Due diligence is a plausible argument, though to me it seems a bit like
mentioning that your stolen car had a for-sale sign on it, just to cover the
possibility that the thief might have thought their theft was a purchase. It
seems a bit over-diligent.
I'm completely lost when you suggest that
this has anything to do with a fishing expedition, though. Do you even know
what that term means? If both sides agree that the GPL isn't worth mentioning,
that would simplify discovery, not complicate it. Instead, we have a
probably-irrelevant complication that could be used to justify fishing
expeditions by either side. All of which could have been avoided if
the unapplied and thus irrelevant license wasn't mentioned in the first
place.
As for the Neimann-Marcus analogy, that fails on so many levels,
I don't even know where to begin. The complaint clearly states what copyrights
were infringed. The GPL is only relevant if the defendants choose to
try to use it as a defense, and if they have any sense, and any
halfway-competent lawyers, they won't even bother.
---
Do not meddle
in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
