Re: Attorney fees

[Hyman Rosen]

rjack wrote:
> If the SFLC is actually settling these frivolous actions as their 
> self-serving blog statements claim, then let them present their 
> evidence. It's put-up or shut-up time for the SFLC. It is their burden 
> of proof.

It's pretty simple, actually. Just demonstrate a case where someone
is distributing binaries derived from GPLed code without the source
being available. Terekhov will no doubt point to Verizon/Actiontec,
but in that case the source is available from someone who has a
business relationship with Verizon, so it would be difficult to attack
Verizon on the fine details of the GPL. Can you find any example where
the SFLC dropped a case and the source code for the programs in dispute
was not made available?