David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack <[email protected]> writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Also there is no "evasion of an interpretation of the GPL"
since the GPL is not even under dispute. It would only be
under dispute if the defendants claimed compliance as a
defense. The cases up to now have been cut&dry sufficiently
for that not to be a viable option.
So even if the SFLC carried on, they'd get an interpretation
of the validity of copyright law in general rather than of
the GPL. Nothing interesting in that.
Would the GPL be construed as a contract and interpreted under
state law?
Do you even read what you are replying to? If the defendant does
not claim compliance, the GPL is not relevant to the case.
That's not even wrong -- the SFLC raises the existence of the GPL
license in their Complaint. The defendant need not claim compliance
or for that matter need plead *anything*:
"Copyright disputes involving only the scope of the alleged
infringer's license present the court with a question that
essentially is one of contract: whether the parties' license
agreement encompasses the defendant's activities. Just as in an
ordinary contract action, the party claiming a breach carries the
burden of persuasion."; BOURNE v. WALT DISNEY CO. 68 F.3d 621 (1995)
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
