* rjack peremptorily fired off this memo: > Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> >> I suspect that Verizon folks simply told SFLC that they are ready to >> raise a whole bunch of defenses resulting (if successful) in >> enforceability of GPL'd copyrights once and for all (e.g. doctrine of >> copyright misuse) and, even if that fails, they'll move to dismiss >> SFLC's *copyright infringement* claim on the grounds spelled by Judge >> White in Jacobsen case... > > You are absolutely correct. There are no valid scope of use restrictions > on the grant of rights contained in the GPL -- only [unenforceable] > contractual covenants. The SFLC will *never* allow a lawsuit to proceed > to the stage where a federal court actually reviews a Motion to Dismiss > under Rule 12 of the F.R.C.P. The only tool in the SFLC's legal arsenal > to back up their bluster is the face saving of Rule 41 of the F.R.C.P. > (Voluntary Dismissal) under mysterious "undisclosed" terms.
Then why did they bother? And, if SFLC was at such a disadvantage, why wouldn't big ol' Verizon just go ahead and let little ol' SFLC take its beating in court? > ROFL: That says it all. -- The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the first place. -- Douglas Adams _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
