Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > "cannot properly be based on a theory of copyright infringement. " > > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=fedclaim&vol=1999/97476c > > In the > > case at bar, the court finds that there was no rescission of the > > contract by plaintiff. > > IBM did request such rescission, in the counterclaims they filed, > based on the statements in the GPL.
Stop being utter idiot Hyman. Blatant abuse of the court system to send license/contract termination letters in court complaints could only be possible in the GNU Republic. Note also that the passage you've quoted http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061118230336912 "Based on the misconduct described herein, SCO's rights to distribute the copyrighted works of others included in Linux under the GPL have been terminated pursuant to ยง4 of the GPL." comes from the SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM which is a pure contract breach claim in which IBM was asking for contract law damages (not termination) resulting from the alleged breach and specific performance injunction which has absolutely nothing to do with tort claims under copyright infringement theory. "SCO accepted the terms of the GPL . . . As a result of SCO's breaches of the GPL, countless developers and users of Linux, including IBM, have suffered and will continue to suffer damages and other irreparable injury. IBM is entitled to an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial and to an injunction prohibiting SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches of the GPL." regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
