Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
>> The FSF has decided that this is where it wants to draw the boundary
>> for giving permission to combine GPLed software in a collective work
>> without requiring that the rest of the collective work be bound by
>> the GPL.
>
> This has got to be one of the dumbest threads I've read in quite a
> while. No a single word of any lawsuit filed by the SFLC has ever. in
> the total history of the SFLC, been perused by the eyes of a U.S.
> federal court judge. Ignore the GPL and code as you please. Should the
> SFLC file suit against you, simply file an *Answer to Complaint* with
> a blanket denial of all allegations. Filing this *Answer to Complaint*
> prevents a default judgment and places the burden on the SFLC to move
> forward with their suit. In order to move forward the GPL would
> necessarily have to be interpreted by the court.

Not at all.  This "Answer of Complaint" has to include one detail:
whether the defendant has chosen to avail himself of the GPL as a
license or not.  If he says "not", the GPL is not an issue in the case.
And the defendant has a lousy stance explaining what he is doing with
the software in the first case.

If he says "yes, I use the GPL", he has a lousy stance explaining what
he is doing ignoring the terms of the license.

There is a reason most cases go into settlement.

> The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER allow this to happen --

The defendants have a hard time to "allow this to happen" since that
means that they have agreed with the GPL's terms.

> they might be charged with involuntary manslaughter if the judge died
> from laughing too hard before he managed to stuff the GPL in the
> little round file bin.

You are a bitter old man.

-- 
David Kastrup