"amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> writes: > "RJack" <u...@example.net> wrote in message > news:oosdnvn5rvxl2ojwnz2dnuvz_odi4...@giganews.com... > >> >> Another frivolous lawsuit to which the SFLC can spin: >> > One can only wonder how many of these things are necessary for the FSF > and SFLC and Moglen (which seem to be MOL synonymous terms). I don't > think anyone is intimidated or even slightly fooled by the practice.
Well, since the GPLed source has been made available in each single case, it would appear that "these things" are effective. As long as they keep batting 1.0, there would appear little enough reason to stop. It obviously helps with customers getting GPLed source. > At the same time the FSF et al parades around suggesting that they are > there to save us all from unscrupulous companies that create some > desirable product By hijacking the work of others without heeding their licensing conditions. > and then want us to pay them to be able to use it. They can ask for payment in arbitrary amounts. That's not an issue for the FSF. But if they sell the stuff, they need to do it _properly_, including the GPLed sources. If they don't want to do that, they can very well develop their own software instead of misusing that of others for unlicensed purposes. > Depending on your view of the whole thing, they are either being > clowns or are a serious cancer in the industry. I think they are just > clowns desperate for recognition in some vanity fair sort of way. The defendants recognize them, the courts recognize them. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
