Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jun/10/busybox/bell-complaint.pdf > >> Which makes this case be a plain copyright-relevant-or-not case not >> involving the GPL. > > Why did SFLC attached the GPL to the complaint silly?
Because their assessment of the situation is different from that of Bell's. Since the complaint comes before the defense, they would have a hard time taking the defense into account in their complaint. But they obviously did so when settling. > Go do doctor dak. Do him yourself. I am not so taken in with him as you apparently are. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
