Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/284.pdf
Of the various claims, the only one relevant to this
newsgroup is the request for a preliminary injunction.
The others are patent claims, DMCA claims, attorney
fee claims, and other such irrelevancies.
The District Court appears to have decided to ignore
the meat of the opinion of the Appeals Court
<http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf>
while selectively reading just a bit of it and claiming
to obey it. The Appeals Court said
"The choice to exact consideration in the form of
compliance with the open source requirements of
disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than
as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less
legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of
damages is inherently speculative, these types of
license restrictions might well be rendered
meaningless absent the ability to enforce through
injunctive relief."
Instead, the District Court decided to focus on the part
of the Appeals Court decision where the judges enumerated
some possible non-monetary considerations that an author
might benefit from, and said that a plaintiff must show
that he was specifically harmed in one of these ways. That
is exactly contrary to what the Appeals Court said above.
I predict another round trip through the appeals process.
Clearly, the District Court judge was drunk.