Re: German-GPL victorious in Frankfurt district court

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> >> Yup.  And the only "rest" was the key for the damages.
> >
> > That's your interpretation. I'd have to see all filings to agree or
> > disagree with it. If you have access and can provide this
> > information, I'd appreciate it greatly.
> 
> Uh, you can just read the judgment text.  They state the claims.

They stated a lot. I just want to be sure. A lot doesn't follow. 

For example, they acknowledged that "infringed" stuff is made available 
under the GPL and only the GPL, but somehow they came to conclusion 
that 150K in IP value (not the same as cost to develop) is just fine. 

How come?

[...]
> > and it appears that the GPL just can't do any better (that was the
> > second try in another district court): GNUtians should begin to
> > worry. No?
> 
> Worry?  I don't see about what.  This case was not about forcing
> D-Link to comply with the GPL (they were smart enough to comply of

They complied but disclaimed Rechtspflicht.

> their own accord once presented with the findings of Welte), but for

But according to this district court, D-Link is still "infringer" and 
that's why they must provide information, etc. The court said that 
D-Link either retroactively lost all the rights (Pg 13, 2nd paragraph), 
or never ever had any rights whatsoever due to GPL invalidity (see Pg 
15, right on top). It's astonishing GPL catch-22 magic in work: the 
GPL licensor can't possibly lose in court. And this district court 
bought it. Uh, morons.

regards,
alexander.