German GNUtian dak didn't answer "yes or no" question regarding Welte attorneys (the gang at ifross) wild fantasies that the GPL is a contract coupled with AGB based on German concept of conditions subsequent.
David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it > > > > Sitecom didn't bothered. So what? > > If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded > without waiting for an injunction, wouldn't they? http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL2_20040903.pdf ----- The defendant argued: The temporary injunction should be lifted because the defendant is not liable to be sued. The plaintiff has no right to sue him.. The defendant is not concerned with the distribution and/or duplication and/or making public the software !netfilter/iptables. He, the defendant, is a pure support company, and is not concerned with selling, reproducing, or making available the software. He has never undertaken these activities and will not do so. It has previously been pointed out to the plaintiff that selling, reproducing and making available software are not undertaken by the defendant but by the company S[itecom] Europe BV. Furthermore, there was a notification that the web site had already been amended. It is obvious that the company [Sitecom] Europe BV was to clarify the matter and the matter would be clarified by it. There is therefore no reason to grant preliminary remedies. ----- regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss