Re: SFLC chooses wrong court

[Tim Smith]

In article <46FCCB53.E3520D6B@web.de>,
 Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
> > 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?

has != had.


-- 
--Tim Smith