Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

[Rahul Dhesi]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

>Rjack <user@example.net> writes:

>> I *do* know of five plaintiff suits filed by the SFLC for copyright
>> infringement under the GPL that have been defeated. I know that you
>> want to count running scared "voluntary dismissals" as "victories" but
>> reasonable people know better.

>A so-called defeat would imply that the source remains closed since that
>was the objective of the law suit...

Rjack did a subtle change-of-subject here. We were talking about Rjack's
claim essentially that the GPL is invalid according to Rjack's numerous
useless out-of-context quotes, some without citations, and almost all
without public links. I assume he doesn't provide public links because
he prefers that we not read the cases from which he gets his quotes.

I stated that no plaintiff has ever defeated the GPL.

Rjack could not find a plaintiff that had. Rather than admitting this,
Rjack tried to confuse the issue by implying that if a voluntary
dismissal occurs, that means a plaintiff has defeated the GPL.  Rjack
knows perfectly well that that is not the case.  To defeat the GPL, a
plaintiff would actually have to win, not just get a voluntary dismissal
and a settlement.

Hasn't happened yet. Unlikely to happen, given the CAFC'S ruling in the
JMRI case.
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/