[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Zonker on Open Source licenses ..

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Zonker on Open Source licenses ..
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:56:21 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The SFLC pleaded the GPL license

The SFLC explained that code was licensed only under the GPL,
which requires that sources be properly distributed, and in no
other way. They further explain that since the defendants were
not distributing sources properly, they are not distributing
under the only permitted license, and so are violating the
copyrights of the rights holders.

This is exactly the approach the FSF has taken for years; acceptance of the GPL isn't something pressed upon defendants by plaintiffs, it is a defense that defendants can assert in response to a claim of copyright violation.

Whence they settle and make sources available.

When the plaintiff pleads non-performance (breach) of a contract it
is the burden of the plaintiff to prove his claim.

The SFLC has pleaded the existence of a license -- which a
defendant is ordinarily required to plead as a defense.
Since the moronic SFLC has already pleaded the existence of the
defendant's license for him, the SFLC now has the remaining burden
of proving the defendant's breach. Your wishful thinking won't
change the trial rules Hyman.

Like everything else about these lawsuits Hyman, you never lose --
you just mooooooooove the goalposts.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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