For Approval: GPLv3

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 9/1/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
>
> > If this obligation didn't exist, it would make no sense to argue for
> > specific performance in a GPL violation lawsuit
>
> I don't think the FSF has argued (or threatened) specific performance.

http://www.fsf.org/news/microsoft_response

"We will ensure ... that Microsoft ... complies with our licenses"

("Microsoft would be bound by GPLv3 to extend that same promise of
safety to all downstream users of that software")

How is that not a threat of specific performance, Matt?

regards,
alexander.