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

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > WOW.
>
> Huh? You're impressed by motion practice?
>
> That long stream of denials you listed in the other post is the
> perfectly routine response all complaints receive; it is the job
> of the plaintiffs to prove their case, and it is routine for the
> defense to deny everything except the most clear facts.


This something the SFLC NEVER, NEVER, NEVER wanted to happen.

This one could really get out of hand for the SFLC and FSF since 
neither is a party to the case so no automatic voluntary dismissal. 
This case could actually result in the GPL contract being 
interpreted by the court:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

1. Any use of Ghostscript by Defendant was a lawful use pursuant to 
a license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

FYI
Diebold and Premier have retained the JONES DAY law firm with 2300 
lawyers.

Artifex has retained the O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP law firm with 1000
lawyers.

First Motion to Dismiss says Diebold Inc. is the wrong party to sue
since Premier Election Solutions is a wholly owned independent 
subsidiary.

Let the games begin.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)