[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?