In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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?
has != had. -- --Tim Smith _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
