Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Why don't you try quoting "the concerns" from
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/complaint-2008-12-11.pdf
Certainly:
40. Between April 9 and July 11, 2008, the parties frequently
exchanged correspondence regarding outstanding issues. Defendant
represented that it had resolved most of the violations raised by
Plaintiff. The parties agreed to hold a conference call on July 24,
2008 to discuss the terms of an agreement by which Defendant’s
right to distribute Plaintiff’s software would be restored.
41. For a third time, the parties discussed Plaintiff’s concerns
regarding Defendant’s unlicensed use and distribution of the Programs
in a good faith attempt to resolve the matter. Unfortunately, those
discussions have now proven unfruitful and the parties are at an impasse.
It's exactly as straightforward as the FSF describes here:
<http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2008-12-cisco-complaint>. Cisco isn't
against the GPL, but just like the smaller companies that have been sued,
they were not properly careful and dutiful when it came to complying with
it, and the lawsuit was filed in order to "encourage" Cisco to do better.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
