After takin' a swig o' grog, Rjack belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>
>> It is a verifiable fact that in each such case the defendants
>> made the GPLed sources available, as asked in the complaint
>> against them, when they were not doing so at some point before
>> the complaint was filed.
>>
>> It remains the case that no one is using your (incorrect) legal
>> theories to openly violate the terms of the GPL. Everyone acts
>> as if the GPL is a valid license which means just what it says,
>> even people who are opposed to its principles.
>
> They don't use my legal theories because GPL advocates will NEVER,
> NEVER allow the GPL to be reviewed on its merits by a federal judge ...
Nor, apparently, will the /defendants/.
> -- they know the GPL is voidable.
Apparently, their lawyers have a different interpretation than yours.
--
We don't like their sound. Groups of guitars are on the way out.
-- Decca Recording Company, turning down the Beatles, 1962
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
