Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

[amicus_curious]

"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXIsXth.usenet.us.com> wrote in message 
news:gba5ab$m6g$1@blue.rahul.net...
> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > > I *do* know of five plaintiff suits filed by the SFLC for copyright
> > > infringement under the GPL that have been defeated. I know that you
> > > want to count running scared "voluntary dismissals" as "victories" but
> > > reasonable people know better.
>
> > A so-called defeat would imply that the source remains closed since that
> > was the objective of the law suit...
>
> Rjack did a subtle change-of-subject here. We were talking about Rjack's
> claim essentially that the GPL is invalid according to Rjack's numerous
> useless out-of-context quotes, some without citations, and almost all
> without public links. I assume he doesn't provide public links because
> he prefers that we not read the cases from which he gets his quotes.
>
> I stated that no plaintiff has ever defeated the GPL.
>
> Rjack could not find a plaintiff that had. Rather than admitting this,
> Rjack tried to confuse the issue by implying that if a voluntary
> dismissal occurs, that means a plaintiff has defeated the GPL.  Rjack
> knows perfectly well that that is not the case.  To defeat the GPL, a
> plaintiff would actually have to win, not just get a voluntary dismissal
> and a settlement.


> Hasn't happened yet. Unlikely to happen, given the CAFC'S ruling in the
> JMRI case.
> --
It seems to me that what has not happened yet is any ruling in the 
quintessential part of the GPL, i.e. forcing disclosure of some enhancement 
made by someone to a GPL'd program.  The only effect of the SFLC actions has 
been to force a downstream user to re-publish the original source that was 
used in the defendant's product.  That is a rather empty sort of "victory" 
and would seem to be an inexpensive way to settle any of these suits.  The 
suits have merit, I think, even as a contract issue and regardless of the 
copyright claims, but they have no effect other than to nettle the user of 
OSS products.  That seems contrary to the original purpose of OSS although 
it does meet the needs of the cultists who surround Stallman.