Rjack <[email protected]> wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> John Hasler <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Alan Mackenzie writes: >>>> This news is particularly welcome here, since it makes it that >>>> much harder for those with unconventional modes of thinking to >>>> distort the reality in the mailing list.
>>> You would think so, wouldn't you? Soon enough we'll be told that >>> the judge was drunk or some such nonsense. >> Look's like I was wrong, for once. It took Rjack "I won't admit to >> being a lawyer" sadly little time to post what he would have liked >> to happen as though it had actually happened. > Ahhhh... What actually happened? Were you a neutral witness to the > "settlement agreement" between Cisco and FSF? Perhaps you have read a > signed and docketed copy of the settlement agreement? Yes, Mr. "I won't admit to being a lawyer". If it makes you happier, I was there in person, talked to the active participants on both sides, and did indeed read through the settlement agreement. There was a considerable degree of goodwill in evidence, and the summary on the FSF's website is accurate. [To everybody else: the above is, of course, a pork pie.] > When there is no docketed settlement agreement and the plaintiff > dismisses his case WITH PREDJUDICE, then you think the plaintiff is > entitled to his unchallenged version of success? Yes, until the other side challenges it. I'm sure Cisco has a fully capable public relations department, which will be fully aware of the SFLC's press release. It would take them at most a couple of hours to issue their own press release countering the SFLC's. Have a search for that and post the URL when (or rather, if) you find it. > Sincerely, > Rjack :) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
