groklaw.net— The Wallace v. FSF case has been dismissed, with Mr. Wallace ordered to pay the Free Software Foundation's costs.Wallace sued the FSF claiming the GPL violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Mar 21, 2006View in Crawl 4
orbitallleader has been -digg'd out of sight, but he's essentially correct. The title of the post does not represent the article, the GPL has not been defended. All that's happened is that a plaintiff (who couldn't even find a lawyer who'd represent) moronified himself out of *the preliminary steps* of a court case.I badly want the gpl to be upheld as well, but so far I've never heard of it being contested. The parties involved always wind up settling before it comes to that. In my (ianal) opinion, that would seem to say everyone involved understands it's pretty incontrovertible and don't want to tangle with it. But then almost everything that happens inside a courtroom seems mystifying.
modularsky,No, he did not strengthen the GPL in any court. His comments on the merits of the GPL are considered dicta; they hold no authority, weight, or precedent. The only opinion in that case that held weight was the dismissal based on the frivolous nature of the case.
redcard: I don't know if you are aware of this but a judge's "opinion" is worth a lot more, legally, than a million of you or me's. From dictionary.com:5. Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.You see, a judge's opinion will be entered in citations on that particular case, it defines where the law will likely go in the future. So maybe you should rethink what you just said about it being "just his opinion".
"C'mon, Rose; if you're going to throw crap on the front page make sure it's accurate." ---orbitalleader.....Do you even have a clue how Digg works? Better yet, do you know why you "Digg" things?
"Uh, no, his moronic comment about Kevin Rose is not essentially correct, and that's why he was -digged."He was -digged because a horde of largely apathetic diggers took a glance and quickly decided that he must be just trolling. Then once a bandwagon had formed, those who came after also decided that must be true, since there was already a number of thumbs down. Read what he said again. He had obviously READ the article completely, well enough to perceive the dichotomy between what it said and what the posted article was claiming. The GPL wasn't upheld. It wasn't even mentioned inside the courtroom. Why? Because the case _didn't even get started_And then he castigated the poster for jumping to the wrong conclusion, rightly so. If we're all going to be ad hoc reporters we had either better get it right or there will be terabytes of misinformation flying around. What good is that?
forgetfulcaMar 21, 2006
orbitallleader has been -digg'd out of sight, but he's essentially correct. The title of the post does not represent the article, the GPL has not been defended. All that's happened is that a plaintiff (who couldn't even find a lawyer who'd represent) moronified himself out of *the preliminary steps* of a court case.I badly want the gpl to be upheld as well, but so far I've never heard of it being contested. The parties involved always wind up settling before it comes to that. In my (ianal) opinion, that would seem to say everyone involved understands it's pretty incontrovertible and don't want to tangle with it. But then almost everything that happens inside a courtroom seems mystifying.
Closed AccountMar 21, 2006
modularsky,No, he did not strengthen the GPL in any court. His comments on the merits of the GPL are considered dicta; they hold no authority, weight, or precedent. The only opinion in that case that held weight was the dismissal based on the frivolous nature of the case.
ehrichweissMar 21, 2006
redcard: I don't know if you are aware of this but a judge's "opinion" is worth a lot more, legally, than a million of you or me's. From dictionary.com:5. Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.You see, a judge's opinion will be entered in citations on that particular case, it defines where the law will likely go in the future. So maybe you should rethink what you just said about it being "just his opinion".
Closed AccountMar 21, 2006
Why would anyone thumbs down this comment? The one by machx above. I don't get it.
crazy_8Mar 22, 2006
"C'mon, Rose; if you're going to throw crap on the front page make sure it's accurate." ---orbitalleader.....Do you even have a clue how Digg works? Better yet, do you know why you "Digg" things?
forgetfulcaMar 25, 2006
"Uh, no, his moronic comment about Kevin Rose is not essentially correct, and that's why he was -digged."He was -digged because a horde of largely apathetic diggers took a glance and quickly decided that he must be just trolling. Then once a bandwagon had formed, those who came after also decided that must be true, since there was already a number of thumbs down. Read what he said again. He had obviously READ the article completely, well enough to perceive the dichotomy between what it said and what the posted article was claiming. The GPL wasn't upheld. It wasn't even mentioned inside the courtroom. Why? Because the case _didn't even get started_And then he castigated the poster for jumping to the wrong conclusion, rightly so. If we're all going to be ad hoc reporters we had either better get it right or there will be terabytes of misinformation flying around. What good is that?