Re: As the GPL fades

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 2/5/2010 1:02 PM, RJack wrote:
> > The SFLC filed seven consecutive BusyBox lawsuits without the
>  > underlying works being registered with the U.S. Copyright Office
>  > -- this fact rendered those frivolous lawsuits without standing
>  > to be heard by a federal court:
>
> And yet, in every single case filed by the SFLC, the defendants
> decided to come into compliance with the GPL. Perhaps they know
> something that you choose to ignore.
>
> > I predict the SFLC can prevent the legal interpretation of the
>  > GPL by a federal court for another twenty years.
>
> Federal courts will never need to interpret the GPL, because its
> meaning is straightforward and its terms are easily honored.  In
> the various cases filed by the SFLC, the problem has been laziness,
> not deliberate lack of compliance. Once the defendant's attention
> is focused by a lawsuit, compliance quickly follows.

"The Captain's scared them out of the water!" -- again. ROFL

> Large companies such as Microsoft understand that the GPL is a valid
> license whose terms must be honored. That is why they are careful to
> avoid it if they wish not to be bound by its terms:
> <http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/misc/07-05statement.mspx>

Sincerely,
RJack :)