[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: RJack
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:45 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/9/2010 4:27 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 8/9/2010 4:06 PM, RJack wrote:
Which court has said this about your vaunted GPL?

The CAFC has said it about the Artistic License in the JMRI case, and
the GPL has similar enough features that it is reasonable to assume
the same outcome.

In Progress v. MySQL, the court said

With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MYSQL has not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or
irreparable harm. 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 ΒΆ 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.

indicating by context that the GPL is a meaningful license and the
arguments were to be about its details, not about its validity.

The court in the MySQL case never reviewed or ruled on the
enforceability of the GPL. Witness: "the matter is one of fair dispute".
This is the same situation as the default judgment in
the Westinghouse Digital ruling.

No federal court has ever reviewed the contract language of the GPL to
determine it's enforceability -- ever. Spinning a non-existent ruling
into "enforceability" is simply your imagination at work.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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