3 ms·

> You're telling lies: Yikes. > Cisco wouldn't settle if it could win. Of course you're right. No company would ever settle a suit it could win, after spend

> You're telling lies: Yikes. > Cisco wouldn't settle if it could win. Of course you're right. No company would ever settle a suit it could win, after spending hundreds of thousands on attorneys fees, and going through discovery. /s Note: I think Cisco was clearly in the wrong here. I think the GPL was enforceable in this instance. I just think don't the more loony claims (a dynamically linked module automatically creates a derivative work) at the fringes make much sense re: copyright law.

msla 4y ago
> Yikes. If you're telling the truth, back up your assertions. I've backed up mine. > it could win after spending hundreds of thousands on attorneys fees. You don't think Cisco has attorneys on retainer? If the BSD zealots have to resort to dishonesty, people shouldn't trust them. Also, I can't respond anymore, for some reason. I don't appreciate your trying to obfuscate what we were talking about (the enforceability of the GPL) or making it seem like settling isn't a victory.
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  > If you're telling the truth, back up your assertions. I've backed up mine. You'll have to tell me what we are we arguing about? Dynamic linking? The viral-ity of a license? Whether the GPL is enforceable? You're kinda all over the map. > You don't think Cisco has attorneys on retainer? Sure, but a retainer doesn't cover all your legal bills. You may pay a modest retainer for the availability of a certain firm/attorney, but it never covers the bulk of litigation, which is extremely expensive. > If the BSD zealots have to resort to dishonesty, people shouldn't trust them. Absolutely not a BSD zealot. More of an MPL2 man for my personal projects. Usually happy to contribute to any OSI approved licensed project though!