Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I just wonder why the FSF's press release doesn't say anything about the purported loss/restoration of Defendant's rights
I assume that it's because Cisco never agreed that they had lost those rights, so it would not be part of the settlement agreement that the rights were restored. Cisco agrees to be better about being in timely compliance, and the FSF agrees that this is OK with them. That's fine, since they're the rights holders. For what it's worth, I believe that reinstatement is automatic with compliance, but that's just my opinion (and apparently the opinion of Judge Saris <http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf>). The FSF would like for it to require permission, but just like for dynamic linking, it's doubtful whether they could have that enforced. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
