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

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

Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:18:15 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux)

Rjack <address@hidden> writes:

> The Software Freedom Law Center has, as a propaganda ploy, recently
> gone to court seven times and promptly voluntarily dismissed each suit
> before a federal judge could ever read a single sentence from one of
> their complaints. Now that's snatching "victory" from the jaws of
> defeat.
>
> FACT: No claim for any relief requested by an S.F.L.C. plaintiff
> has ever been granted by a federal court.

Well, since the GPL is a licence, not a contract, the law cases start
off by the parties stating their position.  The defendant has to state
whether he wants to claim making use of the GPL as a license or not.  If
he wants to make use of the GPL, he has to state how he is in compliance
with it.  It he doesn't, he has to state how he is in compliance with
copyright law.  In particular the second variant is quite uninteresting
for the SFLC since the SFLC is not interested in another case of
"copyright is valid" that does not refer to the GPL.

So the defendant prefers a settlement where he comes into compliance.
SFLC agrees.  Dismissal without prejudice.  Then there have been cases
where the defendant has been dragging his feet with regard to compliance
information so much that the SFLC had to go to court before getting the
required information, and the original premise had not been applicable.
Settlement where the defendant bears the costs, and dismissal with
prejudice.

> Why wouldn't the S.F.L.C. immediately dismiss their frivolous suits?

Because of a settlement satisfying the goals of the suit.

> Can you imagine the look on a district judge's face when he realizes
> the plaintiffs are claiming "The GPL is a License, Not a Contract"? If
> P.J. had listened to Maureen O'Gara and Daniel Wallace in 2004 instead
> of making up her own delusional law,

Daniel Wallace, the person who was prodded by the court about four times
in succession to state an actual case, and finally got his nonsense
dismissed for lack of doing so?

And Maureen O'Gara, who got shunted from her magazine for
non-professional conduct including harrassment and libel?

I think I'd rather listen to Wile E. Coyote for legal advice.

> she wouldn't appear to be such an embarrassing nut-job today. (P.J.'s
> probably a Birther, so look out Barack)

Considering embarrassing nut jobs, you seem to be close to the top of
the list.

-- 
David Kastrup


reply via email to

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