Re: GPL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

rjack wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> > Note that the GPLv2 does not acknowledge First Sale when it states
> > "However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
> > the Program or its derivative works."
> 
> The GPL (and Herr Professor Moglen) is attempting to redefine
> what a "condition" means with respect to a copyright license. A
> "condition" is not a legal term concerning *formation* of a
> contract but refers to *performance* of a contract.
> 
> "Regarding plaintiff's first argument that the credit requirement
> was a condition precedent to the granting of the license, the
> court does not agree. According to the Restatement (Second) of
> Contracts § 224 (1981), a condition is "an event, not certain to
> occur, which must occur, unless its nonoccurrence is excused,
> before performance under a contract becomes due." See also Wells
> Fargo Bank, N.A. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1012, 1019 (Fed. Cir.
> 1996) (quoting In re Matthieson, 63 B.R. 56, 60 (D. Minn. 1986),
> for the statement that "a condition precedent is a condition
> precedent to performance under the contract, not formation of the
> contract. When a condition precedent is not satisfied, it
> relieves a party to the contract of the obligation to perform. It
> does not negate the existence of the contract or the binding
> contractual relationship of the parties."), cert. denied, 520
> U.S. 1116 (1997). "Conditions precedent are disfavored and will
> not be read into a contract unless required by plain, unambiguous
> language." Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d at 559 n.7;
> accord Jacob Maxwell, Inc. v. Veeck, 110 F.3d at 754; I.A.E.,
> Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d at 778."; RT Computer Graphics v, United
> States,(USCFC 1999.)
> 
> http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Horn/99/RTCOMP.htm

I hope than Monsoon folks will take an opportunity to trash Moglen's 
nonsensical GNU legal theory myths in federal court. The answer is due
October 22.

U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-08205-JES

Andersen et al v. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.
Assigned to: Judge John E. Sprizzo
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement 
Date Filed: 09/19/2007
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question 

Plaintiff 
Erik Andersen 
an individual  represented by Daniel B. Ravicher 
Software Freedom Law Center 
1995 Broadway, 17th Floor 
New York, NY 10023-5882 
(212)580-0800 
Fax: (212)580-0898 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 
 
Plaintiff 
Rob Landley 
an individual  represented by Daniel B. Ravicher 
(See above for address) 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 
 

V.
 
Defendant 
Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.  
 

Date Filed # Docket Text 
09/19/2007 1 COMPLAINT against Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.. (Filing Fee $
350.00, Receipt Number 627415)Document filed by Erik Andersen, Rob
Landley.(jpo) (Entered: 09/20/2007) 
09/19/2007   SUMMONS ISSUED as to Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. (jpo)
(Entered: 09/20/2007) 
09/19/2007   Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck is so designated. (jpo)
(Entered: 09/20/2007) 
09/19/2007   Case Designated ECF. (jpo) (Entered: 09/20/2007) 
10/10/2007 2 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER: It is
hereby ordered that Defendant Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. until October 22,
2007 to answer the Complaint filed on 9/19/07 by Plaintiffs Erik
Andersen and Rob Landley. (dle) (Entered: 10/10/2007) 

regards,
alexander.

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

                                     -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte