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

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

Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Round of GP


From: rjack
Subject: Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Round of GPL Violation Lawsuits
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:20:02 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)

amicus_curious wrote:

"Alexander Terekhov" <address@hidden> wrote in message news:address@hidden

"All of the previous lawsuits have resulted in out-of-court settlements
requiring the defendants to distribute source code in compliance with
the GPL."

In every one of the cases that I have managed to find that had any detail, the "compliance" involved was publishing the source of the original GPL product used. There doesn't seem to be any instance of the defendant publishing any new code.

I have have never found any *verifiable* detail of *any* settlement of these lawsuits other than the court records available on PACER.

I have read hearsay reports of settlements released from SFLC blog
postings. . . these reports from SFLC lawyers who have spent the past seven years claiming a copyright license is not a contract.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

These settlements concern BusyBox source code that has never been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The plaintiffs obviously have no standing to file these frivolous suits:

"It provides that "no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title." . . . Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is not up for debate in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we have squarely held that it is".; In re Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation 509 F.3d 116 (2nd Cir. 2007).

Why believe *anything* from these SFLC crackpots? THE SFLC WILL NEVER, NEVER ALLOW A FEDERAL COURT TO REVIEW THE GPL ON ITS MERITS. They will even dismiss WITH PREJUDICE against their own clients rather than see a court actually review their moronic GPL license claims.

Sincerely,
Rjack

-- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) --










reply via email to

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