[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Using non-GPL libraries in a GPL program

From: rjack
Subject: Re: Using non-GPL libraries in a GPL program
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:25:53 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080421)

David Kastrup wrote:
rjack <> writes:

David Kastrup wrote:
rjack <> writes:

David Kastrup wrote:

That they can't bring the identical case a second time.  Why would they,
when they got an agreement to compliance?

Question:  For what use is an unenforceable agreement?

Why would it be unenforceable?

If a case is dismissed when the defendant agrees to, say, work 20 hours
in some social institution, is this agreement unenforceable because the
case is dismissed?

The only verifiable source of information on the legal status of the SFLC's "BusyBox" cases with their subsequent dismissals is the official
Federal Court records:

1. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
2. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
3. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
4. Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice.

Has anyone ever seen a written copy of an "agreement" between any of the parties?

What we see is unverifiable claims of mysterious "agreements" between the parties churned out by the SFLC.

1). Are they oral agreements?

2). Are they written agreements?

3). Are they imaginary claims of victory by the SFLC posted on a blog?

Where's the evidence? The SFLC's leadership has made utterly frivolous
legal claims refuted by every United States Federal Court from the Supreme Court on down. The most famous claim:

Here's the SFLC's Eben Moglen (10 September 2001):

"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 founder of the SFLC

Here's the United States Federal Courts:

"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. ยงยง 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."; Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006)

When you chant an obviously false legal mantra for seven years, never offering to correct the record, you end up with zero credibility concerning your specious legal claims.

Why in heaven's name would anyone actually believe the SFLC's self- serving, unverifiable claims about favorable BusyBox "agreements?

Even the extremely gullible eventually ask to see some proof.

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 --- PJ@Groklaw

reply via email to

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