The original licensors of GPL’d BusyBox software have no standing to sue
for material breach of the GPL license.
The SFLC complaint drafted against Monsoon Media claims in part:
“8. Under the License, Plaintiffs grant certain permissions to other
parties to copy, modify and redistribute BusyBox so long as those
parties satisfy certain conditions. In particular, Section 2(b) of the
License, addressing each licensee, states:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms
of this License.”
A careful review of the GPL license reveals that the intended
beneficiaries are “all third parties” [sec. 2(b)] – not the original
licensor(s). The complaint asks rescission of the license based on
copies of the source code not being made available to potential
recipients (“all third parties”).
In the Monsoon case, in order to claim rescission of the GPL the
original licensors are basing their standing to do so on the basis an
injury to “all third parties” such that they do not receive source code.
The licensors in their own persons have suffered no “injury in fact” in
order to confer standing to sue for breach of contract and rescission.
Only the (unidentified) injured third party beneficiaries may sue for
the failure to make source code available.
"Standing" means that a plaintiff has a personal stake in the outcome of
a dispute sufficient to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy.
The concept focuses on whether the litigant is the proper party to fight
the lawsuit, and requires the plaintiff to be injured or have been
threatened with injury. In other words, no party is entitled to argue an
action unless he himself is adversely affected by it. BLACK'S LAW
DICTIONARY, 1413 (7th ed. 1999).
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
