RJack <u...@example.net> writes: > Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> Hyman Rosen wrote: >>> On 2/25/2010 3:07 PM, RJack wrote: >>>> Troll vs. Hyman's fertile imagination. Troll wins another one. >>>> ROFL. >>> No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court. >> >> Moving targets once again, silly Hyman? >> >> Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed initial conference and >> motions. But in the current case defendants seem to be willing to >> call the SFLC's bluff in court. >> > > Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and run > once again. The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge.
It's not likely that it will get it unless a defendant claims compliance as a defense. If he doesn't, there is no reason for a judge to review the GPL as it can't be relevant without the defendant agreeing to rely on its permissions. If he doesn't, it is a piece of paper irrelevant to the parties' relations and the case. > It's obvious the defendants aren't the slightest bit intimidated by > the SFLC clowns. Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath of the settlements? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
