gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record


From: rjack
Subject: Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:23:51 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Ha!

rjack wrote:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Moshe Goldfarb <address@hidden> writes:

The problem with the GNU GPL is that it is so confusing that the people
making decisions are leery of using Open Source code because they can't
determine positively what the impact, if any, could be to their
business.
Some of this is due to confusion and misunderstanding of the GPL, but
that's really the point.
After they get caught violating the license they often plead
misunderstanding and confusion. :-)
After "they" (think Verizon) get "caught" they tell the SFLC (Software
Fictional Licensing Center) to kiss their royal ass and SFLC quickly
volunteers to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice and then claims

Both the official docket and http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/VOLUNTARY_DISMISSAL.pdf itself say that the SFLC volunteered to dismiss the lawsuit WITH PREJUDICE.
*WITH PREJUDICE*

Fascinating!

SFLC ran scared to death out of court conceding total defeat!!!

--
http://linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm

Not quite true.

Verizon handed the SFLC their clients' (Andresen and Landley) heads on a platter but... the SFLC arose from the dead and claimed standing for a "resurrection" settlement over a party that was never joined in the lawsuit -- such is the mysterious authority of the GPL license!

Hmmm... I wonder if the SFLC also had standing to force the tribal chiefs in Southern Warziristan to appoint voluntary "compliance officers" and pay undisclosed amounts.

WHAT A GLORIOUS VICTORY FOR THE GPL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

-- "Standing involves two distinct inquiries. First, an Article III federal court must ask whether a plaintiff has suffered sufficient injury to satisfy the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III ... Second, if a plaintiff has suffered sufficient injury to satisfy Article III, a federal court must ask whether a statute has conferred "standing" on that plaintiff."; Cetacean Community v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2004) --





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]