It's now all about Moglen Ravicher LLC enforcing CLIENT'S "rights" and
not infringement actions:

---[begin quote]
"From the CLIENT “Oh, Watchtower told us that they used some open source
apps but did not mention as to what they used”. When I brought up the
fact that parts of Watchtower are based on OpenNMS, the CLIENT replied
“I could not find one ounce of mention on their website to OpenNMS or
any other Open Source code that is running on this product. That really
irritates me.”

I should also mention that this CLIENT is in final negotiations with
Cittio (they dropped their initial price considerably) so we’re not
talking a first contact cold call here - they are ready to close this
deal without a single detail concerning their use of open source".
---[end quote]

I have previously pointed to the fact that the GPL was a contract with
third party beneficiaries (CLIENTS) and as such the original licensor
and licensee of Gpl'd code had absolutely no legal standing to complain
about benefits directed to all "third parties" (CLIENTS).

GPL sec. 2) b):
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof,
to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the
terms of this License."

The Verizon case demonstrated this fact concerning lack of legal
standing. The SFLC could either dismiss their silly suit "WITH
PREDJUDICE" or face the pain of paying Verizon's attorney fees and costs.

To wit: CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-11070-LT
"03/17/2008 10 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL: Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)
of the F.R.C.P., plaintiffs Erik Andersen and Rob Landley hereby dismiss
this action against defendant Verizon Communications Inc. WITH
PREJUDICE"

It is ironic to note that the legal threats from "Ravicher Moglen LLC"
have morphed into third party beneficiary (CLIENT) contractual claims
under the GPL, since infringement actions pursuant to the GPL are
without legal standing. --- This from barristers who built their
impeccable, world famous reputations declaring "The GPL is a license NOT
a contract":

"This right to exclude implies an equally large power to license—that
is, to grant permission to do what would otherwise be forbidden.
Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within
the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but
because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license
permits." -- Eben Moglen
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

I wonder if Eben Moglen was with Hillary Clinton in Bosnia during the
heavy sniper fire?

Sincerely,
Rjack

--- The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling
Sunday, December 14 2003 @ 09:06 PM EST --- Pamela Jones