David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I *do* know of five plaintiff suits filed by the SFLC for copyright >> infringement under the GPL that have been defeated. I know that you >> want to count running scared "voluntary dismissals" as "victories" but >> reasonable people know better. >A so-called defeat would imply that the source remains closed since that >was the objective of the law suit... Rjack did a subtle change-of-subject here. We were talking about Rjack's claim essentially that the GPL is invalid according to Rjack's numerous useless out-of-context quotes, some without citations, and almost all without public links. I assume he doesn't provide public links because he prefers that we not read the cases from which he gets his quotes. I stated that no plaintiff has ever defeated the GPL. Rjack could not find a plaintiff that had. Rather than admitting this, Rjack tried to confuse the issue by implying that if a voluntary dismissal occurs, that means a plaintiff has defeated the GPL. Rjack knows perfectly well that that is not the case. To defeat the GPL, a plaintiff would actually have to win, not just get a voluntary dismissal and a settlement. Hasn't happened yet. Unlikely to happen, given the CAFC'S ruling in the JMRI case. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
