'ten Tag, Peter! In gnu.misc.discuss Peter K?hlmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> < snip > >>>> But then, you're familiar with the details. Is there any evidence in >>>> this case that this dismissal has allowed the defendant (Verizon) to >>>> continue infringing the GPL? >>> Read on what "res judicata" means... >> Is there any evidence in this case that this dismissal has allowed the >> defendant (Verizon) to continue infringing the GPL? Just thought you >> might know the answer to that question. It's the main point in this >> sub-thread. If you don't know, that's fine. > He knows. That is the reason he bypasses actually answering the question I only noticed today that he's posting from a .de address. I didn't think there were people like that in Germany - I've not met any others like him, here. I'm thoroughly disillusioned now. ;-) > He knows just too well that Verizon is actually in compliance now, and for > that reason can distribute the binaries. Yes, I've kind of gathered that. > There has never been a case where a company distributing GPLed software > continued to do so without coming into compliance when the FSS (or for > example H. Welte in germany) went to court. Yes. That guy deserves an award! > The GPL is *very* enforcible, and all the idiocy from the likes of Rjack > or A.Terekhov will not change that fact All the idiocy? There's not actually very much of it, just that it gets repeated ad nauseam. ;-) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
