what *is* the approval process?

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 9/4/07, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Quoting Chris DiBona (cdibona at gmail.com):
>
> > Wow. I mean, seriously, wow.
>
> Chris, you're aware that that's Daniel "GPL violates the Sherman Act"
> Wallace, right?
> http://lwn.net/Articles/177293/

Brown to unwary public:

"What is there left to test? The GPL is a software license, it is not
a contract."

FSF to Judge Tinder:

Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no
bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the
Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of
an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint,
the contract controls."

IBM to Judge Kimball:

SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the
Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC
20 P.3d
388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is "well settled" that
nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Kronos, Inc.
v. AVX Corp., 612 N.E.2d 289, 292 (N.Y. 1993) ("Nominal damages are
always available in breach of contract action".).

regards,
alexander.