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

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

Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander


From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:42:51 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)

David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack <address@hidden> writes:

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?


Ah. . . the Wallace v. F.S.F. case eh? If I remember correctly that's
where arch pro bono "legal expert" for the F.S.F., Professor Eben
Moglen, lacked the legal acumen (and cojones) to defend a simple
lawsuit filed by a pro se plaintiff (Wallace). This, after Moglen had
bragged:

"24. In my role as General Counsel of the Foundation, I have been
primarily responsible for all worldwide enforcement activity in
defense of the GPL since 1994..."
http://www.gnu.org/press/mysql-affidavit.html


Instead of defending the FSF, Moglen hired the expensive
multi-national law firm of Ice Miller L.L.P. in Indianapolis, IN.
Doesn't say too much for Moglen's personal "pro bono" expertise huh?
Either Moglen was unqualified as a lawyer or Wallace was a very tough
customer (there's no evidence on record that Moglen is admitted to
practice law in the federal courts or has ever passed a state bar exam).

In the Wallace v. F.S.F. case the F.S.F. filed a Motion to Dismiss,
explicitly claiming that the GPL was a contract:

"Plaintiff's [Wallace] mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response
has no bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss
because the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that
the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the
complaint, the contract controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc.,
398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005)."
http://osdir.com/ml/gnu-misc-discuss-gnu/2009-05/msg00193.html


The F.S.F. has spent years using sites like Groklaw astroturfing the
claim “The GPL is a License, Not a Contract" and then contradicts
itself by claiming in federal court that the GPL is a contract. After
the lawsuit ends the F.S.F. again claims the GPL is not a contract.
That's my definition of a nut-job.

Sincerely,
Rjack


reply via email to

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