Tim Smith wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So? Why do you think it significant that no stipulation was filed? If > > > the prerequisites of 41(a)(1)(A)(i) were met, why would they not use > > > that section, and make the simpler, smaller, filing? > > > > If they've settled, why not roll the agreement into a court order by > > mutual stipulation akin to > > <http://petsforum.com/PSW/Docket/Stipulation.htm> (see also > > http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/gcdltep/related/SettlementAgreement-08-25-06.pdf)? > > > > Even wikipedia knows that > > > > "Generally, when a settlement is reached in the U.S., it will be > > submitted to the court to be "rolled into a court order". This is done > > so that the court which was initially assigned the case may retain > > jurisdiction over it. The court is then free to modify its order as > > necessary to achieve justice in the case, and a party that breaches the > > settlement may be held in contempt of court, rather than facing only a > > civil claim for the breach. In cases where confidentiality is required > > by the parties, the court order may refer to another document which is > > not disclosed, but which may be revealed to prove a breach of the > > settlement." > > What's the point? Verizon's subcontractor made the source available:
What does that have to do with the lawsuit against Verizon? Actiontec is not a party to that "settled" lawsuit to begin with. SFLC sued Verizon, not Actiontec. > > <http://opensource.actiontec.com/> The code was made available by Actiontec prior to lawsuit. Yet SFLC sued Verizon. > > News reports said the settlement also included some money to the BusyBox > developers. If all the settlement involved was some money and an > agreement that the source would be made available, and the money has > been paid and the source is now available, what is there to potentially > be breached? The plaintiffs got all they wanted, so there's nothing > left for them to ask the court to order. How about <http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp>, which SFLC complained about back in December (asking for source code or "offers to provide such source code" *from Verizon*) and which is still unchanged? 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.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss