Hey dak, have some fun. The gang at ifross in action.
http://www.heise.de/ct/06/04/046/
For English-only readers:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=de_entrurl=http://www.heise.de/ct/06/04/046/
-
GPLv3 - Legislation in contract form
[...]
Penetration in danger?
More serious the planned change of number 4 could affect itself. The
present regulation in the GPL 2 plans that with an injury of the
license obligations automatically all granted rights by the GPL are
omitted, so that the GPL violator stands there as usual robbery
copiers. This strict regulation, which worked already several times
in Germany for the penetration of the GPL, is to be replaced by a
right to give notice, which presupposes a previous notification of
the violator. With the fact one would like to prevent that a user
loses rights to use immediately with unintentional license injuries
its.
Background of this change is the view of the FSF that under US right
of the changes to a GPL conformal use the GPL injury cannot heal, but
the fact that each holder of a right must grant explicitly a new
license to the violator - which with a multiplicity of authors is
hardly feasible[6]. Under German right this opinion will not
represent, so that a in this country attenuation of the license
threatens.
-
Alarm! Alarm! Alarm!
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
German GNUtian dak didn't answer yes or no question regarding
Welte attorneys (the gang at ifross) wild fantasies that the GPL
is a contract coupled with AGB based on German concept of
conditions subsequent.
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it
Sitecom didn't bothered. So what?
If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded
without waiting for an injunction, wouldn't they?
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL2_20040903.pdf
-
The defendant argued: The temporary injunction should be lifted
because the defendant is not liable to be sued. The plaintiff has
no right to sue him.. The defendant is not concerned with the
distribution and/or duplication and/or making public the software
!netfilter/iptables. He, the defendant, is a pure support company,
and is not concerned with selling, reproducing, or making available
the software. He has never undertaken these activities and will
not do so. It has previously been pointed out to the plaintiff that
selling, reproducing and making available software are not
undertaken by the defendant but by the company S[itecom] Europe BV.
Furthermore, there was a notification that the web site had already
been amended. It is obvious that the company [Sitecom] Europe BV
was to clarify the matter and the matter would be clarified by it.
There is therefore no reason to grant preliminary
remedies.
-
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
