[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: JMRI case -- Implementation of the Federal Circuit's Opinion

From: ZnU
Subject: Re: JMRI case -- Implementation of the Federal Circuit's Opinion
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:14:05 -0500
User-agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b2 (Intel Mac OS X)

In article <85r63dpho3.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <> 

> Rjack <> writes:
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >>> "The answer, I suspect, is that the Free Software Foundation is not
> >>> accepting compliance with the GPL as a solution. It wants more. It
> >>> wants to push Cisco around and it wants money. Here's how it thinks
> >>> it can do that." The Software Lawyer
> >>
> >> If the only consequence of being caught out of compliance is
> >> to comply, then no one will be careful to properly comply from
> >> the start. 
> >
> > The only consequence of being caught out of compliance is to receive a
> > scathing, withering and punitive Rule 41(A) Voluntary Dismissal by the
> > FSF.  Scathing, withering and punitive because we have to listen to
> > the unverifiable bullshit propaganda about what the FSF allegedly won.
> >
> > The FSF will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow a lawsuit to proceed to the
> > point where a federal judge will ever actually evaluate the GPL's
> > sec. 2(b) on the merits:
> To have the GPL evaluated on "its merits", the defendant has to state
> that he considers being in compliance with the GPL.  Up to now, none of
> the defendants put forward that theory.  So there is no point for the
> judge to go to the GPL in detail when the defendant does not claim use
> of the license: its acceptance is quite voluntary.  If the defendant did
> not accept it, the case is not about the GPL or its merits.

I'm not sure I understand this. If you reject the GPL, doesn't 
downloading a copy of a Linux distro (for instance) become copyright 
violation? The GPL is the only thing authorizing you to make that copy.

> > This particular contractual covenant is total legal gibberish.
> Compared with the usual legal texts covering copyrightable material, it
> is very clear.  And I have yet to see the "I've read the text, but it
> was gibberish to me so I assumed I could do what I want" defense with
> respect to the GPL.
> > In the Second Circuit, the district courts know full well the
> > difference between a contractual covenant, a contractual condition
> > precedent and a delimiting scope of use restriction in a copyright
> > license.
> Which is the reason why there is not much of a concern if the lower
> courts would mess up a ruling.  Since they quite consistently rule in
> the manner that gets our good Alexander up in ruffles and calls of
> inebriation, we have not seen significant GPL coverage there, however.

"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all
things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in
our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your
answer."                                  -- Barack Obama, November 4th, 2008

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]