* Alexander Terekhov peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
> Linonut wrote:
>>
>> The good faith usage of the GPL has been going on for a couple decades
>> now, and has resulted in a large body of software being available to
>> millions of people. A conflict with business was inevitable, but, in
>> the highest-profile case so far, IBM vs SCO, the plaintiff kind of let
>> the GPL angle drop.
>
> Linonut, Linonut. If you believe that IBM is/was of opinion that "The
> GPL is a license and not a contract" how are you going to explain
>
> IBM's SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM (Breach of the GNU General Public License)
> against SCO... "SCO accepted the terms of the GPL... IBM is entitled
> to a declaration that SCO's rights under the GPL terminated, an
> injunction prohibiting SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches
> of the GPL and an award of damages in an amount to be determined at
> trial" (Pretty much the same as MySQL's claim below, BTW.) From IBM's
> memorandum:
>
> "SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the
> Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC
> 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is "well settled"
> that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Kronos,
> Inc. v. AVX Corp., 612 N.E.2d 289, 292 (N.Y. 1993) ("Nominal damages
> are always available in breach of contract action".). "
>
> What say you now, Linonut?
That you simply want to s/license/contract/ in the above.
In other words, more Terekhov hand-waving.
> http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf
>
> MySQL's counter-complaint asserting breach of GPL license contract
> ("COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)") and asking for
> declaratory (court to declare GPL terminated) and injunctive (court to
> preliminary and permanently enjoin Progress/NuSphere from "copying,
> modifying, sublicensing, or distributing the MySQL(TM) Program")
> relief (plus damages, of course).
>
> Note that Judge Saris correctly denied MySQL's motion for preliminary
> injunction applying contract (not copyright) standard regarding
> irreparable harm.
>
> http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf
>
> What say you now, Linonut?
That the above supports viewing the GPL as a license, not a contract.
--
A mind is a wonderful thing to waste.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
