"DFS" <nos...@dfs_.com> wrote in message
news:v%[email protected]...
Rjack wrote:
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.
FSF runs from another opportunity to prove legal enforceability claims
for the GPL. Just as I predicted. Listen for the Freetard spin.
The Cisco v. Free Software case was dismissed with prejudice and
without award of court costs. (On PACER court record 4/22/2009)
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
The "Free" software bozos requested "the Court order Defendant to account
for and disgorge to Plaintiff all profits derived by Defendant from its
unlawful acts;"
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/complaint-2008-12-11.pdf
LMAO! They sure do sound greedy for a not-for-profit, tax-exampt public
charity.
That may be the very reason that they dismissed the action (with prejudice).
They dismissed the Verizon action the same way when they discovered that one
of Verizon's suppliers was publishing the GPL source, and all they were
really after is having someone, anyone actually, toe the line. Here all
they wanted was for Cisco to toe the line, too, but you seem to have
uncovered an issue that would have violated their basic principles, so they
must have felt it necessary to withdraw. That is probably what they will
claim, anyway.
It should be unlawful to dump crappy open source code on the market for
less than the cost to produce it.
It is, if you modify your statement to "reproduce" rather than produce. It
is even unlawful to do that with non-crappy software, but the incremental
cost of reproduction, particularly if it is just available for download, is
essentially zero and not likely to evoke much of a fine.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
