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

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

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:44:17 +0100

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> RJack <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >
> >> The FSF has decided that this is where it wants to draw the boundary
> >> for giving permission to combine GPLed software in a collective work
> >> without requiring that the rest of the collective work be bound by
> >> the GPL.
> >
> > This has got to be one of the dumbest threads I've read in quite a
> > while. No a single word of any lawsuit filed by the SFLC has ever. in
> > the total history of the SFLC, been perused by the eyes of a U.S.
> > federal court judge. Ignore the GPL and code as you please. Should the
> > SFLC file suit against you, simply file an *Answer to Complaint* with
> > a blanket denial of all allegations. Filing this *Answer to Complaint*
> > prevents a default judgment and places the burden on the SFLC to move
> > forward with their suit. In order to move forward the GPL would
> > necessarily have to be interpreted by the court.
> 
> Not at all.  This "Answer of Complaint" has to include one detail:
> whether the defendant has chosen to avail himself of the GPL as a
> license or not.  

Uh silly dak. 

It doesn't have to include your hallucinatory details.

Here's an answer to the GPL complaint:

http://www.terekhov.de/14.pdf

How come that SFLC moved the court to dismiss the case almost 
immediately after the answer to the complaint was filed?

"12. Bell Microproducts admits that it purchases storage devices that 
contain firmware from a third party. Bell Microproducts is unaware if 
the firmware it purchases from the third party contains BusyBox. Bell 
Microproducts states that the License speaks for itself and on that 
basis,denies any allegations of paragraph 12 inconsistent therewith. 
Except as expressly admitted, Bell Microproducts denies all the 
allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

13. In response to paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts 
denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation 
contained therein.

14. In response to paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts 
states that the License speaks for itself and on that basis, denies 
any allegations of paragraph 14 inconsistent therewith.

15. Upon information and belief, Bell Microproducts denies the 
allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.

16. In response to paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts 
admits that Plaintiffs sent a letter dated April 21, 2008, addressed 
to “Hammer Storage by Bell Microproducts” alleging Hammer Storage 
failed to comply with the License. Except as expressly admitted, 
Bell Microproducts denies, generally and specifically, the 
allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint.

COUNT 1
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

17. In response to paragraph 17, Bell Microproducts incorporates its 
answers from paragraphs 1 through 16 as though fully stated herein.

18. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 
to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of 
the Complaint.

19. In response to paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts 
denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation 
contained therein.

20. In response to paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts 
denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation 
contained therein.

21. In response to paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts 
denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation 
contained therein.

22. In response to paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts 
denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation 
contained therein.

In response to Plaintiffs’ “Prayer for Relief,” Bell Microproducts 
denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief, injunctive, 
monetary, or otherwise, against Bell Microproducts.

DEFENSES
FIRST DEFENSE
(FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM)

The Complaint fails to set forth facts sufficient to state a claim 
upon which relief may be granted against Bell Microproducts and 
fails to state facts sufficient to entitle Plaintiffs to the relief 
sought, or to any other relief from Bell Microproducts.

SECOND DEFENSE
(ESTOPPEL)

Plaintiffs are estopped from pursuing their claims against Bell 
Microproducts.

THIRD DEFENSE
(UNCLEAN HANDS)

The Complaint, and each claim for relief therein that seeks equitable 
relief, is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.

FOURTH DEFENSE
(WAIVER)

Plaintiffs have waived their claims against Bell Microproducts.

FIFTH DEFENSE
(DE MINIMIS USE)

Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of de minimis use.

SIXTH DEFENSE
(FIRST SALE DOCTRINE)

Plaintiffs claims are barred by the first sale doctrine.

SEVENTH DEFENSE
(INDEMNIFICATION)

Any purported damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs are the 
results of the acts or omissions of third persons over whom Bell 
Microproducts had neither control nor responsibility.

EIGHTH DEFENSE
(RIGHT TO ASSERT ADDITIONAL DEFENSES)

Bell Microproducts reserves the right to assert additional 
affirmative defenses as such time and to such extent as warranted 
by discovery and the factual developments in this case.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Bell Microproducts prays as follows:

(1) That Plaintiffs take nothing by virtue of the Complaint herein 
and that this action be dismissed in its entirety;

(2) For costs and attorneys’ fees incurred; and

(3) For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and 
proper."


regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)


reply via email to

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