Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/284.pdf
Of the various claims, the only one relevant to this newsgroup is the request for a preliminary injunction. The others are patent claims, DMCA claims, attorney fee claims, and other such irrelevancies. The District Court appears to have decided to ignore the meat of the opinion of the Appeals Court <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> while selectively reading just a bit of it and claiming to obey it. The Appeals Court said "The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief." Instead, the District Court decided to focus on the part of the Appeals Court decision where the judges enumerated some possible non-monetary considerations that an author might benefit from, and said that a plaintiff must show that he was specifically harmed in one of these ways. That is exactly contrary to what the Appeals Court said above. I predict another round trip through the appeals process. Clearly, the District Court judge was drunk. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
