Conversation

Notices

Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Monday, 13-Nov-2017 19:48:32 UTC Hallå Kitteh
- SeaSharp
- happy GNU
@seasharp @happygnu The conflict[0] between the SFLC[1] and the SFC[2].

Some discussion and links at [3] and [4].

[0] https://softwarefreedom.org/blog/2017/nov/06/conservancy-stmt/

[1] https://softwarefreedom.org/ Software Freedom Law Center
[2] https://sfconservancy.org/ Software Freedom Conservancy

[3] https://social.heldscal.la/notice/4609336
[4] https://social.heldscal.la/notice/4631988
In conversation Monday, 13-Nov-2017 19:48:32 UTC from social.heldscal.la permalink
Attachments
1. Untitled attachment
2. Untitled attachment
3. Untitled attachment
4. No result found on File_thumbnail lookup.
  
  Thu Nov 09 01:15:20 +0000 2017 (Qvitter)
  
  By Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la) from social.heldscal.la
  
  There's a great overview of the forces behind the lawsuit in the comments to https://lwn.net/Articles/738046/ .
  
  In particular, Bruce Perens provides a timeline of events at https://lwn.net/Articles/738109/ .
  
  lobstrors are discussing it at gsvdqe/sflc_files_bizarre_legal_action_against .
5. No result found on File_thumbnail lookup.
  
  Fri Nov 10 11:25:33 +0000 2017 (Qvitter)
  
  By Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la) from social.heldscal.la
  
  Here's the conclusion of the legal response.
  
  > AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
  > 1. Petitioner’s claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
  > 1. Petitioner’s claim is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
  > 2. Petitioner’s claim is barred by the doctrine of laches.
  > 3. Petitioner’s claim is barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
  > 4. Petitioner’s claim is barred by the doctrine of acquiescence.
  
  So as a layperson I figured out at least one of those, not bad. :-D
  
  http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92066968&pty=CAN&eno=5
  
  To understand the whole document, which is mostly terse references to the claims made in the original petition, that petition is here:
  
  http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92066968&pty=CAN&eno=1
  
  A little bit more on what the response means here:
  
  https://communityovercode.com/2017/11/legal-issues-software-freedom/
  
  Karl Fogel's excellent insights, as someone who knows the people involved:
  
  http://www.rants.org/2017/11/conservancy_sflc_dispute/
  
  Also, I noticed that the SFC's legal counsel in these proceedings is Pamela Chestek! She has been in Free Software law for quite some time, and you may remember her from talks such as https://social.heldscal.la/url/937238 . :-)

Public

Conversation

Notices

Feeds