OK, I apologize to all who were involved in this conversation. I will block
further emails from "aconcernedfossdev" and no longer encourage him.
Bruce
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:24 PM, <aconcernedfoss...@airmail.cc> wrote:
> These are simply counterpoints the defense would likely contend and one
> should be prepared for as they could be entertained by a court.
>
> One can certainly contend that to remain silent when any reasonable person
> would speak if they were in opposition, indicates assent. The court may
> reject that argument in this case or not.
>
> Well, you are confusing civil and criminal law.
>>
>
> I am not.
> I gave that example as a supporting point to the discussion on civil law
> and equity that is almost farcical extreme example (that courts will, for
> example, hold you in contempt for not paying a settlement while you are
> imprisoned and have no way of raising the money, imprisoning the person
> again and again in perpetuity for contempt again and again (this has
> changed very recently in a few states, but not most)). This arises often
> from judgements for non-payment of civil liabilities. That does not detract
> from this statement:
>
> The court would likely feel that one could represent oneself if one
>> desired. Usually lack of finances is not taken into account by courts; only
>> real incapability (mental or physical or related to one's status as a minor)
>>
>
> Though it is said "one who represents himself usually has a fool for a
> client", that does not mean one is legally or physically incapable of
> mounting a case, thus if one does sit on one's cause of action (regardless
> of finances), laches may apply and the equitable remedies may be found to
> be out of reach.
>
>
> On 2017-07-15 02:06, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
>> Well, you are confusing civil and criminal law. I assure you winning a
>> laches defense is no sure thing, nor does it necessarily win the
>> entire case, it is more likely to only limit the period of the offense
>> for which the plaintiff may seek damages.
>>
>> And being a passive participant in Linus discussion is no tacit
>> license to your copyright rights over what the GPL already offers. If
>> Linus really wanted that, he'd have to call for opposition, and remove
>> works of opposing parties from the kernel.
>>
>
