On Jan 28, 2008 11:12 PM, Dennis Schulmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let me explain this a bit further Christian. In law there's a term > > called willenserklaerung or declaration of will. > > This means, if you make sure that the above "exception" is your > > intepretation of the GPLv2 > > and it is the intent with which you attached the GPL to your own work, > > then your explanation counts, not the one from FSF. > > Since you're using the term "Willenserklärung" I deduct that you're a > Germany based lawyer. Especially since you're clearly referring to §133 > BGB of German law.
>From what you have written, i can already judge that you're not a lawyer. Pretty much any civil code in Europe defines declaration of will. And you wouldn't even be saying that since every lawyer does understand the term and know where to look for its definition. > > In 2004 German judiciary was one of the first to confirm the terms of > the GPL 2. Many of your misunderstandings are covered in the opinion of > the court. You have chosen a very bad example of how to demonstrate your claim that i have "misunderstood". > > http://www.jbb.de/html/?page=news&id=32 (There's an English translation, > too). > > Note how a fine distinction is drawn between distributing the software I will draw you a fine distinction between the interpretation i have given and the examples you're giving me: 1. first of all, a court judgement in continental law system is an unbinding source of law. Which means, to keep it short, another court judgement might be enterily different, since the court is not bound by former judgement. 2. the court examined the petition to the extent of its content, meaning, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant offered binary only code based on his computer program or parts thereof licensed under the terms of GPL on his *website*. And this was indeed a very intelligent move in order to defend the GPL in court, as the firmware offered on their website for download is in fact the same firmware as the one that is inside the hardware, so claming a breach of GPL by offering a binary only download from the website of the hw manufacturer, you are basically: i) forcing the hw manufacturer to open up their firmware used in their hardware ii) you are directly enforcing section 3a of the GPLv2 and the fact that the third party is a hw manufacturer is completely IRRELEVANT, because he is obliged to release the corresponding sourcecode on his *website*. And hence we're again talking about distribution (this time it's distribution from website, i.e. offering for download without offering corresponding source code). So what happens if the router is smart enough to pull firmware updates from the net and thus there is nothing available on their site? First of all it would be an entirely different case Second of all, you tell me :) Marek _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
