[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Attorney fees
From: |
Hyman Rosen |
Subject: |
Re: Attorney fees |
Date: |
Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:20:41 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) |
rjack wrote:
If the SFLC is actually settling these frivolous actions as their
self-serving blog statements claim, then let them present their
evidence. It's put-up or shut-up time for the SFLC. It is their burden
of proof.
It's pretty simple, actually. Just demonstrate a case where someone
is distributing binaries derived from GPLed code without the source
being available. Terekhov will no doubt point to Verizon/Actiontec,
but in that case the source is available from someone who has a
business relationship with Verizon, so it would be difficult to attack
Verizon on the fine details of the GPL. Can you find any example where
the SFLC dropped a case and the source code for the programs in dispute
was not made available?
- Re: Attorney fees, (continued)
- Re: Attorney fees, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/07/14
- Re: Attorney fees, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/14
- Re: Attorney fees, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/07/14
- Re: Attorney fees, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/14
- Re: Attorney fees, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/07/14
- Re: Attorney fees, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/14
- Re: Attorney fees, rjack, 2008/07/14
- Re: Attorney fees, rjack, 2008/07/14
- Re: Attorney fees, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/14
- Re: Attorney fees, rjack, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees,
Hyman Rosen <=
Re: Attorney fees, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, rjack, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/13
Re: Attorney fees, David Kastrup, 2008/07/11