[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple

From: ZnU
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:08 -0000
User-agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)

In article <>,
 Alexander Terekhov <> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> [...]
> > nothing particularly strong to favor the opposite position. You've
> > demonstrated that it's possible to fail to create a condition, but have
> > advanced no compelling argument that the GPL, specifically, fails to do
> > so.
> Q) I want to create a full blown derivative work (a copy of which I may
> want to distribute later) or a copy verbatim (which I may want to
> distribute later) of the GPL'd work... what are the conditions in order
> to gain the rights to do that? 
> A) None. The GPL has no conditions precedent.
> Please prove me wrong.

I'm not interested in whatever games you want to play with shifting the 
burden of proof. In Jacobsen v. Katzer, the Artistic License was found 
to establish valid conditions, such that ignoring them while engaging in 
actions otherwise not permitted by copyright law was found to be 
copyright violation. You either need to explain a) specifically why the 
Artistic License created valid conditions but the GPL did not or b) why 
I should believe your opinion over that of a federal court.

Posting a bunch of general information about conditions vs. covenants, 
which is what you keep doing, is not especially interesting when there 
is a ruling that appears to have addressed the issue at hand far more 

"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

reply via email to

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