Re: Monsoon settles: complies with GPL, pays undisclosed sum

[rjack]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:47:44PM -0400, rjack wrote:
> > Geza Giedke wrote:
> > > The case of GPL-violation by Monsoon Multimedia that was discussed
> > > here recently has been settled out of court.
> > "The SFLC is using threats of copyright infringement prosecution under
> > the GPL as a tactical matter to force Monsoon Multimedia to comply with
> > a contractual covenant.The SFLC will never allow a federal court to
> > examine the GPL on its merits.


> > If the suit goes forward (which I seriously doubt). . . 
>
> Yeah, but it seems all lawyers, even experienced ones, seem to cave in
> rather than following your expectations, which have had an yet unbeatable
> success rate of 0%.
>
> Keep on with the good job, rjack/therekov...
>
> Rui

My *expectation* (as quoted above) was "If the suit goes forward (which 
 I seriously doubt)...". That's a 100% percent success rate with 
respect to my expectations since the suit did not proceed to court.

Your claim of "legal success" for the GPL is a variation of the the
famous fallacious "argument from ignorance" -- a lack of evidence is not 
evidence of absence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The evidence for the legal enforceability must be based on federal 
statutes and established case law. *Copious legal evidence* in the form 
of both federal statutes and appellate case rulings has been presented 
arguing against the claim of GPL enforceability. There exists an abysmal 
*lack of legal evidence* cited to support the enforceability of the GPL.

The GPL has *never been tested in court* and never will be if the SFLC 
has a way to prevent actual judicial review. The SFLC has displayed only 
a consistent *lack of legal evidence* for GPL enforceability.
:)