Re: Attorney fees

[rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Why don't you post the final order (or link to it) resulting in closure of 
> > that case? http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/DISMISSAL.pdf
>
> The source code for the GPLed software in question is available here: 
> <http://opensource.actiontec.com/>
>
> Whether or not Verizon is violating technical details of the GPL, the source 
> code for the router software is available from the router's manufacturer.
>
> Do you know of any instances where the SFLC has dropped a case and the source
>  code continued to be unavailable?

STOP attempting to shift the burden of proof for YOUR claims.

It's up to YOU to demonstrate a causal link between an SFLC suit and source code
being published. All you have are self-serving testimonials concerning your
hypotheses. Even blogs promoting open source are questioning the SFLC tactics.

Your self-serving claims may confuse the naive and only the gullible are going
to attempt to prove your case for you -- no one can prove anything from an
absence of evidence. Show us a a district court ruling concerning the SFLC and a
defendant -- not another bullshit voluntary dismissal.

Even a voluntary settlement agreement will not demonstrate the *legal* validity
of the GPL. Many firms using open source wish to avoid expensive litigation and
have a strong financial incentive for promoting open source cooperation and
settlement.

SFLC promoters wish too claim that the GPL is *legally* enforceable  -- nothing
short of a court ruling will provide the *legal* answer.

So why duck an opportunity for a court ruling time and time again with voluntary
dismissals? Perhaps to prolong the flow of charitable funds into the deep
pockets of SFLC lawyers?

Sincerely,
Rjack

-- The hardest part of fleecing a sucker is convincing him to show his gratitude
for getting screwed --