David Kastrup wrote:
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?
If the full force and credibility of your arguments turn on others
hurried typographical errors, you've got even bigger problems than I
first imagined. Retreat to that tactic implies an utterly desperate lack
of serious intellect.
"The Captain's scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php
ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
