Re: SFLC chooses wrong court

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> > were widely touted as proof of its efficacy.  One of these days
>> > someone who is anti-GPL will find it advantageous enough to finally
>> > swat that annoyance. "
>> 
>> You mean, like Daniel "anti-GPL lunatic" Wallace?
>
> No. I actually meant a defendant not willing to settle, not a plaintiff 
> like Danial Wallace.
>
> But thanks to Danial Wallace, the 7th Circuit of the United States now 
> operates under the following law:
>
> 1.) [FOSS contributors can't charge] "Thus the GPL propagates from 
> user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, 
> nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the 
> software or allow any successor to charge. ... Linux and other 
> open-source projects have been able to cover their fixed costs 
> through donations of time"

(and 2 and 3)

Uh, you are confusing the _circumstances_ for a ruling with its
consequence.  The circumstances certainly do not become prescribed as
law.  For example, in the following ruling
<URL:http://www.clr.org/Bradshaw-Unity.html> there is a lot of
circumstances, but most of them don't become subject of a law or legal
precedence.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum