[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Big blow to proprietary linking nonsense.

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Big blow to proprietary linking nonsense.
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:56:15 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20100228)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 5/18/2010 4:37 PM, RJack wrote:
So far, every plaintiff in a GPL lawsuit has cut and run prior to the court ever reading the GPL contract -- must less judging it terms.

The purpose of these lawsuits is to enforce copyright of GPL-covered works. Since the defendants in all the concluded cases have come into compliance with the GPL, the lawsuits accomplished their purpose. Lawsuits do not continue when the parties no longer have a dispute. Courts do not offer opinions for the satisfaction of cranks.

It is easily verfied that the term "compliance" has never been raised in a GPL lawsuit -- must less enforced.

You are lying: <>

25. Plaintiffs have at no time granted any permission to any party to
 copy, modify, or distribute BusyBox under any terms other than those
 of the License. Plaintiffs do not permit anyone to distribute
BusyBox except in compliance with the License.

That has nothing to do with the relief requests raised by the plaintiffs
in any SFLC lawsuit. Twist and squirm all you want Hyman but a court has
never granted anything an SFLC lawsuit any plaintiff has ever requested
because they have cut and run before any judge could ever read their

Keep on spinnin' Hyman -- just keep on spinnin'.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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