On 5/5/2010 8:11 AM, RJack wrote:
Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* "believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored." I await with 'bated breath for your documentation.
Sure, here you are: <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510> PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MYSQL AB, et al., Defendants. ORDER SARIS, District Judge. ... With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MYSQL has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. Affidavits submitted by the parties' experts raise a factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini program is a derivative or an independent and separate work under GPL ΒΆ 2. After hearing, MySQL seems to have the better argument here, but the matter is one of fair dispute. Moreover, I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the breach. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss