Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/17/2010 6:48 PM, RJack wrote:
> Whatever (unverifiable) source code that is provided out there (if in
> fact there is any) is years old, out of datesource modules that mock the
> claim "gaining compliance". You simply can't verify what's posted out
> there any more than you can produce a copy of a settlement agreement.

It is very easy to verify compliance; take the allegedly compliant
source code, follow its building instructions, and see if the result
is the same as the binary being copied and distributed. (I would say
"identical" but there may be artifacts such as build-time tags in the
binary that prevent exact identity.)

If the binaries have been built from old sources, then those are the
sources that need to be distributed for compliance, so that users of
the software can run, read, modify, and share the version that is on
their device.

> What you are doing Hyman is attempting to claim that "correlation
> implies causation". You can't even factually establish a correlation.
> You're practicing one of the oldest logical fallacies that naive people
> succumb to.

Silly RJack! Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Now,
it's true that correlation doesn't prove causation, but when there
is a plausible mechanism along with the correlation, then parsimony
accepts one as a cause of the other. For anyone but devoted anti-GPL
cranks, the sequence of one, a lawsuit with demands by the plaintiff,
two, a settlement of the suit, and three, the defendants acting as
the plaintiffs demanded, is proof that the lawsuit brought about the
actions.