[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Hey Alan, please help comrade dak grok the following
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:14:51 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov <> writes:
>> >
>> >
>> > "Allgemein versteht man unter Lizenz die Befugnis, das Immaterialgut
>> > eines anderen zu benutzen. Als Immaterialgüter kommen insbesondere
>> > Marken, Urheberrecht oder Patente Dritter in Betracht. Nachdem es nur
>> > sehr wenige gesetzliche Regelungen gibt, werden Lizenzen üblicherweise
>> > in individuellen Verträgen, den Lizenzverträgen, geregelt.
>> "üblicherweise" means usually.  The GPL is not "üblich", and is not
>> handled in "individuellen Verträgen" but rather as a unilateral offer to
> The GPL is an AGB ("standard" aka "boilerplate") form contract you
> retard.

Nonsense, since there is no implicit contract (like with sales typically
done over the counter) and no exchange of consideration.

Talk about "retard".

> "Soweit Lizenzen (wie häufig) in Formularverträgen geregelt werden,

The GPL is not a "Formularvertrag" since it is not a Vertrag at all:
agreement is _not_ implied for normal use under copyright.  It is
optional, and the GPL spells this out.

> finden auch die Regelungen über die Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen
> der §§ 305 ff BGB Anwendung."
> Here's a judgment from a German court stating that obvious fact:

I'd say that this side sentence of the reasoning is not completely
correct.  The court states: "Die Lizenzbedingungen des GPL sind als
allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen anzusehen, die einer Prüfung nach
§§506ff BGB unterfallen."

However, §305(1) states "Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen sind alle für
eine Vielzahl von Verträgen vorformulierten Vertragsbedingungen, die
eine Vertragspartei (Verwender) der anderen Vertragspartei bei Abschluss
eines Vertrags stellt."

But there is no "Vertrag" involved with licensing under the GPL.  Now it
turns out that even when pretending the GPL _were_ an AGB (which has
implications on the forms and contents it may assume), this court
considered the GPL valid.

I don't agree with its arguments here, as it states "Da die
Lizenzbedingungen des GPL ohne weiteres im Internet abrufbar sind,
bestehen keine Bedenken, daß diese in das Vertragsverhältnis zwischen
den Urhebern und der Beklagten einbezogen wurden.".  That is plainly
ridiculous.  The Internet is a vast space.  The presence of the GPL
somewhere on the Internet certainly can't make it an implied
precondition to any purported contract.

If the outcome of the case had positively depended in this particular
part of the court's reasoning, I would have guessed that the defendant
would have had good chances at appeal.

But throwing out the whole "AGB" part does not help the defendant one
bit, so there was likely nothing to be gained by contesting this part of
the reasoning.

> Uh crackpot dak.
> Hth, silly.

Looks like you have run out of arguments again.  Nothing left but
irrelevant links and insults.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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