Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> > You're arguing against a caricature of his case, and not his case >> >> > itself. >> >> >> >> Yes, that's exactly what I say. >> > >> > But that caricature is of your own making. >> > >> > Wallace has 30 days to appeal. I hope he will. We'll see. >> >> Offer to pay all his legal expenses, for a small share in the >> sure-fire recompensation he is about to get on appeal. I am sure this >> will motivate him. > > He seems to be motivated enough without any offers from me.
[Appeal claim] This is going to be cute. The problem with an appeal is that Wallace does not merely have to get it right this time: he has to prove that he got it right last time around, and the court just failed to notice. It would take considerable skill to make a case that has a chance to even survive into trial. But proving that the previous attempt already was sufficient would seem like an impossibly hard problem even for somebody with a legal clue. The downside, of course, is that Wallace's doomed attempts don't actually say anything about the legal implications of the GPL either which way. They merely tell something about Wallace himself. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
