[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: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:47 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/10/2010 9:49 AM, RJack wrote:
The court in the MySQL case never reviewed or ruled on the
enforceability of the GPL. Witness: "the matter is one of
> fair dispute".

It is silly for you to quote out of context when the full citation
is so readily available. It just makes you look like a liar.

    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.

No federal court has ever reviewed the contract language of the
> GPL to determine it's enforceability -- ever.

The citation shows that your assertion is plainly false, except in
the limited context of the definition of "ruling". The court has
read the GPL, and says that the "matter of dispute" is how the code
at issue is to be interpreted with respect to the GPL. It is implicit
in this ruling that the court regards the GPL as a valid license and
the arguments are to be on whether the license was breached, not on
whether the GPL is valid.

But denying the obviously true is what a crank does.

reply via email to

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