Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> Can't be all, or you'd be lecturing all over the landscape instead of >> venting off your frustration here about your theories getting trounced >> in the courts. > > And to which theories of mine/court actions are you referring?
Your GPL theories, of course. The very few cases where people indeed go before court in relation to the GPL (instead of settling) end up in ways where you all bristle about how the judges must have been drunk. Whether it be Wallace, SCO (who had most of their infringement claims just thrown out of court, though in fairness due to stupidity not really connected to the GPL as such, but just their general failure to make a case in spite of having far better legal representation than Wallace), or the settlements and injunctions in connection with the netfilter code. You pick out a few irrelevant quotes from such cases and blow them out of proportion while ignoring the actual verdicts. It is actually sort of a pity that the SCO case is primarily a case of lies and hyperbole and corporate mispolicies with subsequent denial (Caldera bought out SCO and its assets among which it claims Unix heritage, put a lot into Linux, then renamed itself to SCO and sued IBM because IBM must be somehow responsible for the stuff appearing in Linux). While it is pretty obvious that SCO's case will go down in flame eventually, this actually says very little about the GPL itself. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
