Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
> > This something the SFLC NEVER, NEVER, NEVER wanted to happen.
>
> The other cases were settled when the defendants came into
> compliance with the GPL. Generally speaking, no one wants to
> go to court if they can settle, because going to court brings
> an element of unpredictability. 

"Unpredictability" as in having the GPL being declared voidable 
because it's preempted by 17 USC 301(a) ?

"Unpredictability" as in having the GPL being declared voidable 
because a contract cannot bind *all third parties* in rem? The
GPL proposition that a contract can reach out and bind "all third
parties under the terms of this License" is a legal flying pig
and the SFLC and FSF know it. As the United States Supreme Court 
unequivocally stated, ("It goes without saying that a contract 
cannot bind a nonparty."; EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 
294 (2002)).

> I have served on jury duty
> where the case was settled on the same morning as we were
> about to begin hearing testimony. But your opinion that the
> SFLC is afraid to pursue the cases in court should settlement
> not be forthcoming is based on no evidence, and is wishful
> thinking only.

Hymen did you notice that after I corrected the FSF about a license 
being a contract, they subsequently stopped claiming that "license
are not contracts"?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

Hymen did you notice that after I pointed out that the SFLC failed 
to plead the registration of Monsoon's copyrights that they 
subsequently corrected themselves and filed the copyright 
registrations in the Cisco case?
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/complaint-2008-12-11.pdf

The SFLC and FSF read the newsgroups and other blogs. The SFLC and 
FSF will NEVER, NEVER voluntarily allow the GPL to be interpreted on 
its merits in a federal court. I never claimed they were simply
"afraid" of a bad ruling... they absolutely KNOW the GPL is voidable.

The SFLC and FSF's continuing voluntary dismissal strategy is simply 
an abuse of the legal system in an attempt to intimidate folks.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)