Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> On 2/10/2010 10:08 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>> At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar
>>> the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from
>>> SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as
>>> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/
>>> in which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly frivolous
>>> 'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2)
>>> Erik Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was
>>> NOT joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work
>>> known as busybox at http://busybox.net/.
>>
>> The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it has
>> filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the GPL. No
>> defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs.
>
> The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals before

What's "automatic" and "involuntary" about dismissals that are filed
after settling?

> any judge could ever read their frivolous Complaints. Why why would a
> plaintiff answer a Complaint that has been dismissed?

Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available in the course of
a settlement?

-- 
David Kastrup