On 1/18/06, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf, an english translation at > http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
I know. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00088.html Pls read that message in its entirety (and also follow the links and read the linked stuff as well, and do it recursively ;-) ) before starting writing a reply (if any). As for US, http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf The standard for PI under copyright infringement claim includes presumption of irreparable harm. The judge didn't apply it (and used a contract standard instead). Note also "portion breach of contract claim" and "didn't cure the breach" wording (you just can't "cure" a copyright violation). Finally, that decision is tagged as "Nature of Suit: 190" and that's neither 820/840 nor 190/820/840 (all three). http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/documents/natsuit.pdf 190 is CONTRACT/Other Contract 820 is PROPERTY RIGHTS/Copyrights 840 is PROPERTY RIGHTS/Trademark regards, alexander. P.S. I must say that I disgust Welte's efforts for his legal ignorance and because his attorneys (the gang from ifross/jbb) try to advance the idiotic theory under which the GPL'd works are exempted from the doctrine of exhaustion (equivalent of 17 USC 109 in Europe).
