[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 16:18:22 +0100

Hey dak, have some fun. The gang at ifross in action.

For English-only readers:

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 

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 

Alarm! Alarm! Alarm!


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 <> 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
> remedies.
> -----
> regards,
> alexander.

reply via email to

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