[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:52:12 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:

On each occasion where the cases were dismissed, the defendants (or their proxies, in the case of Verizon/Actiontec) made the source code available as required by the GPL. Therefore there was no reason or possibility for the cases to continue. People who violate copyright licenses need to be intimidated so they don't do it any more.

I've seen no documentaton to support your code availability claims.
Seems to me that Verizon told the SFLC to kiss their ass. I thought
Alexader Terekhov explained this fact to you quite succinctly.

I notice that you avoided my assertion:

The GPL proposition that a contract can reach out and bind "all
third parties under the terms of this License" is a legal flying pig
and the SFLC and FSF know it. As the United States Supreme Court
unequivocally stated, ("It goes without saying that a contract
cannot bind a nonparty."; EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279
294 (2002)).

Did you notice that I documented the legal authority to support my
legal assertion?

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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