[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:32:54 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)

rjack <> writes:

> Those SFLC advocates who make *self-serving* statements such as "the
> GPL is enforceable" bear the burden of producing a U.S. court decision
> demonstrating the same. It is not incumbent upon anyone to produce a
> court decision that the GPL *is* unenforceable -- you can't logically
> prove a negative.

Well, actually the GPL most certainly is _not_ enforceable: it is a
license, not a contract.  You are free to ignore it.  Unfortunately,
copyright law _is_ enforceable.  So that's not an option you want to

> SFLC lawyers keep filing the same rote, nonsensical claims in the S.D.N.Y.
> Federal Court -- to wit:
> "14. Section 4 of the License states:
> You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except
> as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to
> copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will
> automatically terminate your rights under this License.
> Therefore, under the License, any party that redistributes BusyBox in
> a manner that does not comply with the terms of the License
> immediately and automatically loses all rights granted under it. As
> such, any rights Defendant may have had under the License to
> redistribute BusyBox were automatically terminated the instant that
> Defendant made non-compliant distribution of the In-fringing Product
> or Firmware. Since that time, Defendant has had no right to distribute
> BusyBox, or a modified version of BusyBox, under any circumstances or
> conditions."
> The SFLC's "automatic termination" claims are nonsense. Here's the law
> of the S.D.N.Y. according to The United Stastes Court of Appeals for
> the Second Circuit:
> "New York law does not presume the rescission or abandonment of a
> contract and the party asserting rescission or abandonment has the
> burden of proving it".  Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1998)

Of course you can't unilaterally rescind a contract.  Except when the
terms of termination are spelled out in the contract itself.  But that's
not even what happened here: this "termination term" is actually not
necessary: of course you don't have permissions granted by the license
without heeding the license terms.  It is just made explicit.

> Why file this nonsense crap, only to voluntarily dismiss time and time
> again?

Because it brings the defendants into compliance?

> The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow a Federal Court to review the
> GPL license on the merits. They'll dismiss WITH PREJUDICE before
> allowing a meaningful court review to occur.

So far, the defendants have preferred not to go that far but rather come
into compliance.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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