Forwarding for those interested in intellectual property law. I'm nowhere near being an expert on this subject, but this case seems interesting for those of us who work with materials which are licensed under the GPL. Pine -------- Original message --------From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemow...@gmail.com> Date: 8/1/17 6:54 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia developers <wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: US court declares GPL is a contract http://www.technollama.co.uk/us-court-declares-gpl-is-a-contract :
[...] In a strong declaration that online open source licences are contracts, the court declares: “Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s reliance on the unsigned GNU GPL fails to plausibly demonstrate mutual assent, that is, the existence of a contract. Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint, provides that the Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not obtain a commercial license. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used Ghostscript, did not obtain a commercial license, and represented publicly that its use of Ghostscript was licensed under the GNL GPU. These allegations sufficiently plead the existence of a contract.” _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
