Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> 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.

If you're too lazy or unable to research a rebuttal to my citations,
perhaps you should hop on down to Starbucks and have a nice, hot cup
of coffee. One tactic of script-kiddie trollers like you is to
repeatedly challenge a poster's documented claims with childish
put-downs. This may make you admired among your fellow
script-kiddies but reasonable people will ignore your whining.

> 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.

Rjack is certainly not dumb enough to rise to your challenge and
attempt to "find" a plaintiff, thereby attempting to prove a
negative. If you wish to claim that flying pigs (your imaginary
plaintiffs) exist then produce your flying pigs for examination.

> Hasn't happened yet. Unlikely to happen, given the CAFC'S ruling in the
> JMRI case.

I've already rebutted your unfounded claim about the CAFC ruling.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)