Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Round of GPL Violation Lawsuits

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 01:20:02PM -0400, rjack wrote:
> I have have never found any *verifiable* detail of *any* settlement of  
> these lawsuits other than the court records available on PACER.

You couldn't find any verifiable detail that you're an idiot even if you
inserted your own head up your own ass.

> I have read hearsay reports of settlements released from SFLC blog
> postings. . . these reports from SFLC lawyers who have spent the past  
> seven years claiming a copyright license is not a contract.
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

Of course it isn't. Copyright license -> Copyright law
                    Contract -> Contract law

DUH!

> These settlements concern BusyBox source code that has never been  
> registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The plaintiffs obviously have  
> no standing to file these frivolous suits:

Copyright does not require register at U.S. Copyright Office.

rjack obviously prefers to write frivolous accusations.

> Why believe *anything* from these SFLC crackpots?

Why believe anythhing from you, crackpot?

> THE SFLC WILL NEVER,  
> NEVER ALLOW A FEDERAL COURT TO REVIEW THE GPL ON ITS MERITS. They will  
> even dismiss WITH PREJUDICE against their own clients rather than see a  
> court actually review their moronic GPL license claims.

Your inverse logic would require people to go to court ALL THE TIME.

If the accused decides to settle, then there is no need to go all the
way. It would actually be frivolous, and following your advice could
probably bring wrath from the judges.

But hey, you're a crackpot.

Rui

-- 
Hail Eris, Hack GNU/Linux!
Today is Boomtime, the 16th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?