Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> On 2/19/2010 3:26 PM, RJack wrote:
>>> For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:
>>
>> Court vs. crank again.
>>
>>> How many times have you been told that unverifiable settlement
>>> agreements are imaginary?
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_%28litigation%29> The
>> settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements of the parties,
>> and is often put in force by an order of the court after a joint
>> stipulation  by the parties. In other situations (as where the
>> claims
>>  have been satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of money) the
>> plaintiff and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has
>> been dismissed
>
>
> Sorry Hyman. Unverifiable settlement agreements are illusory.
> Claim all the unverifiable agreements you wish Hyman.

Well, if the GPLed source is made available in the aftermath, it stands
to reason that it would have been part of the settlement.  Why go to the
trouble otherwise?

-- 
David Kastrup