RJack <u...@example.net> writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 2/10/2010 10:08 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >>> At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar >>> the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from >>> SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as >>> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ >>> in which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly frivolous >>> 'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) >>> Erik Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was >>> NOT joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work >>> known as busybox at http://busybox.net/. >> >> The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it has >> filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the GPL. No >> defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs. > > The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals before
What's "automatic" and "involuntary" about dismissals that are filed after settling? > any judge could ever read their frivolous Complaints. Why why would a > plaintiff answer a Complaint that has been dismissed? Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available in the course of a settlement? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
