Re: Settlements

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> 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.

[...]

> 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.

At some point of time you have to make up your mind whether or not there
has been an authoritive ruling with regard to the GPL or not.

Vehemently claiming both at once looks a bit silly.

>> 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.

Why else would the defendants bother to make the GPLed source available
in the aftermath of the settlements?

-- 
David Kastrup