Isaac wrote: [...] > ><URL:http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html> > ><URL:http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html>
I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak seems to be unaware the District Court of Munich I judged that the GPL is a contract governed by the Sect. 158 of the German Civil Act (BGB) http://dejure.org/gesetze/BGB/158.html. http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf BTW, here's a rather funny footnote from the JBB's translation: "2 In the original judgment, the court mentions Section 158 of the "German Copyright Act". This cannot be correct since such paragraph does not exist in said Act. In addition, it is entirely clear that the court referred to Section 158 of the German Civil Code. For these reasons, the translator has taken the liberty to correct the error while at the same time acknowledging that this reference need be made." Note that Till Jaeger of JBB is Welte's attorney and sorta German Incarnation of Eben Moglen under German Law so to speak -- he runs the "Instituts für Rechtsfragen der Freien und Open Source Software" (http://www.ifross.de) which advocates that contractual "condition subsequent" model based upon Sect. 158 BGB is the right interpretation of the GPL in Germany... and also that as a consequence, the GPL'd stuff should be exempt from "first sale"... other bizarre legal constructions of his own (together with his friend Metzger) creation aside for a moment. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
