Roy Schestowitz wrote:
[...]
> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2009-05-settlement
The FSF's press release is verifiably false.
"Under the agreement, the FSF has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against
Cisco."
The truth is that the lawsuit was dismissed on April 21, 2009.
http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvCisco/DISMISSAL.pdf
>From the post by Dan Ravicher we know that as of May 19, 2009 10:31 AM
there was no settlement.
http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2009/05/articles/open-source/free-software-foundation-announces-settlement-of-copyright-dispute-with-cisco-systems/
"Daniel B. Ravicher - May 19, 2009 10:31 AM
As the attorneys for the Free Software Foundation in this matter, we
wish to correct this incorrect information. The matter has NOT been
settled. On April 21st, the Judge entered an order that contemplates
that the parties will be finalizing a settlement shortly. Both parties
are pleased with the progress of our settlement discussions and expect
to reach an agreement in the very near future. At this time, we have no
further comment on the matter."
So the FSF press release should have stated
"Under the (purported) agreement, the FSF has agreed not to "reinstate"
its already dismissed lawsuit against Cisco."
or something like that.
I bet EURO 100 that if you ask Cisco to confirm the details of the
"settlement" with the FSF you'll get the same reaction as in the case of
Verizon.
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html
"Strigl looked at me with a blank face and asked me to repeat my
question. He was completely clueless.
He then asked one of his PR people to answer, and they too were
clueless."
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
|
|
