[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Intellectual Property II

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property II
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:31:37 +0100

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 <> 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?

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 


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]