|
From: | rjack |
Subject: | Re: Monsoon settles: complies with GPL, pays undisclosed sum |
Date: | Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:07:55 -0400 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) |
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:47:44PM -0400, rjack wrote:Geza Giedke wrote:The case of GPL-violation by Monsoon Multimedia that was discussed here recently has been settled out of court."The SFLC is using threats of copyright infringement prosecution under the GPL as a tactical matter to force Monsoon Multimedia to comply with a contractual covenant.The SFLC will never allow a federal court to examine the GPL on its merits.
If the suit goes forward (which I seriously doubt). . .Yeah, but it seems all lawyers, even experienced ones, seem to cave in rather than following your expectations, which have had an yet unbeatable success rate of 0%. Keep on with the good job, rjack/therekov... Rui
My *expectation* (as quoted above) was "If the suit goes forward (which I seriously doubt)...". That's a 100% percent success rate with respect to my expectations since the suit did not proceed to court.
Your claim of "legal success" for the GPL is a variation of the thefamous fallacious "argument from ignorance" -- a lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignoranceThe evidence for the legal enforceability must be based on federal statutes and established case law. *Copious legal evidence* in the form of both federal statutes and appellate case rulings has been presented arguing against the claim of GPL enforceability. There exists an abysmal *lack of legal evidence* cited to support the enforceability of the GPL.
The GPL has *never been tested in court* and never will be if the SFLC has a way to prevent actual judicial review. The SFLC has displayed only a consistent *lack of legal evidence* for GPL enforceability.
:)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |