Re: Settlements

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>> On 2/25/2010 3:07 PM, RJack wrote:
>>>> Troll vs. Hyman's fertile imagination. Troll wins another one.
>>>> ROFL.
>>> No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court.
>>
>> Moving targets once again, silly Hyman?
>>
>> Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed initial conference and
>> motions. But in the current case defendants seem to be willing to
>> call the SFLC's bluff in court.
>>
>
> Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and run
> once again. The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge.

It's not likely that it will get it unless a defendant claims compliance
as a defense.  If he doesn't, there is no reason for a judge to review
the GPL as it can't be relevant without the defendant agreeing to rely
on its permissions.  If he doesn't, it is a piece of paper irrelevant to
the parties' relations and the case.

> It's obvious the defendants aren't the slightest bit intimidated by
> the SFLC clowns.

Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath of
the settlements?

-- 
David Kastrup