Rahul Dhesi wrote:
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.
The plaintiff pleaded the existence of the license, so the burden is
on the plaintiff to show a violation of its scope. If the plaintiff
wants to argue "no contract formation" as a basis for a scope
violation it is no less his burden to do so.
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?
Ever hear of big brick or granite buildings known as "law
libraries"? They're real handy if you wish to argue legal issues.
Google will surely help find the one nearest you and even provide a
map to its location.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
