Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Round of GPL Violation Lawsuits

[rjack]

amicus_curious wrote:
> "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> wrote in message 
> 484FB831.EF0A05DE@web.de">news:484FB831.EF0A05DE@web.de...
> > "All of the previous lawsuits have resulted in out-of-court settlements
> > requiring the defendants to distribute source code in compliance with
> > the GPL."
> In every one of the cases that I have managed to find that had any 
> detail, the "compliance" involved was publishing the source of the 
> original GPL product used.  There doesn't seem to be any instance of the 
> defendant publishing any new code. 

I have have never found any *verifiable* detail of *any* settlement of 
these lawsuits other than the court records available on PACER.

I have read hearsay reports of settlements released from SFLC blog
postings. . . these reports from SFLC lawyers who have spent the past 
seven years claiming a copyright license is not a contract.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

These settlements concern BusyBox source code that has never been 
registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The plaintiffs obviously have 
no standing to file these frivolous suits:

"It provides that "no action for infringement of the copyright in any 
United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or 
registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with 
this title." . . .  Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is not up 
for debate in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we have squarely 
held that it is".; In re Literary Works in Electronic Databases 
Copyright Litigation 509 F.3d 116 (2nd Cir. 2007).

Why believe *anything* from these SFLC crackpots? THE SFLC WILL NEVER, 
NEVER ALLOW A FEDERAL COURT TO REVIEW THE GPL ON ITS MERITS. They will 
even dismiss WITH PREJUDICE against their own clients rather than see a 
court actually review their moronic GPL license claims.

Sincerely,
Rjack

-- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by 
ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi 
Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit 1995) --