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

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

Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?


From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:13:26 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

Rjack <address@hidden> writes:

I *do* know of five plaintiff suits filed by the SFLC for copyright
infringement under the GPL that have been defeated. I know that you
want to count running scared "voluntary dismissals" as "victories" but
reasonable people know better.

A so-called defeat would imply that the source remains closed since that
was the objective of the law suit...

Rjack did a subtle change-of-subject here. We were talking about Rjack's
claim essentially that the GPL is invalid according to Rjack's numerous
useless out-of-context quotes, some without citations, and almost all
without public links. I assume he doesn't provide public links because
he prefers that we not read the cases from which he gets his quotes.

If you're too lazy or unable to research a rebuttal to my citations,
perhaps you should hop on down to Starbucks and have a nice, hot cup
of coffee. One tactic of script-kiddie trollers like you is to
repeatedly challenge a poster's documented claims with childish
put-downs. This may make you admired among your fellow
script-kiddies but reasonable people will ignore your whining.

I stated that no plaintiff has ever defeated the GPL.

Rjack could not find a plaintiff that had. Rather than admitting this,
Rjack tried to confuse the issue by implying that if a voluntary
dismissal occurs, that means a plaintiff has defeated the GPL.  Rjack
knows perfectly well that that is not the case.  To defeat the GPL, a
plaintiff would actually have to win, not just get a voluntary dismissal
and a settlement.


Rjack is certainly not dumb enough to rise to your challenge and
attempt to "find" a plaintiff, thereby attempting to prove a
negative. If you wish to claim that flying pigs (your imaginary
plaintiffs) exist then produce your flying pigs for examination.

Hasn't happened yet. Unlikely to happen, given the CAFC'S ruling in the
JMRI case.

I've already rebutted your unfounded claim about the CAFC ruling.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)









reply via email to

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