[Top][All Lists]

[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: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:20:41 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Huh? You're impressed by motion practice?

That long stream of denials you listed in the other post is the
perfectly routine response all complaints receive; it is the job
of the plaintiffs to prove their case, and it is routine for the
defense to deny everything except the most clear facts.

This something the SFLC NEVER, NEVER, NEVER wanted to happen.

This one could really get out of hand for the SFLC and FSF since neither is a party to the case so no automatic voluntary dismissal. This case could actually result in the GPL contract being interpreted by the court:


1. Any use of Ghostscript by Defendant was a lawful use pursuant to a license.

Diebold and Premier have retained the JONES DAY law firm with 2300 lawyers.

Artifex has retained the O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP law firm with 1000

First Motion to Dismiss says Diebold Inc. is the wrong party to sue
since Premier Election Solutions is a wholly owned independent subsidiary.

Let the games begin.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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