[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Attorney fees

From: rjack
Subject: Re: Attorney fees
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:49:18 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080421)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Why don't you post the final order (or link to it) resulting in closure of that case?

The source code for the GPLed software in question is available here: <>

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

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?


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

reply via email to

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