|
| From: | Geza Giedke |
| Subject: | Re: Monsoon settles: complies with GPL, pays undisclosed sum |
| Date: | Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:57:31 +0000 (UTC) |
| User-agent: | tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.5-7.287.3-bigsmp (i686)) |
rjack <danw6144@insightbb.com> wrote: > The evidence for the legal enforceability must be based on federal > statutes and established case law. *Copious legal evidence* in the form > of both federal statutes and appellate case rulings has been presented > arguing against the claim of GPL enforceability. There exists an abysmal > *lack of legal evidence* cited to support the enforceability of the GPL. all I care for is that the GPL is adhered to. If that can be achieved without courts - so much the better. If there is very little legal evidence that you have to pay your restaurant bill it may be because it is *clear* that you have to, not because it is dobtful. > The GPL has *never been tested in court* and never will be if the SFLC > has a way to prevent actual judicial review. The SFLC has displayed only > a consistent *lack of legal evidence* for GPL enforceability. not so: in German courts, the GPL has been upheld repeatedly: eg. against Skype in 2007: (in German): http://www.golem.de/0707/53684.html http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/24/174240 or against Sitecom in 2004: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/49377 (in German) http://www.golem.de/0407/32547.html (no english link) regards Geza -- Geza Giedke Max-Planck Institut fuer Quantenoptik, Garching
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |