RJack <u...@example.net> writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> The FSF has decided that this is where it wants to draw the boundary >> for giving permission to combine GPLed software in a collective work >> without requiring that the rest of the collective work be bound by >> the GPL. > > This has got to be one of the dumbest threads I've read in quite a > while. No a single word of any lawsuit filed by the SFLC has ever. in > the total history of the SFLC, been perused by the eyes of a U.S. > federal court judge. Ignore the GPL and code as you please. Should the > SFLC file suit against you, simply file an *Answer to Complaint* with > a blanket denial of all allegations. Filing this *Answer to Complaint* > prevents a default judgment and places the burden on the SFLC to move > forward with their suit. In order to move forward the GPL would > necessarily have to be interpreted by the court.
Not at all. This "Answer of Complaint" has to include one detail: whether the defendant has chosen to avail himself of the GPL as a license or not. If he says "not", the GPL is not an issue in the case. And the defendant has a lousy stance explaining what he is doing with the software in the first case. If he says "yes, I use the GPL", he has a lousy stance explaining what he is doing ignoring the terms of the license. There is a reason most cases go into settlement. > The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER allow this to happen -- The defendants have a hard time to "allow this to happen" since that means that they have agreed with the GPL's terms. > they might be charged with involuntary manslaughter if the judge died > from laughing too hard before he managed to stuff the GPL in the > little round file bin. You are a bitter old man. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
