Rjack <[email protected]> writes: >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) There is no need for the plaintiff to show a breach unless somebody has shown that a contract formed in the first place. So at the very least, the defendant has to argue that a contract formed; else it's a simple copyright infringement case. And by the way, were you not able to find a suitable case on the public Internet? Is there a shortage of publicly accessible cases that support your arguments? -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
