On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:37:23AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/sep/20/busybox/complaint.pdf
The complaint argues that Monsoon *lost* the rights to BusyBox code
the moment it shipped object code without offering the source code
also.
The complaint refers to attached "GNU General Public License, Version
2" ("the License") [it refers to it more than a dozen of times!!!]
seeking rescission of this contract (note that in the mean time
Monsoon already cured alleged breach***) to begin with. Let's suppose
that rescission will fly... is there anything in the GPL precluding
Monsoon to become a party to GPL contract once again after rescission?
So how can you claim that Monsoon is not a party who has permission
to copy and make derivative works?
Care to elaborate?
Why do you lie? There are 0 instances of the word contract in the
complaint listed at the URL above, so how can they seek rescission
of this "contract"?
Care to elaborate on why you are dishonest?
Rui