Re: Big blow to proprietary linking nonsense.

[RJack]

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: 
> <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf>
>
>
>
> 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
complaint.

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

Sincerely,
RJack :)