Re: Using non-GPL libraries in a GPL program

[rjack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> rjack <robjck@ixweb.com> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > > rjack <robjck@ixweb.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > David Kastrup wrote:
> > > > .........
> >
> > > That they can't bring the identical case a second time.  Why would they,
> > > when they got an agreement to compliance?
> > Uhhhhhhhhh.
> >
> > Question:  For what use is an unenforceable agreement?
>
> Why would it be unenforceable?
>
> If a case is dismissed when the defendant agrees to, say, work 20 hours
> in some social institution, is this agreement unenforceable because the
> case is dismissed?

The only verifiable source of information on the legal status of the 
SFLC's "BusyBox" cases with their subsequent dismissals is the official
Federal Court records:

1. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
2. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
3. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
4. Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice.

Has anyone ever seen a written copy of an "agreement" between any of the 
parties?

What we see is unverifiable claims of mysterious "agreements" between 
the parties churned out by the SFLC.

1). Are they oral agreements?

2). Are they written agreements?

3). Are they imaginary claims of victory by the SFLC posted on a blog?

Where's the evidence? The SFLC's leadership has made utterly frivolous
legal claims refuted by every United States Federal Court from the 
Supreme Court on down. The most famous claim:

Here's the SFLC's Eben Moglen (10 September 2001):

"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within 
the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but 
because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license 
permits." Eben Moglen founder of the SFLC

Here's the United States Federal Courts:

"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101- 1332, 
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal 
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the 
relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v. 
Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals 
for the Seventh Circuit 2006)

When you chant an obviously false legal mantra for seven years, never 
offering to correct the record, you end up with zero credibility 
concerning your specious legal claims.

Why in heaven's name would anyone actually believe the SFLC's self- 
serving, unverifiable claims about favorable BusyBox "agreements?

Even the extremely gullible eventually ask to see some proof.
So... WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

--- "The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't 
Falling", Sunday, December 14 2003 @ 09:06 PM EST --- PJ@Groklaw