[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Compliance detection tool

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Compliance detection tool
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:20:44 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0

On 4/20/2010 10:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
And how many court decisions have supported the crank
point of view while addressing open licenses?

The district court in that same case

Which was overruled.

and MySQL court in
(alleged breach of the GPL is just a contract breach/not copyright

    Affidavits submitted by the parties’ experts raise a
    factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini program
    is a derivative or an independent and separate work
    under GPL ¶ 2. After hearing, MySQL seems to have the
    better argument here, but the matter is one of fair
    dispute. Moreover, I am not persuaded based on this
    record that the release of the Gemini source code in
    July 2001 didn’t cure the breach.

As usual, your references undermine your case. This order
shows that the judge understands the GPL and believes that
it is a valid copyright license which operates as it says
it does. Notice the reference to release of source code
curing the breach.

In Wallace v. FSF the court also established that "open
> licenses" such as the GPL are contracts.

But has any court found that open licenses, contract or no,
do not function as their authors intended? CAFC thinks that
they do, and so does the MA District Court.

reply via email to

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