[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: |
Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:37:23 +0200 |
Tim Smith wrote:
>
> In article <Lf6dnaLBcseCvmnbnZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@insightbb.com>,
> rjack <rjack@com> wrote:
> > Failing to distribute source code is a contract breach and not a
> > violation of a work's permitted use under copyright law. There is
> > obviously no provision under U.S. copyright law to *force* a party who
> > has permission to copy and make derivative works to distribute those
> > copyrighted works. Those actions are solely a contractual matter.
>
> Irrelevant, since plaintiff's claim is that Monsoon is not a party who
> has permission to copy and make derivative works.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/sep/20/busybox/complaint.pdf
The complaint argues that Monsoon *lost* the rights to BusyBox code
the moment it shipped object code without offering the source code
also.
The complaint refers to attached "GNU General Public License, Version
2" ("the License") [it refers to it more than a dozen of times!!!]
seeking rescission of this contract (note that in the mean time
Monsoon already cured alleged breach***) to begin with. Let's suppose
that rescission will fly... is there anything in the GPL precluding
Monsoon to become a party to GPL contract once again after rescission?
So how can you claim that Monsoon is not a party who has permission
to copy and make derivative works?
Care to elaborate?
***) http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf
"With respect to the General Public License... I am not persuaded
based on this record that the release of the Gemini source code in
July 2001 didnt cure the breach."
regards,
alexander.
--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."
-- The GNU Monk Harald Welte
Re: SFLC chooses wrong court, Tim Smith, 2007/09/27