Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> > This is true of Stallman's written works, but I would be very wary of >> > putting any trust in something from a transcription of an audio >> > recording of a spoken comment made in a Q&A session after a speech. >> >> He's had enough real interaction with lawyers on these issues that >> surely he's formed reasonable instincts regarding them. >> >> Terekhov, on the other hand, is simply a blithering idiot. > > So how come Federal courts seem to mostly agree with Tereknov's > positions?
Huh? Terekhov has a rather bad track record of predicting verdicts. He explains this by calling judges drunk or idiots or so and blusters even more when the appellate court is of the same opinion. Now Terekhov is fabulous at quoting a lot of stuff and interpreting it in his own twisted manner and parading in the sure knowledge it supports his points. That may look convincing at times. But it does not help his predictions when actual cases are handled. > How come when RMS decides to wax forth legalistically, there never > seem to be either cases or statutes that back his position? Because the FSF is not a litigation company and so the GPL has been written not as a contract, but a license. As a consequence, it does not make sense for anybody to sue about the GPL: either it is valid, and people have to abide the terms of the license, or it isn't, and people are not in the situation where they can make use of the software in question. So GPL violators settle because they have no leg to stand on. And that means that there are few enough court cases with a definite verdict because the GPL violators lose _regardless_ of the verdict. Once the violators see that, they have nothing to gain from staying in court and settle. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
