Re: SFLC chooses wrong court

2007-09-28 Thread rjack
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: were widely touted as proof of its efficacy. One of these days someone who is anti-GPL will find it advantageous enough to finally swat that annoyance. " You mean, like Daniel "anti-GPL lunatic

Re: SFLC chooses wrong court

2007-09-28 Thread rjack
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:37:23AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/sep/20/busybox/complaint.pdf The complaint argues that Monsoon *lost* the rights to BusyBox code the moment it shipped object code without offering the so

Re: SFLC chooses wrong court

2007-09-28 Thread Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > were widely touted as proof of its efficacy. One of these days > someone who is anti-GPL will find it advantageous enough to finally > swat that annoyance. " You mean, like Daniel "anti-GPL lunatic" Wallace? Rui -- You are

Re: SFLC chooses wrong court

2007-09-28 Thread Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:37:23AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/sep/20/busybox/complaint.pdf > > The complaint argues that Monsoon *lost* the rights to BusyBox code > the moment it shipped object code without offering the source code > also. > > Th

Re: SFLC chooses wrong court

2007-09-28 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Bruce Lewis wrote: > > rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If the suit goes forward (which I seriously doubt) the District Court > > will dismiss due to failure to state a federal claim. Contract claims > > are heard under the common law of state jurisdictions. > > If the suit is sure to fa

Re: SFLC chooses wrong court

2007-09-28 Thread rjack
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Tim Smith wrote: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Failing to distribute source code is a contract breach and not a violation of a work's permitted use under copyright law. There is obviously no provision under U.S. copyright law

Re: SFLC chooses wrong court

2007-09-28 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Tim Smith wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Failing to distribute source code is a contract breach and not a > > violation of a work's permitted use under copyright law. There is > > obviously no provision under U.S. copyright law to *force* a part