[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:48:46 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.90 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> RJack <> writes:
>> > This has got to be one of the dumbest threads I've read in quite a
>> > while. No a single word of any lawsuit filed by the SFLC has ever. in
>> > the total history of the SFLC, been perused by the eyes of a U.S.
>> > federal court judge. Ignore the GPL and code as you please. Should the
>> > SFLC file suit against you, simply file an *Answer to Complaint* with
>> > a blanket denial of all allegations. Filing this *Answer to Complaint*
>> > prevents a default judgment and places the burden on the SFLC to move
>> > forward with their suit. In order to move forward the GPL would
>> > necessarily have to be interpreted by the court.
>> Not at all.  This "Answer of Complaint" has to include one detail:
>> whether the defendant has chosen to avail himself of the GPL as a
>> license or not.  
> Uh silly dak. 
> It doesn't have to include your hallucinatory details.
> Here's an answer to the GPL complaint:
> How come that SFLC moved the court to dismiss the case almost 
> immediately after the answer to the complaint was filed?
> "12. Bell Microproducts admits that it purchases storage devices that
> contain firmware from a third party. Bell Microproducts is unaware if
> the firmware it purchases from the third party contains BusyBox. Bell
> Microproducts states that the License speaks for itself and on that
> basis,denies any allegations of paragraph 12 inconsistent therewith.
> Except as expressly admitted, Bell Microproducts denies all the
> allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

Well, Bell states that it is not privy to a purported copyright
transgression, and thus explicitly states that it has not availed
themselves of the GPL as a license, as they claim not to be in need of
any license at all from the plaintiff.

Which makes this case be a plain copyright-relevant-or-not case not
involving the GPL.

In short, again you post lots of stuff proving the point you are
feigning to counter.

Bell does exactly what I state a defendant would: declare whether they
consider themselves in need of a license at all, and their declaration
here is "no".

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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