On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 10:36:11PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Andrew Suffield writes: > > >> Estoppel would bar a claim if the plaintiff first > >> contributed code to a kernel that already had binary blob components. > >> A merely decent lawyer may be able to invoke laches depending on how > >> long an author was silent after the first binary blob was added to the > >> kernel, but merely decent lawyers are not much cheaper than good > >> lawyers. > > > > These are stock defenses that are invoked as a matter of course, in > > case something useful turns up during discovery, and which are > > notoriously difficult to prove. You need to prove *malicious* > > *intent*, not incompetence, for these defences to work. Not a good > > idea to bet on them. > > Incompetence (or laziness) on the part of the plaintiff is a perfectly > adequate reason to invoke either of those defenses. Until you cite > specific case law, I will disbelieve your claim that proof of intent > is necessary, since Google finds dismissals on those grounds that > never mention malicious intent. Judge's discretion, probably coupled with bad lawyering on the part of the prosecution. > > We have not always been paying such close attention as we currently > > do. Anybody on -legal can tell you that much. This is partially > > because we're getting better at it, and partially because SCO has > > demonstrated that it's important we be good at it. > > As of the last filings and rulings I saw, SCO has only demonstrated > that someone with more money than sense can cost other people a lot in > legal fees. This is not really news, and as a stock manipulation > scheme, it is proving to not have legs. If someone else down the road > wants to involve free software in another frivolous lawsuit, no amount > of diligence on Debian's part will prevent it. This is merely a reflection that SCO does not appear to have a case. It does not change the fact that SCO has demonstrated why it is important that they must never have a case. > Yes, Debian should make sure it will not end up on the wrong end of a > valid lawsuit, but that can be satisfied by other means than claiming > that widely used packages violate the GPL. "Yes, Debian should make sure it will not end up on the wrong end of a valid lawsuit, but that can be satisfied by other means than avoiding breaking the law" Umm... how? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature