Tim Smith wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Failing to distribute source code is a contract breach and not a > > violation of a work's permitted use under copyright law. There is > > obviously no provision under U.S. copyright law to *force* a party who > > has permission to copy and make derivative works to distribute those > > copyrighted works. Those actions are solely a contractual matter. > > Irrelevant, since plaintiff's claim is that Monsoon is not a party who > has permission to copy and make derivative works.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/sep/20/busybox/complaint.pdf The complaint argues that Monsoon *lost* the rights to BusyBox code the moment it shipped object code without offering the source code also. The complaint refers to attached "GNU General Public License, Version 2" ("the License") [it refers to it more than a dozen of times!!!] seeking rescission of this contract (note that in the mean time Monsoon already cured alleged breach***) to begin with. Let's suppose that rescission will fly... is there anything in the GPL precluding Monsoon to become a party to GPL contract once again after rescission? So how can you claim that Monsoon is not a party who has permission to copy and make derivative works? Care to elaborate? ***) http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf "With respect to the General Public License... I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the Gemini source code in July 2001 didnt cure the breach." regards, alexander. -- "The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated." -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
