Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:

> On each occasion where the cases were dismissed, the defendants 
> (or their proxies, in the case of Verizon/Actiontec) made the 
> source code available as required by the GPL. Therefore there was
>  no reason or possibility for the cases to continue. People who 
> violate copyright licenses need to be intimidated so they don't 
> do it any more.

I've seen no documentaton to support your code availability claims.
Seems to me that Verizon told the SFLC to kiss their ass. I thought
Alexader Terekhov explained this fact to you quite succinctly.

I notice that you avoided my assertion:

The GPL proposition that a contract can reach out and bind "all
third parties under the terms of this License" is a legal flying pig
and the SFLC and FSF know it. As the United States Supreme Court
unequivocally stated, ("It goes without saying that a contract
cannot bind a nonparty."; EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279
294 (2002)).

Did you notice that I documented the legal authority to support my
legal assertion?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=EEOC+v.+Waffle+House%2C+Inc&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Sincerely,
Rjack :)