[tzs]

> This happened a few weeks ago. But it's just a ruling on a preliminary injunction motion.

Is "preliminary injunction" the right terminology here? It sounds like it was a motion for dismissal.

Anyway, it's appalling how often the press confuses pre-trial motions like this with substantive rulings on the issues of the case.

...and it is also, sadly, no surprise that they also think that this sets precedent. Why is it so hard for them to understand the difference between trial courts and appellate courts and which set precedent?

[erikb]

The problem is us still believing that the press has any interest in the truth. They get paid for telling the most interesting story. If it's total lie, maybe sometimes someone gets fired, but the corresponding newspaper/channel still made a lot more money in the mean time.

Newspaper should be read like a novel that is "based on true events".

[adrianratnapala]

While I am also appalled by the QZ headline, I would also note that the HackerNews headline makes it abundantly clear that this is just a pre-trial motion, and yet that was enough to get me to look at the thread.

[DannyBee]

No, you are right, it was a motion to dismiss. I wrote the wrong type, but the evidentiary standards I listed are correct;)

As for press, yeah, it's frustrating and annoying, but such is the 24 hour news cycle

[bdhess]

> ...and it is also, sadly, no surprise that they also think that this sets precedent. Why is it so hard for them to understand the difference between trial courts and appellate courts and which set precedent?

Trial courts also set precedent. It doesn't carry the same weight as appellate court precedent, but their rulings do have precedential value.

[qb45]

I'll be cynical: some call it "having an axe to grind". Why do research if you can just post something that seems to align with your cause and makes you happy?

In all that we do at Quartz, we embrace openness: open source code, an open newsroom, and open access to the data behind our journalism.

[tzs]

> “Not so,” [yeah, I'm sure this is a literal quote from a court document] said Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in her order on the motion on April 25.

That is in fact a literal quote from the court document:

    Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s reliance on
    the unsigned GNU GPL fails to plausibly demonstrate
    mutual assent, that is, the existence of a contract.
    Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the
    complaint, provides that the Ghostscript user agrees
    to its terms if the user does not obtain a
    commercial license. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
    used Ghostscript, did not obtain a commercial
    license, and represented publicly that its use of
    Ghostscript was licensed under the GNL GPU. These
    allegations sufficiently plead the existence of a
    contract. See, e.g., MedioStream, Inc. v. Microsoft
    Corp., 749 F. Supp. 2d 507, 519 (E.D. Tex. 2010)
    (concluding that the software owner had adequately
    pled a claim for breach of a shrink-wrap license).

See page 4, line 17 here: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/...

[qb45]

OK, I stand corrected. I'm removing the rant.

[dTal]

>licensed under the GNL GPU.

The what?