Rjack <user@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> Hyman Rosen wrote: [...]
>>> See the copyright notice on that manual? That's Verizon, not
>>> Actiontec.
>>
>> Yes, the manual is copyrighted by Verizon, you idiot. But where is
>> *Verizon's* distribution of "complete corresponding source code"
>> regarding http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
>> download to allow ALL downloaders of that aggregate of computer
>> programs works in binary form to see and play with the source code?
>>
>>
>
> The verifiable facts are that Freetard legal representitives have
> filed seven frivolous lawsuits
Huh? Frivolous lawsuits are not getting dismissed. They typically end
with the plaintiff having to pay court fees and the other party's
counsel.
> and have never proceeded as far as as receiving an Answer or facing a
> Motion for Summary Judgement. They have never received *any*
> requested relief from any claim -- they in fact have been 100% skunked
> as they ran away.
Huh? The defendants came into compliance with the GPL terms, so the
copyright violation case became irrelevant.
> All the spin and all the FUD in the World about ulterior motives and
> corollary goals (blah, blah, blah) will not change the verifiable
> facts. The GPL lawsuits totally failed in their requested relief.
Uh yes. Because they were copyright cases. The FSF can't ask the court
to tell the defendant to comply with GPL terms since _compliance_ _is_
_voluntary_. This is even spelled out explicitly in the license. But
they can ask the court to have the defendant heed copyright. If the
defendant instead chooses to heed the GPL license terms voluntarily
after all, there is nothing with which the court need then be bothered.
> Freetards remind one of Vice President Dick Cheney. Having been
> thoroughly trounced, they spin and spin in a vain and embarrassing
> attempt to rewrite history.
Well, embarrassment does not seem all too foreign to you.
--
David Kastrup
|
|
