is a license a contract"
discussion. Rather it turned on whether there were opportunities for
irreparable harm arising from the conditions in the Artistic license and the
motion was remanded to the district to litigate that issue.  I think that
would be the case whether or not the license was considered a contract or
whatever else it could be.  The only importance to this is whether or not
there should be a presumption of harm and so an injunction awarded
regardless of the financial damage caused by the violation.  Contracts have
a balance of harms and many other issues.  The copyright, though, is coming
under the same sort of consideration, i.e. the presumption of irreparable
harm is no longer the case.

Interestingly enough, the district decided that there wasn't anything that
rose to that level that had been submitted by the plaintiff.

Somehow or another, the jursisdiction of the CAFC is now under dispute since
it arises somehow out of there having to be a patent issue in the case and
that has apparently, according to the defendant, been removed from the case.
So now the case may go to another appeals court that is more focused on the
copyright issue.


text:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:

Courts disagree with other courts all the time. Constant disagreement
among the Appellate Circuits is a major reason for a grant of
certiorari by the Supreme Court.

Present a rational, logical argument supported by legal authority and
have at it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with disagreeing with
a court when relying on alternate but conflicting legal authority.

Present your legal arguments and have at it. Using ad homonem
arguments because your angry with someone will convince no one.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:

We'd all love for the lawyers to be ceremoniously fed to the the
sharks. Unfortunately, many activities in life can't be summarized
into simple sound bites.

Public domain code is freely available without legal reservation.
*Anyone* who desires to use it may do so without legal consequence.
As I previously stated, promissory estoppel is available only to a
specific *individual* party who first goes to court and proves to the
court that he is entitled to some equitable right.

1) Public domain rights are are freely available to the *whole world*.

2) Equitable rights granted through promissory estoppel by court
decree are *personal* rights and have nothing to do with public domain
rights.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
"Rjack" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
That long?  I wouldn't think that the initiative was so feeble.


text:
JEDIDIAH wrote:

Boldness and clarity of purpose does not make that purpose legal.


text:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:

Uh... does that include messages from a certain Rahul Dhesi who
posts on Usenet in gnu.misc.discuss?


text:
"Rahul Dhesi" <[email]> wrote in message
news:grduio$r3l$[email]...
Well, it is not really such a problem in the real world.  There has never
been a case of a company taking a GPL program and proprietizing it for a
profit.  I cannot even find a case of a company taking a GPL program and
improving it and releasing it back other than Linux itself wherein Red Hat
and Novell need to make various changes to keep it viable in their server
regions.


author: chrisv

text:
So, you think software developers just grab source-code and use it in
their projects, just assuming that it's free of copyright?  That would
be pretty stupid, don't you think, considering all GPL'ed software
will declare and reference the GPL?  Do you think willfully ignoring
the copyright and GPL notification should be an "excuse"?

Idiot.


text:
JEDIDIAH wrote:

Death threats eh?

That's pretty tough talk for a little feller. I'll bet your shorter
than Kim Jong-il. The only thing I've ever seen come outta Texas
is castrated steers tryin' to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.

        Have a nice day JEDIDIAH!
       _                         _
      |R|                       |R|
      |J|         /^^^\         |J|
     _|a|_      (| "o" |)      _|a|_
   _| |c| | _    (_---_)    _ | |c| |_
  | | |k| |' |    _| |_    | `| |k| | |
  |          |   /     \   |          |
   \        /  / /(. .)\ \  \        /
     \    /  / /  | . |  \ \  \    /
       \  \/ /    ||Y||    \ \/  /
        \__/      || ||      \__/
                  () ()
                  || ||
                 ooO Ooo


text:
Rjack <[email]> writes:

The CAFC panel, comprising three smart people, already unanimously
provided you with a rational, logical argument supported by legal
authority. If that doesn't satisfy you, nothing will.

The JMRI case may soon be heard again by the Ninth Circuit. If so, the
Ninth Circuit will surely uphold the possibility of an injunction
against those who misappropriate copyrighted software.  And I predict
that that won't satisfy you either.

Rjack and Wallace quote a lot of case law fragments, but seem to not
consider the point that the law is, in the end, all about dispensing
justice.  Denying a copyright owner any recourse against those who
misappropriate his software would be an injustice. And generally the
courts tend to lean against that. This simple fact explains why the CAFC
ruled the way it did. At the end of the day, it's mostly about keeping
things fair.


author: Keith Thompson

text:
Rjack <[email]> writes:
[...]

It's taken you this long to realize that?


text:
On 2009-04-06, Rjack <[email]> wrote:

...then the whole situation reverts to "straight property law".

You're attempt to have it both ways just wont fly.


text:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:

I suspect *any* Circuit would uphold the "possibility" of an
injunction if the "misappropriation" of copyrighted software
actually violated *copyright* law. Judge White of the Northern
District of California cited to Ninth Circuit precendential law when
he found that Jacobsen's remedies were contractual in nature:

"The license explicitly gives the users of the material, any member of
the public, ï¿½the right to use and distribute the [material] in a
more-orless customary fashion, plus the right to make reasonable
accommodations.ï¿½ (See Suppl. Jacobsen Decl., Ex. A.) The scope of the
nonexclusive license is, therefore, intentionally broad. The condition
that the user insert a prominent notice of attribution does not limit
the scope of the license. Rather, Defendantsï¿½ alleged violation of the
conditions of the license may have constituted a breach of the
nonexclusive license, but does not create liability for copyright
infringement where it would not otherwise exist. Therefore, based on
the current record before the Court, the Court finds that Plaintiffï¿½s
claim properly sounds in contract and therefore Plaintiff has not met
his burden of demonstrating likelihood of success on the merit of his
copyright claim and is therefore not entitled to a presumption of
irreparable harm. See Sun Microsystems, 188 F.3d at 1119. Plaintiff
has not met his burden of demonstrating either a combination of
probable success on the merits of his copyright claim nor the
existence of serious questions going to the merits. See GoTo.com, 202
F.3d at 1204-05."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/259007/jacobsen-v-katzer

If you acually think the Ninth Circuit will overrule it's own
precendent because of the CAFC ruling, then I have a nice bridge in
Brooklyn that I would like to sell you -- cheap.

"Because of an unusual quirk in US law, the court had to apply
the legal standards of a sister appellate court, the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals; and the Federal Circuit's interpretation of 9th Circuit
law has no precedential value. "Even a future Federal Circuit case on
this area of the law must look again to the regional [9th] circuit and
not the Federal Circuit interpretation," according to Harold Wegner, a
partner in the Washington, DC office of Foley & Lardner."
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email]/msg07755.html

Get the facts straight Rahul. Judge White didn't deny "any recourse"
in the law. He simply correctly applied Ninth Circuit prevailing law
and said any remedy was contractual in nature.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
Rjack <[email]> writes:

I don't believe any of the Ninth Circuit's precedents are directly
relevant to the misappropriation of free software.


text:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:

Please identify what system(s) of law(s) provide a legal remedy for
this so called "misappropriation" of software. So that we may further
discuss "misappropriation" in more detail. Seems to be an ill-defined
term.


text:
Rjack <[email]> writes:

Does anybody else understand what Rjack is asking for? If so, please
help clarify.

(I'm assuming that Rjack's recent sources of authority, namely,
answers.com and merriam-webster.com, will not suffice here.)


text:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:

The Copyright Act doesn't mention "misappropriation". I'm sure that
your haughty sneers concerning the ordinary, common meanings of words
is impressing all who read your posts.

Unfortunately you have had so little exposure to legal terms that you
don't understand what contexts demand specialized definitions and
which demand the ordinary meanings of words and phrases when
discussing matters.

You need only Google [ "plain meaning rule" ] to see how foolish your
attempts to ridicule appear. You remind me of the principle stated in
the Serenity Prayer:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

You are utterly lacking in the wisdom to know the difference in
context that demands a different semantic.

Sincerely,
Rjack


text:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:

I had hoped after trying to teach you that the meaning of the term
"illegal" changed with a change contexts, that a little something
would have soaked in. It obviously didn't.

After I go through the trouble to buy you books and send you to school
you just chew on the pencil eraser.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
Rjack <[email]> writes:

Well, consider this. We have a couple of hundred years (maybe more?) of
case law discussing when a contract should be unenforceable due to
illegality.

But ignoring all that case law, you went instead to answers.com and
merriam-webster.com to prove your point.

I was sardonically pointing out that you quote the authorities you want
to quote, not the authorities most relevant to the issue.  Now for
obvious reasons I don't expect our friend amicus_curious to cite any
case law.  But from you, Rjack, I had expected better.


text:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:

***Rahul compared a breach of contract issue to a criminal offense:

"So now, according to Rjack, suddenly, the GPL contains illegal terms!
In other words, if you try to enforce a provision in the GPL, it's
like you are trying to kill somebody, and the courts won't let you"

***Amicus_curious replied:

"I think you are placing too much emphasis on the term "illegal". In
the GPL sense, since it is a civil issue, the term is equivalent to
"unenforcable" or "invalid" or any other word that boils down to
being unable to recover damages."

***Rahul replied:

"Rjack, he's posting this nonsense to defend you. This would be a
good oportunity for you to find some citations proving him wrong
-- but will you do so?"

***Rjack replied:

"The terms "illegal", "unenforceable" and "invalid" are
synonyms used in civil law. Amicus curious is simply emphasising the
fact that you made reference to a criminal offense ("kill somebody")
when the context is contractual or tortuous in kind."

What were those "authorities" that were most relevant to the issue?

Rahul there is a tried and true maxim that applies here:

***WHEN YOU'RE IN HOLE STOP DIGGING***

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
Rjack has outdone himself.

I objected to his quoting answers.com and merriam-webster.com to show
that the GPL contains illegal terms. I suggested that, since we have a
couple of hundred years or more of case law discussing when a contract
should be unenforceable due to illegality, Rjack ought to be able to
provide some case law citations. Intesad, Rjack went to answers.com and
merriam-webster.com to try to prove his point.

So now he responds:

Talk about a non-sequitor.

Rjack, I thought you said the GPL was unenforceable? But now you are
talking about a breach of contract.

I didn't compare breach of contract to a criminal offense. In fact I
didn't even mention breach of contract, since you were arguing that the
GPL was unenforceable. If I agreed that the GPL is unenforceable, it
would be silly of me to talk about the GPL being breached, even if I
agreed, and I don't, that the GPL normally causes a contract to form.

I did say that killing somebody would be an example of something being
illegal.

Im still looking for some case law citations (and that doesn't mean
quotes from answers.com and merriam-webster.com :-) showing that the GPL
contains any illegal term. If you can't find any state law citations,
how about something from your previosly-favored (in the pre-answers.com
days) authority on the common law of contracts, i.e., the Second
Circuit?


text:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:

In General:

"Whether Medeiros read the provisions concerning additional and
underage drivers or not, he must be presumed to have known the law and
intended to be bound by an objectively reasonable understanding of the
terms of the contract, and Shasta Ford was entitled to so assume.
Indeed, a sine qua non of contract doctrine is a shared expectation
that the parties will execute the contract in accord with the law. See
John D. Calamari & Joseph M. Perillo, Contracts 889 (3rd ed.1987)
(noting that parties may not generally bargain for or agree to an
illegal term and that "[a]s a general rule an illegal bargain is
unenforceable and often void.")1"; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 143 F.3d
1260 (9th Cir. 1998).
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/143/143.F3d.1260.97-15781.html

Why not try CHAPTER 9 p.186 "Essentials of Contract Law"; Frey&Frey,
West Legal Studies
http://books.google.com/books?id=WrH-4YHvsF4C&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=%22illegal+term%22+unenforceable+contract&source=bl&ots=P5eIw4nsuL&sig=LtOqGNN9omxK9w5zOw6Ttbek788&hl=en&ei=T67fSddi0eKdB7mL2K0J&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

How about Section 1702 "NEGOTIATING AND DRAFTING CONTRACT
BOILERPLATE";Tina Stark
http://books.google.com/books?id=hhbeYinQIS0C&pg=PA541&lpg=PA541&dq=%22illegal+term%22+unenforceable+contract+%22second+circuit%22&source=bl&ots=Y2uFNyLDOv&sig=0F9OFGLx1nH4o5-PFDF2LFN_fuQ&hl=en&ei=qLTfScG9C-TfnQfuhPG3CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Why not Google [ "illegal agreements" unenforceable contracts ]?

Sigh. Since the GPL has never been reviewed by a court with proper
jurisdiction, you're going to look for a loooooong time. Since you
obviously don't understand what an "illegal" term means in general
contract interpretation your quest is ultimately futile anyway.

You can continue to parse the meaning of what "is" is but
what you are demonstrating is that you don't understand when to hold
'em and when to fold 'em.

Ah Rahul. Did you think you could fool a Corlene?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <[email]> wrote:

Oh dear!  The GPL was recently upheld in its entirety in a German court.

Civil courts throughout the civilised world tend to uphold what is just.
There is every reason to believe that courts outside of Germany will
uphold the GPL too, since not to do so would constitue injustice.


text:
Rjack is trying to show that the GPL contains illegal terms.

This is a case about an unlicensed 15-year-old driver who killed
somebody and then wanted to get the benefit of somebody else's insurance
policy. Hard to find any similar facts here. Are you claiming, Rjack,
that somebody copying GPL software beyond the scope of the license is
like an unlicensed driver? If so, the case goes against you, because the
unlicensed driver lost the case.

On the other hand, if you intended this case to simply provide a general
statement of the law, then I fail to see how it proves that the GPL
contains any illegal terms.

Same problem with all the other references.

If the GPL contains any illegal terms, it should be easy to prove this.
Just find some statute or case law according to which GPL-like
permissions are illegal. If you can find none, then perhaps the GPL does
not contain illegal terms.


text:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:

"civilised world" ... but Rjack is from U.S. ...


text:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:

I am witness to your failings.

During the last few hundred or so postings to this group, you have
consistently ignored the reasons I have cited for the lack of
enforceability of the GPL license terms under the common law of
contracts and through preemption by U.S. copyright law. Since I have
cited a plethora of U.S. statute and case law supporting my arguments,
you are well informed as to their nature and substance. You need only
review the messages to this group to refresh your memory.

You may continuously intone phrases such as "*If* the GPL contains any
illegal terms..." and "...*perhaps* the GPL does not contain illegal
terms" until hell freezes over and nothing will ever be resolved. The
"ifs" and "perhaps" lead only to repetition. Likewise, debating
semantics concerning the meaning of "illegal" or similar words leads
only to repetition.

If you wish to claim the GPL is enforceable then you may wish to
present your own arguments as to why it is, just as Eben "a license is
not a contract" Moglen did and we'll let the readers of the World
decide.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
Happy pagan fertility rite, RJack!

In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <[email]> wrote:

The last few hundred.  Or so.  Does it not occur to you that we're all
bored to tears with this minor sub-subject?  It's really not that
important.

These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ.  They go on and on and on
obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and coherent.  A typical
one of your posts assumes, often tacitly, something you "showed" in some
previous post, sometime.  Even you haven't got a mental overview over
your many hundred, possibly several thousand, posts on this worn out
topic.

Please put your arguments in a coherent form on a web site, somewhere.

We're completely agreed on this point.  Furthermore, this repetition is
boring and highly undesirable on this mailing list.

Its enforceability is a sensible default assumption.  The GPL was put
together by a competent lawyer, is perfectly clear in what it says, is
perfectly reasonable in what it says, has so far stood the test of time,
and has been ruled valid by judges whenever it has been challenged in
court.

Your arguments, on the other hand, as much as I can make them out, seem
based on arcane interpretations of USA law, sometimes citing cases going
back the best part of a century judged in social conditions which simply
don't exist any more.  They also seem based on the notion that absolute
logical consistency holds in law.

So put your argument up on a web site, and leave some room here for
people to talk about something interesting.


text:
Rjack made two ludicrious claims.

First, that the GPL causes promissory estoppel, and as a result, anybody
can copy GPL software as he pleases, with no limitations. I will discuss
this later.

Second, that the GPL, if treated as causing a contract to form, is
unenforceable due to illegality. Let's discuss this below.

Having claimed that the GPL contains illegal terms, Rjack is having a
very, very hard time specifying just what in the GPL is illegal.

He sort of implied that the ilelgality came from antitrust, when he
wrote: "The licensing fees in the GPL are price fixed a no charge to all
third parties." Price-fixing sounds like antitrust, doesn't it?  But
when I probed about this, Rjack denied that he was thinking of
antitrust. OK, let's grant him that.

And just as well, bcause we know there is no antitrust issue.  We know
there isn't because Daniel Wallace, in Rjack style, argued that
repeatedly and lost in court about five times (!) before giving up.

What else is there that could be illegal in the GPL? I can't find
anything.

And neither, you might have notice, can Rjack.

So in his latest posting, his reasoning now essentially is:

  If you can't prove that the GPL is enforceable, then it must be
  illegal.

Two problems here.

First, as a practical matter, the GPL is enforceable, because it's
routinely enforced.

Second, even if it were not, that would not necessarily make it illegal.
Illegality is just one of many possible reasons why a contract (if the
GPL causes a contract to form) might be unenforceable.


text:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:

. . . whining . . .
. . . more whining . . .

I didn't know Richard Stallman was a lawyer. Was that pseudo-fact also
a default assumption?

The GPL has never been interpreted by a U.S. court.

As long as the Free Software Foundation claims enforceability under
U.S. law and harasses folks through bogus lawsuits, I shall counter
their attempts at socialist propaganda. Countless blogs mindlessly
repeat their fiction and this demands correction. Rulings in non-U.S.
jurisdictions are irrelevant to me as I have explicitly disclaimed
knowledge of non-U.S. law.

You Marxist folks may wallow in Stallman's socialism all you wish. I
don't expect you to grasp or follow U.S. law. Dogs don't do nuclear
physics and socialists don't do capitalism. If you don't like or
understand the arguments I present, then by all means use your
kill-filter to raise your comfort level.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:

You're flat out lying Rahul. I never claimed that. You're a desperate,
despicable, deleterious desperado indeed. Your mother should wash your
mouth out with soap for claiming such things.

I have certainly claimed that.

Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.
If true, such claims are irrelevant. Ad hominen attacks never address
issues raised in argument. Ad hominen attacks are a mark of
desperation denoting that you have no rational reply.

You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of
just denying and lying.

Sure I have. You just keep denying and then lying.

Just show me the U.S. court decisions -- not your fantasies.

Nice leap of logic in hedging your bet there Rahul.

Name one reason other than violation of the canons of contract
construction.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
Rjack wrote:

bark bark ... rrrrrroooo ... bark bark ...

.. but the world continues, despite rjack


text:
Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal.
And he protests:

...

OK, readers, I need your assistance here.

I admit that I have not read everything that Rjack has ever posted.
Nor, I suspect, has anybody else, with the possible exception of
amicus_curious. But in the sample that I did read, I have not seen Rjack
ever specify exactly what in the GPL is illegal. For a short while I
thought he was referring to antitrust, but not, he said he was not.

Has anybody seen any specific description from Rjack in his posts that
tells us what in the GPL is illegal?


text:
Rjack <[email]> writes:
[snip]

[snip]

[...]

Did Rjack just admit that he himself has no rational arguments?


author: RonB

text:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:

I killfiled Rjack shortly after his first message showed up. I have no
idea what he's yammering on about -- but I'm guessing he's pretty much a
crank in the "Snit mode." It doesn't matter how convincing your argument
might be -- he'll just rewind and re-spew -- starting the whole thing
all over again.

That's the crank way. Best to just killfile him.


text:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:

Until you understand what the term "illegal" means when used in the
context of contract construction any "specific description" will be
meaningless since you will reflexively deny that any "specific
description" whatsoever is "illegal". Here's a definition:

"A contract may be unenforceable due to illegality. The illegality may
take different forms. The contract in its entirety may be illegal or
the contract may have an illegal term." -- Essentials of Contract Law,
Phyllis Hurley Frey, Published by Cengage Learning, 2000, ISBN
0766821455, 9780766821453.

The courts apply "rules" of contract construction when construing a
contract. Break one of those rules and an illegal term may result. An
illegal term could comprise different forms: violation of a criminal
statute, civil statute or a violation of a common law rule of
contract construction. An illegal term may cause all or just a
severable part of a contract to be unenforceable.

The only section of the GPL that is of great controversay is Section
2(b) which attempts to establish the principle of "copyleft":

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License."

The illegal part of the term is "... licensed as a whole at no charge
to all third parties under the terms of this License". The part "...
under the terms of this License" means that all future derivative
works must be under the same GPL license terms.

1) This violates 17 USC sec 301(a) which is a civil statute of The
United States Code (Copyright Act).

2) Section 2(b) also violates the common law rule of statutory
construction which holds that a contract to make a contract is
unenforceable when all the essential terms that bind the future
parties are not present:

"[A] contract to make a contract is enforceable only where all
material terms have been agreed upon. 1 Corbin, Contracts, sec. 2.8,
at 131, 133-34 (Perillo ed. 1993). Prisma Zona's own statements, and
the service contract drafts which it attaches, show that material
issues were still open."; Prisma Zona Exploratoria de Puerto Rico,
Inc. v. Calderï¿½n 310 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002).

"Under Michigan law, "[t]o be enforceable, a contract to enter into
a future contract must specify all its material and essential terms
and leave none to be agreed upon as the result of future
negotiations." Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. v. Waldo, 286 N.W. 630, 632
(Mich. 1939)ï¿½

Now Rahul, had you *actually* been reading any of my posts, you would
know that the above "specific descriptions" of illegality are a
repetition of my post of Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44 to gnu.misc.discuss,
misc.int-property, comp.os.linux.advocacy.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ed4b928bd2684836

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


text:
In gnu.misc.discuss Keith Thompson <[email]> wrote:

Indeed he did, probably without realising it.  Sometimes, you've just
got to laugh.  :-)

His usual trick is never to give a complete systematic account of his
thesis.  You never get more than, say, 25% of it in a single post, and
often that is so prolix as to be unreadable.  I doubt he's ever given
a systematic readable account of his idea in a post.

And if you ask him a reasonable pertinent question which he can't answer,
he responds with abuse instead.

His notion is pure sophistry.


author: Snit

text:
RonB stated in post grrlk7$644$[email] on 4/11/09 8:01 PM:

LOL!  You imply that you made reasoned arguments in response to my comments.

Hey, I bet you that you cannot find a single example.

And you *know* I am right.


text:
I had figured that Rjack was saying that terms in the GPL are
unenforceable because they are illegal.

But now, in his latest posting, he seems to be saying the opposite: that
terms in the GPL are illegal because they are unenforceable.

Which is cyclic enough that nobody will ever win this argument.


text:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Ummm... "...abuse instead"?

On <Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:40:34 -0700> Alan Mackenzie started with a
calculated ad hominem remark to Rjack:

"Please think about the dictum "don't be a dick".  Please also get out
a bit, socialise with people other than RMS and go for a reality check
on what GNU is."

On <Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:25:12 -0500> Rjack replied in kind to Alan
Mackenzie:

"Now that you have repeatedly inferred that I'm a "dick" while
lecturing me on insulting people, why not go have a nice cup of coffee
and contemplate the meaning of 'don't be a hypocritical,
self-righteous prick'"?

My goodness Alan! You are self-righteous and hypocritical. Don't
want "abuse"? Then don't start abuse and then whine about retaliation.

1) Rjack doesn't start ad hominem abuse.

2) Rjack does (probably shouldn't) reply in kind.

I would remind you as I have Rahul, my NNTP server (Giganews) caches
over two years of searchable headers and messages to this group. Why
not try to keep your assertions accurate and free of hypocrisy?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


author: Lord Darth Vader

subject: FS: COMPUTER HARDWARE

text:
Hardware for Sale
Reveal Hand Held Scanner (B&W)                        20.00
BOCA Graphics Card SVGA                               10.00
Sound Blaster 16 Sound Card                           40.00
Sound Blaster AWE32 Sound Card                        60.00
(2) 16mb EDO Ram chips 72 pin                         80.00
Matrox Mystique 2d/3d Graphics card 4mb               50.00
Altec Lansing Speakers ACS-41               50.00
Western Digital 4.0 EIDE HD                          200.00
Pentium Overdrive for 60mhz (120/133mhz)            100.00
Philips OMNIwriter Internal CD-ReWritable IDE      300.00
PEL-1600 Series Controller SCSI (ISA)   50.00
Ensoniq Audio PCI Card Sound Card no drivers  40.00

Make an offer I am flexable to a point
Money orders or checks accepted NO COD's.   Price does NOT include S/H.


author: karlisa

subject: stressing out

text:
I'm finding breastfeeding to be very stressful.  When does it get better?
Noah is now approaching 3 weeks old, and although he generally does not have
a real problem latching on (still using a nipple shield), I am finding that
he seems to have a constant need to nurse--every 1/2 hour to hour.  I cannot
seem to get any rest and don't know how much longer I can keep this up.
What is the absolute minimum I can breastfeed him that will be beneficial to
him?


author: Sarah Vaughan

subject: Re: stressing out

text:
In message <[email]>, Larry McMahan
<[email]> writes

<sigh> I'm not, after the trouble we had getting Jamie's done....

All the best,

Sarah


subject: Re: stressing out

text:
In message <[email]>, Larry McMahan
<[email]> writes

Read her post again, Larry - she's trying to get an ENT appointment, but
at the moment she also can't drive to get him there.

Lisa, is there anyone else who can drive you?  Or could you afford to
take a taxi?  (WELL worth the money if it means getting the tongue tie
taken care of more quickly, IMO!)

All the best,

Sarah


author: PCBH

subject: Re: stressing out

text:
hobbes wrote:
<snip>
best way
think
start of
you're not
terms
approach.
<snip>

I disagree.

When I was trying to get started nursing my DS, I told myself that I
had to BF for 3 mos, and when I got to 3 mos, I'd see how things we
going.  In the early days when he was nursing every hour and sometimes
more, knowing that I had an endpoint saved my sanity.  If I had thought
back then, "I have to do this for a year," I would probably have quit.
But thinking, "I only have to do this for two more months," made it a
lot easier to keep going.  Once I got to 3 mos, I thought that it had
gotten a lot easier, so I'd try for 6.  When I got to 6 I thought, "I'm
not fussing with formula.  This is too easy."  DS is now 16 mos, and
I'm still nursing him.  But I do think that setting smaller goals makes
reaching the big goal easier.  Another example: I lost 33 pounds a year
before I got pregnant, and I did it 5 pounds at a time.  The idea of
losing 5 pounds is a lot easier to handle than the idea of losing 30.
I gave myself small rewards at each 5 pounds, and that was something to
look forward to.

I do agree with other advice you gave, like watching TV, reading a
magazine, or talking on the phone while BFing.  I had a friend across
the country whose maternity leavepartially overlapped with mine, and we
talked to one another a lot while nursing.  I watched a lot of Oprah,
too.

To the OP: Just try to BF this week.  And when this week ends, try to
BF next week.  And just keep going.  One week or one month at a time is
easier to handle.  Everyone has already said that it gets easier, and
it really does.

PC

mom to DS  10/2003


author: Anonymommy

subject: Re: stressing out

text:
Hi Lisa,

I'm sorry you're having such a hard time.

I second (or third, or eighth) the advice about hanging in there, and
about trying to see if the baby can be placated sometimes by being
carried in a carrier, instead of being nursed.  As for which type of
carrier, I liked the snugli when DD was very young, and a pouch when
she outgrew the snugli - I never figured out how to adjust a sling.
Can you use a carrier now, or does your CSection make that too
difficult?  I suppose if you can't use a carrier, you could try a swing
or vibrating baby chair or something.

You're nursing on both sides at each feeding, right?  When DD was very
young, I mistakenly thought we should nurse on only one side at each
feeding, and when we switched to nursing on both sides at each feeding,
the time between feedings doubled.

I'm glad you're pumping.  Maybe some time your DH can do a night
feeding and you can get some rest (weekend nights, maybe, if not during
the week?)  Can you get someone to come in for a few hours during the
day so you can take a nap?

When DD was three weeks old, she was nursing constantly and I was about
to go out of my mind, and then when she was about six or eight weeks
old, she all of a sudden got much more efficient about nursing and she
went from nursing 50 minutes every two hours to nursing about 5 minutes
every two hours.

I also agree with the people who said nursing is going to be easier
then formula in the long run, particularly when you want to leave the
house.

As for the minimum amount of breastfeeding that will be beneficial -
formula is harmful, and the less formula you give, the less harm there
is, so any breastfeeding that you do is beneficial.

Take care,

Anonymommmy
DD 9/02
edd 6/05

karlisa wrote:
better?
not have
finding that
cannot
up.
beneficial to


author: Nikki

subject: Re: stressing out

text:
karlisa wrote:

There are so many variables.  For me, who didn't have any serious problems
to begin with, I felt better and more relaxed with regards to breastfeeding
between 3-4 weeks.  This is also when I decided I'd forget about trying to
put him in his crib and just sleep with him and that helped a lot with my
exhaustion.  I was not able to nurse in a side lying position until about 3
months but it was *fabulous* so continue to work on that as you are able.  I
was able to figure out how to lean back and nurse in a more comfortable
position at about 3 weeks.  I did not have a c-section to deal with.

I don't know a thing about nipple shields.

Have you considered pumping so that your dh, or someone, can give a bottle
or two a day so you get a 3-4 hour chunk of time to rest without
interruption.  you probably wouldn't be able to go much longer then that
without getting engorged.  What I would do is wake up after the 4 hours and
pump 'then' feed the baby whenever he needs.  You'd get good milk for the
next time you want to do the bottle thing.  Even every 3rd night would be
beneficial.  He could also be in a growth spurt, which results in non-stop
nursing.  Generally things even out after a week or so if that is the case.

Hang in there!  I think if you can tough it out to the point when you are
physically more recovered from the c-section you will find things improve *a
lot* even if his nursing habits don't change.  You'll be more comfortable,
more positions will be available, you can put him in a sling if you want,
you'll have a lot more freedom.


author: ktuerk

subject: Re: stressing out

text:
Hi Lisa,

I think I echo everyone else's advice....hang in there, things will get
better by 4-6 weeks.  Amelia nursed almost non-stop her first month,
and I thought I was going to lose my mind, and that was with none of
your added complications.  Some of my de-stressing techniques included
reading & watching DVDs (which may not be as easy for you with another
child in the house).  You can also nurse him in a warm bath, which
would be nice & relaxing for both of you. Take naps with him, whenever
you get the chance. It took me a while to figure out how to nurse while
side-lying and while carrying Amelia in a sling...but both of those
discoveries made a huge difference.

Also, you get tons of good advice within this group, but nothing beats
a live la leche league meeting. www.lalecheleague.org....hopefully
there is a group near you, I promise you will get the support you need
to keep you nursing for many months to come. If you can just get him
off the breast long enough to drive to a meeting.......

Good luck, and congratulations on your new baby!

Karen
Amelia's mama


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: stressing out

text:
Larry,

Your post didn't seem too supportive when you repeatedly said you
worried about her comment.  That seems judgemental.  I also could only
get a good latch sitting on and holding everything in place at first,
so it is stressful, and not always easy for everyone even if it was
easy for your wife.

KC


author: melizabeth

subject: Re: stressing out

text:
"karlisa" <[email]> wrote in message
news:k5NPd.2688$[email]...
have
that
cannot
to

Hang in there!  It does get better.  One of my girlfriends told me to give
it at least 6 weeks...I'm glad she did and I am truly enjoying breastfeeding
now.  My little man had problems latching on, there were days when we had
marathon nursing sessions, and there were days when I wanted to give up.

I think 3 weeks is a growth spurt, which could be why he needs to nurse
constantly.  It is hard to get rest.  Have you tried sidelying and nursing
in bed so you both can snooze?

I'm sure you are doing great.  AS for the absolute minimum.  I really don't
know.


author: Leslie

subject: Re: stressing out

text:
Any amount of nursing is beneficial, but hang in there and take it one
day at a time.  I promise, it does get much much easier and you will be
so glad if you keep going.

Leslie


author: hobbes

subject: Re: stressing out

text:
"karlisa" <[email]> wrote in message
news:k5NPd.2688$[email]...
have
that
cannot
to

At three weeks, you might be hitting a growth spurt, which helps explain the
almost constant nursing. It will get better. It always does. I know it's
tiring now, but you'll think it's all worth it in another few weeks. Hang in
there--you're doing the best thing possible for your baby.

I don't think that focusing on the minimal amount of BF time is the best way
to look at things, but any BF is beneficial--there is no minimum. I think
that most newborns average 2 hours between nursings (note that's start of
one feeding to start of another, which might mean 1.5 hours when you're not
actually nursing). But some do more, and some do less.  Parenting in terms
of doing only the absolute minimum isn't really going to help your approach.
And keep in mind that the alternative is formula, which lots of babies have
a hard time with--you might end up trading constant nursing for a fussy
baby.

It might be worth trying to distract him a little bit to see if you can make
him wait longer. Do you have a sling or some sort of baby carrier? Often I
found that mine just needed the closeness and they would be content in a
front pack much longer than they would if I were holding them or if they
were in a bouncy seat or whatever. You could also try taking walks--also in
a carrier--the motion and the fresh air often provide a soothing
distraction. Do you have a SO who could take over for a while and let you
take a break?

Otherwise, try to relax and take your mind off it. Remember that this is the
most important thing you can be doing right now, and remind the people
around you of that--now is not the time for you to be worrying about the
laundry. Let someone else do that. And if you need to rely on take-out for a
while, that's okay too.  Sitting still and focusing on the actual nursing
can drive you nuts if you feel like that's all you do. Read a book or watch
TV/videos. Have a cordless phone handy and call a friend. Or try nursing
lying down and see if you can't nap. Drink lots of water, eat healthy
snacks, and rest assured that this is just a phase and soon there will be
something entirely different to fret about.


author: Susan

subject: Re: stressing out

text:
Lisa,
It does get better and the ease it gives you in life later on is
invaluable. You can feed him anywhere, you can comfort him almost
anytime, anywhere. I know it's very hard right now with another baby
running around but I think if you can take it one day at a time and get
through for a few more weeks you'll find that things get soooo much
easier and you'll be so proud of yourself.
Write me anytime
Susan

karlisa wrote:


author: MareCat

subject: Re: stressing out

text:
Hi Lisa! <waving>

I had a *very* tough time in the beginning with Rayna. She was *constantly*
feeding around the clock and was very fussy (didn't have any latching
problems or any other problems either). It seemed like I was never able to
make enough milk to satisfy her. She'd be nursing for awhile, then would
start screaming at the breast, like she wasn't getting enough (suckle for a
few seconds, scream, suckle, scream, etc.). I think I shed as many tears
back then as she did!

But then, at around 8 weeks or so, my supply finally caught up with her
demand (or maybe her demand just slowed--dunno which), and things got *much*
easier. It just got better and better after that. I was soooo happy I stuck
with it. It was like a big hill I was climbing at first, and as soon as I
rounded the top of it, it was all downhill from there. (This newsgroup is
one of the biggest reasons I stuck with it for so long--lots of great
support and advice here.)

Hang in there!!!

Mary--long-time lurker, still b/f


subject: Re: stressing out

text:
Lisa,

It actually took 3.5 months for nursing to get easier for me and Bess,
but it did eventually happen.  People told me to hang in there, that I
would be glad I did eventually, and it is true.  Nursing becomes a
wonderful thing that you love later even though it is so hard at first.
 It is alot easier than bottles later, and worth the beginning work to
get it established.

Your baby is probably having the 3 week growth spurt right now, and
those are tiring.  You will be happier if you can learn to nurse
sidelying, so you can get some rest.  I never learned how to nurse on
the go, but I have also heard that makes it easier to deal with too.  I
did use a carrier to nurse in front of the computer though.  Reading or
computering while nursing makes it more enjoyable when the nursing is
so much for a few days.

KC


author: M Wayne

subject: Re: stressing out

text:
Oh, it gets MUCH better. It took me 6-7 weeks to actually enjoy b'feeding.
My son was a barracuda and nursing him was initially very painful, then I
had blocked ducts and a bout of mastitis. And forget about sleep - I got
none. And then there was the postpartum depression. :) I thought about
quitting many times. But I'm sooooo glad I stuck with it, I love nursing and
so does DS. Hang in there for as long as you can and try to surround
yourself with supportive people - it helps a lot.

Best of luck!

(sorry if i've repeated what others have said, i don't have time to read all
the posts right now...)


author: Larry McMahan

subject: Re: stressing out

text:
karlisa <[email]> writes:

: I'm finding breastfeeding to be very stressful.  When does it get better?

Whoa.  Let's take stock.  You are just approaching 3 weeks.  Breastfeeding
is a LEARNED activity.  How many complex skills have you learned in 3 weeks?

The usual comment about it getting better is tat it is worst from 2 to 4
weeks, and it starts getting bearable at 6 to 8, at which time you actually
start learning how to do it, and you know what your are doing between 12
and 16 weeks.

: Noah is now approaching 3 weeks old, and although he generally does not have
: a real problem latching on (still using a nipple shield),

Let me stop you right here.  You need to start weaning him off of the nipple
shield.  It will make breastfeeding more difficult in the future, it will
hinder getting enough milk production to keep up with his growth and it
will become a problem.  It needs to go.  Maybe another mom who has successfully
weaned off one can comment please.

: I am finding that
: he seems to have a constant need to nurse--every 1/2 hour to hour.

He is a newborn.  A threee week old!  He is working to build up your milk
supply.  He will slow down when you have more milk.  Stick with it.  (I
suspect the nipple shields are slowing milk delivery to him also).  Another
reason to lose them.

: I cannot
: seem to get any rest and don't know how much longer I can keep this up.

I am worried a bit by this question, although I think it cold be shield
related, also.  Can you learn to nurse him lying down>?  (maybe not with
the shields)  (Hint, lay on your sides facing each other and have him
nurse off the bottom breast.  Switch places when you need to switch sides)

Secondly, can you also nurse in a nice recliner chair where you can relax?
His nursing time should be your major resting time.  I worry about this
comment!

: What is the absolute minimum I can breastfeed him that will be beneficial to
: him?

Wrong question.  He is nursing to build up your supply.  Get rid of the
shields and nurse as often as possible in the short run, and this qustion
will take care of itself in the long run.

: --
: lisa
: micksmom
: mick: 7-12-02
: noah: 1-24-05

Good luck,
Larry


author: The Watsons

subject: Re: stressing out

text:
"Sarah Vaughan" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Some insurances will even help with transportation, if you give them enough
notice.

Jess


subject: Re: stressing out

text:
Sarah Vaughan <[email]> writes:

: Read her post again, Larry - she's trying to get an ENT appointment, but
: at the moment she also can't drive to get him there.

This requires an ENT specialist.  A GP can't do it on a days notice?
I'm surprised.

Larry


subject: Re: stressing out

text:
Thanks, PC.  I appreciate the encouragement.  I have been doing what you
suggested anyway.  Every morning I wake up and say, "well, I'll just BF
today and see how that goes."  So my increments of time are shorter than
what you suggested!  It does seem to be getting a little easier.  I think
the hardest part of all of this has been trying to juggle my 2 1/2 year
old's wants/needs with the nursing demands of a newborn.


author: Chris Craig

subject: Re: stressing out

text:
Anonymommy wrote:

Are there not studies now that indicate that even a small amount of
formula can have serious effects? I think I read something about it at
mercola.com - although I haven't made up my mind about the reliability of
Dr Mercola's articles. For one thing, he occasionally refers people to the
Weston A Price Foundation about whom I have many misgivings.

Maybe it was in Dr. Linda Folden Palmer's most recent study analysis:
http://www.babyreference.com/InfantDeaths.htm