Re: Settlements

[RJack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> > 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.

Why is it that you GNUtians slip into solipsistic denials whenever you
are confronted with incontrovertible, verifiable evidence of prevailing
law? Your eyes close and you simply refuse to confront reality.

The SFLC cases are being prosecuted in the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals in the United States. You have repeatedly ignored that court's
rulings and insisted upon making up your own legal nonsense.

One more time:

"As we said in Bourne, when the contested issue is the scope of a
license, rather than the existence of one, the copyright owner bears the
burden of proving that the defendant's copying was unauthorized under
the license and the license need not be pleaded as an affirmative
defense." Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229 (2nd Cir. 1998).

"Where the dispute turns on whether there is a license at all, the
burden is on the alleged infringer to prove the existence of the
license. See id. Where the dispute is only over the scope of the
license, by contrast, "the copyright owner bears the burden of proving
that the defendant's copying was unauthorized." Id. Tasini v. New York
Times, 206 F.3d 161 (2nd Cir. 2000} affrm'd, New York Times Co. v.
Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001)

This situation is like Hyman Rosen's repeated denials that the U.S.
Supreme Court's rulings are the controlling law within the United States
federal system:

"[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial
system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower
federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts
may think it to be."; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982).

"An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at
154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S.
417 (1984).

We can be open to opinions concerning interpretations of facts and law
but at some point, continuing your denials on incontrovertible,
authoritative rulings simply merits that you be ignored in the future.

> > 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?

There are no settlements and you can't produce a copy of one. You can
only claim imaginary settlements which, of course, no one believes in.

Sincerely,
RJack :)