Rjack wrote:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Hyman Rosen <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Rjack wrote:
>>>> The BusyBox suits are over. Get over spinning the
>>>> hypothetical settlements.
>>> After each case was settled, the defendants or their agents
>>> made the source code properly available under the GPL.
>>>
>>>> Move on to creating explanations to justify the SFLC's
>>>> evasion of an interpretation of the GPL on its merits in the
>>>> upcoming expected voluntary dismissal in the Cisco case.
>>> The explanation is that once the parties reach agreement on a
>>> settlement, the case is dismissed. Courts do not hold trials
>>> when the parties no longer have a dispute.
>>
>> Also there is no "evasion of an interpretation of the GPL" since
>> the GPL is not even under dispute. It would only be under
>> dispute if the defendants claimed compliance as a defense. The
>> cases up to now have been cut&dry sufficiently for that not to be
>> a viable option.
>>
>> So even if the SFLC carried on, they'd get an interpretation of
>> the validity of copyright law in general rather than of the GPL.
>> Nothing interesting in that.
>>
>
> Would the GPL be construed as a contract and interpreted under state
> law?
No. It is a licence
And you are dumb. Incredibly so
--
Tact, n.:
The unsaid part of what you're thinking.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
