Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The court didn't rule regarding validity of the GPL provisions.
<http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf> ...Affidavits submitted by the parties’ experts raise a factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini program is a derivative or an independent and separate work under GPL ¶ 2. After hearing, MySQL seems to have the better argument here, but the matter is one of fair dispute. Moreover, I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the Gemini source code in July 2001 didn’t cure the breach. It is perfectly clear from this paragraph that the judge regards the GPL as legitimate. She regards the case as hinging on how details of the GPL apply - whether a work is derivative or separate, whether a source code release cures a breach - but shows no sign of believing that the GPL as a whole is not a valid license. All the world except for a few cranks and crazies regards the GPL as working the way it purports to. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
