Re: Moglen Ravicher LLC -- initial client and initial target

[rjack]

It's now all about Moglen Ravicher LLC enforcing CLIENT'S "rights" and 
not infringement actions:

---[begin quote]
"From the CLIENT “Oh, Watchtower told us that they used some open source 
apps but did not mention as to what they used”. When I brought up the 
fact that parts of Watchtower are based on OpenNMS, the CLIENT replied 
“I could not find one ounce of mention on their website to OpenNMS or 
any other Open Source code that is running on this product. That really 
irritates me.”

I should also mention that this CLIENT is in final negotiations with
Cittio (they dropped their initial price considerably) so we’re not
talking a first contact cold call here - they are ready to close this
deal without a single detail concerning their use of open source".
---[end quote]

I have previously pointed to the fact that the GPL was a contract with
third party beneficiaries (CLIENTS) and as such the original licensor 
and licensee of Gpl'd code had absolutely no legal standing to complain 
about benefits directed to all "third parties" (CLIENTS).

GPL sec. 2) b):
"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 Verizon case demonstrated this fact concerning lack of legal 
standing. The SFLC could either dismiss their silly suit "WITH 
PREDJUDICE" or face the pain of paying Verizon's attorney fees and costs.

To wit:  CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-11070-LT
"03/17/2008 10  NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL: Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)
of the F.R.C.P., plaintiffs Erik Andersen and Rob Landley hereby dismiss
this action against defendant Verizon Communications Inc. WITH
PREJUDICE"

It is ironic to note that the legal threats from "Ravicher Moglen LLC" 
have morphed into third party beneficiary (CLIENT) contractual claims 
under the GPL, since infringement actions pursuant to the GPL are 
without legal standing. --- This from barristers who built their 
impeccable, world famous reputations declaring "The GPL is a license NOT 
a contract":

"This right to exclude implies an equally large power to license—that 
is, to grant permission to do what would otherwise be forbidden. 
Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within 
the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but 
because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license 
permits." -- Eben Moglen
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

I wonder if Eben Moglen was with Hillary Clinton in Bosnia during the 
heavy sniper fire?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

--- The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling
Sunday, December 14 2003 @ 09:06 PM EST --- Pamela Jones