Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> RJack <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > 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. > > Uh silly dak. > > It doesn't have to include your hallucinatory details. > > Here's an answer to the GPL complaint: > > http://www.terekhov.de/14.pdf > > How come that SFLC moved the court to dismiss the case almost > immediately after the answer to the complaint was filed? > > "12. Bell Microproducts admits that it purchases storage devices that > contain firmware from a third party. Bell Microproducts is unaware if > the firmware it purchases from the third party contains BusyBox. Bell > Microproducts states that the License speaks for itself and on that > basis,denies any allegations of paragraph 12 inconsistent therewith. > Except as expressly admitted, Bell Microproducts denies all the > allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
Well, Bell states that it is not privy to a purported copyright transgression, and thus explicitly states that it has not availed themselves of the GPL as a license, as they claim not to be in need of any license at all from the plaintiff. Which makes this case be a plain copyright-relevant-or-not case not involving the GPL. In short, again you post lots of stuff proving the point you are feigning to counter. Bell does exactly what I state a defendant would: declare whether they consider themselves in need of a license at all, and their declaration here is "no". -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
