[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
From: |
Rjack |
Subject: |
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!" |
Date: |
Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:28:24 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
This something the SFLC NEVER, NEVER, NEVER wanted to happen.
The other cases were settled when the defendants came into
compliance with the GPL. Generally speaking, no one wants to
go to court if they can settle, because going to court brings
an element of unpredictability.
"Unpredictability" as in having the GPL being declared voidable
because it's preempted by 17 USC 301(a) ?
"Unpredictability" as in having the GPL being declared voidable
because a contract cannot bind *all third parties* in rem? The
GPL proposition that a contract can reach out and bind "all third
parties under the terms of this License" is a legal flying pig
and the SFLC and FSF know it. As the United States Supreme Court
unequivocally stated, ("It goes without saying that a contract
cannot bind a nonparty."; EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279,
294 (2002)).
I have served on jury duty
where the case was settled on the same morning as we were
about to begin hearing testimony. But your opinion that the
SFLC is afraid to pursue the cases in court should settlement
not be forthcoming is based on no evidence, and is wishful
thinking only.
Hymen did you notice that after I corrected the FSF about a license
being a contract, they subsequently stopped claiming that "license
are not contracts"?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
Hymen did you notice that after I pointed out that the SFLC failed
to plead the registration of Monsoon's copyrights that they
subsequently corrected themselves and filed the copyright
registrations in the Cisco case?
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/complaint-2008-12-11.pdf
The SFLC and FSF read the newsgroups and other blogs. The SFLC and
FSF will NEVER, NEVER voluntarily allow the GPL to be interpreted on
its merits in a federal court. I never claimed they were simply
"afraid" of a bad ruling... they absolutely KNOW the GPL is voidable.
The SFLC and FSF's continuing voluntary dismissal strategy is simply
an abuse of the legal system in an attempt to intimidate folks.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!",
Rjack <=
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rjack, 2009/02/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rahul Dhesi, 2009/02/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/03
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/03
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/03
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/03
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/03
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/03