Re: Big blow to proprietary linking nonsense.

[Hyman Rosen]

On 5/18/2010 4:37 PM, RJack wrote:
> So far, every plaintiff in a GPL lawsuit has cut and run prior to
> the court ever reading the GPL contract -- must less judging it terms.

The purpose of these lawsuits is to enforce copyright
of GPL-covered works. Since the defendants in all the
concluded cases have come into compliance with the GPL,
the lawsuits accomplished their purpose. Lawsuits do
not continue when the parties no longer have a dispute.
Courts do not offer opinions for the satisfaction of
cranks.

> It is easily verfied that the term "compliance" has
> never been raised in a GPL lawsuit -- must less enforced.

You are lying:
<http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf>
    25. Plaintiffs have at no time granted any permission to
    any party to copy, modify, or distribute BusyBox under any
    terms other than those of the License. Plaintiffs do not
    permit anyone to distribute BusyBox except in compliance
    with the License.