Linux.com

Of course, besides the question - "did Connolly distributed the code himself?" -, there is also the most essential question: "Was anything taken form Connolly?". But this is just what Connolly claims himself.

If the author wanted to state that nothing was taken from Connolly, he should do so the same way you did on your comment! Instead, he cites some completely out of context Eben Moglen's quote.

The article should just say nothing was taken from Connolly. But instead, it says:

Sakic's mistake was not in developing and distributing a derivative work of the code he wrote for Connolly, but in emailing Connolly to tell him what he'd done, (...)

Because of the above quote, I cited the GPL FAQ. The above states that Sakic distributed some code he did not own (as far as I understand). If this was not what happened, this is completely missleading!

#