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

[rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> > Somebody wants to hide something.  Who -- the defendants or the SFLC? It's
> > hard to tell.
>
> Why do you think anyone is hiding anything? For example, 
> <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/17/busybox-verizon/> says "As a
> result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and reinstate
> Actiontec's and its customer's rights to distribute BusyBox under the GPL,
> Actiontec has agreed to appoint an Open Source Compliance Officer within its
> organization to monitor and ensure GPL compliance, to publish the source code
> for the version of BusyBox it previously distributed on its Web site, and to 
> undertake substantial efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox from
> Actiontec and its customers, including Verizon, of their rights to the
> software under the GPL. The settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of
> financial consideration paid to the plaintiffs by Actiontec."
>
> I guess you can be enough of a nosey parker to want to know exactly how much
> was paid, but otherwise there isn't anything secret about the settlement
> terms.

                     The New York Enquirer

Extra! Extra!
Flying pigs sighted in Southern Federal District of New York!

Miracle in New York!
Although no independently verifiable evidence of record, plaintiffs face-saving
blog posts prove their claims after case is voluntarily dismissed with 
prejudice!


Sincerely,
Rjack :)


"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or
the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
-- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre
Trials,' December 1770