[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Zonker on Open Source licenses ..

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Zonker on Open Source licenses ..
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:06:53 +0100

David Kastrup wrote:
> Rjack <> writes:
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >> Rjack wrote:
> >>> Your commitment should be voluntary
> >>
> >> I'm glad you have moved from seemingly meaningful but actually
> >> incorrect arguments to straight insults. This will help other
> >> readers realize that you are not to be taken seriously.
> >
> > Keep moving the goalposts away from real legal discussion concerning
> > GPL enforceability Hyman.
> The GPL is certainly not enforceable.  


Does that mean that its "automatic termination" provision is not

(BTW, I agree.)

Here's the SFLC's lunatic theory on termination:

"Many redistributors overlook GPL’s termination provision (GPLv2 § 4 and
GPLv3 § 8). Under v2, violators forfeit their rights to redistribute and
modify the GPL’d software until those rights are explicitly reinstated
by the copyright holder. In contrast, v3 allows violators to rapidly
resolve some violations without consequence. 

If you have redistributed an application under GPLv2, but have violated
the terms of GPLv2, you must request a reinstatement of rights from the
copyright holders before making further distributions, or else cease
distribution and modification of the software forever. Different
copyright holders condition reinstatement upon different requirements,
and these requirements can be (and often are) wholly independent of the
GPL. The terms of your reinstatement will depend upon what you negotiate
with the copyright holder of the GPL’d program.

Since your rights under GPLv2 terminate automatically upon your initial
violation, all subsequent distributions are violations and infringements
of copyright."

Do you have any evidence that the defendants in the SFLC moronic
lawsuits have requested and RECEIVED a "reinstatement" of rights from
ALL copyright holders in the busybox program?

Do you realize that under SFLC's lunatic theory on termination, all
those defendants are still in violation of the copyright laws, dear
GNUtian dak?

Let them know about that and share with us what they will tell you in
response (will be something a la "kiss my ass").


(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

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