Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
> > > <http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf>
> >
> > Judge Saris found the GPL issue too uncertain to adjudicate: ".
> >  . . [B]ut the matter is one of fair dispute".
>
> Wouldn't you just love it if your misleading quotes were allowed 
> to stand? The fuller quote: With respect to the General Public 
> License (“GPL”), MySQL has not demonstrated a substantial 
> likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. 
> Affidavits submitted by the parties’ experts raise a factual 
> dispute concerning whether the Gemini program is a derivative or
>  an independent and separate work under GPL ¶ 2. After hearing, 
> MySQL seems to have the better argument here, but the matter is 
> one of fair dispute. Moreover, I am not persuaded based on this 
> record that the release of the Gemini source code in July 2001 
> didn’t cure the breach.
>
> Notice how the judge has read the GPL and has decided that the 
> dispute is about if and how well the GPL has been honored. There
>  is not the hint of a suggestion that there is anything wrong or
>  unenforceable about the GPL. There is every indication that the
>  judge agrees that not releasing source code is a breach of the 
> license, because she talks about release of the source code of 
> Gemini being a cure for the breach.

The judge did *not* legally interpret the GPL contract Hyman. You
can spin forever but it won't change the fact that the GPL remains
un-interepreted by a federal judge.

The Judge ruled:

"Affidavits submitted by the parties’ experts raise a factual
dispute concerning whether the Gemini program is a derivative or an
independent and separate work under GPL ¶ 2."

Since the facts were in dispute, the Court found no reason to
proceed to a contractual interpretation of the GPL's ¶ 2. The judge
simply acknowledged the *existence* of the GPL's ¶ 2. There is not
the slighted hint of a suggestion that the Judge attempted to apply
Massachusetts contract law or federal copyright law to interpret the
GPL -- except in your delusional mind.

I am verifiably citing what the Judge did not *write* in the ruling
-- that the GPL is enforceable. Your are claiming what the Judge
read and did decide *in her mind* -- at least as it appears to your
delusional mind.

There weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeent the goalposts.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)