gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: SFLC chooses wrong court


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: SFLC chooses wrong court
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:24:42 +0200

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 05:58:25PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> > Rui writes:
> > > No, the SFLC is suing Monsoon Multimedia for copyright violation.
> >
> > Actually the copyright owners are suing.  SFLC is representing them in
> > court.
> 
> Yes, to be precise.
> 
> It appears, though, that the twin personality of rjack/therekov has lost,
> once again...
> 
> http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8810451705.html

Lost what, mini-RMS?

First off, OP in this thread said 

  "The SFLC is using threats of copyright infringement prosecution 
  under the GPL as a tactical matter to force Monsoon Multimedia to 
  comply with a contractual covenant.The SFLC will never allow a 
  federal court to examine the GPL on its merits.

  If the suit goes forward (which I seriously doubt)"

Next, the exact language of Monsoon Multimedia's "admission" isn't quite 
that colorful.

  "SAN MATEO, Calif. — September 21, 2007 — Monsoon Multimedia today 
  announced efforts to fully comply with the GNU General Public License 
  (GPL). Monsoon is in settlement negotiations with BusyBox to resolve 
  the matter and intends to fully comply with all open-source software 
  license requirements. Monsoon will make modified BusyBox source code 
  publicly available on the company web-site at www.myhava.com in the 
  coming weeks.

  "Since we intend to and always intended to comply with all open 
  source software license requirements, we are confident that the 
  matter will be quickly resolved,” said Graham Radstone, Chairman and 
  Chief Operating Officer at Monsoon Multimedia."

IOW, they're ready to comply with contractual covenant regarding 
making BusyBox code available. Compliance with a contract is almost 
always voluntary -- if you choose not to comply, then you don't have 
to. You merely have to compensate the non-breaching party for his 
expectancy interest. 

Finally, let's wait and see what turns out from settlement 
negotiations...

regards,
alexander.

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

                                     -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte


reply via email to

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