Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Germany - the GPL is legal and enforceable there.
Not true. Appellate Judge Hoeren (Court of Appeal of Dusseldorf, Copyright Senate): <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf> "Finally, there is the important question of the consequences of the assumed invalidity of the GPL. The Munich court argued that the question of the enforceability of the GPL was in no way relevant. According to the Bavarian judges, if the GPL is legally ineffective, the user does not have a license and is thus violating copyright law. On the face of it, that sounds plausible, but it is not. If somebody offers software on the Internet for downloading and links the download with invalid general terms, he can hardly sue for copyright infringement. Instead, the validity of the standard terms is a matter for the software distributor: if he wants to use invalid contractual terms, he bears the risk of their use. It would violate equity and good faith if he were allowed to sue others merely on the grounds that his license terms were invalid." About more recent Welte/jbb's "GPL under German law" stunt (against Skype): Jörg Wimmers and Detlef Klett, Computer und Recht 2008, p. 59. <http://www.taylorwessing.com/uploads/tx_siruplawyermanagement/Wimmers_Klett_CR.de.pdf> "Die vielfach beschworene Wirksamkeit der GPL nach deutschem Recht wird auch durch dieses neuerliche instanzgerichtliche Urteil nicht belegt. Zahlreiche Punkte bleiben unklar; viele für die Praxis sehr wichtige Punkte sind durch sämtliche bisherigen Entscheidungen nicht einmal im Ansatz berührt worden." regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss