Geza Giedke wrote:
[...]
> http://ig.cs.tu-berlin.de/oldstatic/Think-Ahead.ORG/pdfs/IV-3-KoglinMetzger.pdf)
Ha!
Doctors KOGLIN and METZGER.
"1.5 Die Linux-Klausel (§ 31 Abs. 3 S. 3 UrhG)
Für die Einräumung von Nutzungsrechten kann der Urheber die Gewährung
einer Gegenleistung insbesondere
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geza Giedke wrote:
> > Later he claims that "once an author has sold a copy of a work, he or
> > she loses the exclusive distribution right with respect to that work."
> > Of course he can sell the specific copy of software he purchased,
> > e.g. the
Geza Giedke wrote:
[...]
> > http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf
> > (The first-ever ruling on the legal validity of the GPL - A Critique
> > of the Case)
> >
> > Pay special attention to g).
>
> well, I'm not a lawyer and have had no schooling in this matter, but i
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You must be new here, Geza.
I've been lurking for quite a while...
> Geza Giedke wrote:
> [...]
> > not so: in German courts, the GPL has been upheld repeatedly:
> Welte's idiotic GPL enforcement theory is based on misapplication of
> German Rech
You must be new here, Geza.
Geza Giedke wrote:
[...]
> not so: in German courts, the GPL has been upheld repeatedly:
Welte's idiotic GPL enforcement theory is based on misapplication of
German Rechtsgeschäft concept of "condition subsequent" (misapplication
because that concept has absolutely
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[rant deleted]
Yawn. One minute it's "GPL is going to be overturned by the courts",
and when that doesn't happen you back off to "you can't destroy
Microsoft". None of your ravings have the slightest bearing on real
life.
-- Rich
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's state the irony of the situation in plainer terms. The so-called
> "success" of the GPL that Free Software advocates like to claim is
> actually the quickest path to defeat under Microsoft's rule.
> The socialist "Free Software" dream of eliminating propr
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The GPL and Linux keeps Micro$oft out of hot water with the Antitrust
Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Empowering Micro$oft to
maintain its hegemony in the U.S. software market without D.O.J.
inte
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The GPL and Linux keeps Micro$oft out of hot water with the Antitrust
>Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Empowering Micro$oft to
>maintain its hegemony in the U.S. software market without D.O.J.
>interference is certain
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The evidence for the legal enforceability must be based on federal
> statutes and established case law. *Copious legal evidence* in the form
> of both federal statutes and appellate case rulings has been presented
> arguing against the claim of GPL enforceabili
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The GPL is D.O.A. under a F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss in a US
federal court.
Seems to work though, doesn't it?
-- Richard
The GPL and Linux keeps Micro$oft out of hot water with the Antitrust
Di
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The GPL is D.O.A. under a F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss in a US
>federal court.
Seems to work though, doesn't it?
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:47:44PM -0400, rjack wrote:
Geza Giedke wrote:
The case of GPL-violation by Monsoon Multimedia that was discussed
here recently has been settled out of court.
"The SFLC is using threats of copyright infringement prosecution under
the GP
John Hasler wrote:
>
> rjack wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Odd, then, that the defendants paid money to the
rjack wrote:
> 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.
Odd, then, that the defendants paid money to the plaintiffs and agreed to
abide by a
Geza Giedke wrote:
>
> rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Geza Giedke wrote:
> > > The case of GPL-violation by Monsoon Multimedia that was discussed
> > > here recently has been settled out of court.
>
> > The GPL is D.O.A. under a F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss in a US
> > federal cour
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geza Giedke wrote:
> > The case of GPL-violation by Monsoon Multimedia that was discussed
> > here recently has been settled out of court.
> The GPL is D.O.A. under a F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss in a US
> federal court. After the plaintiff's filed a vol
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:47:44PM -0400, rjack wrote:
> Geza Giedke wrote:
>> The case of GPL-violation by Monsoon Multimedia that was discussed
>> here recently has been settled out of court.
>
> "The SFLC is using threats of copyright infringement prosecution under
> the GPL as a tactical matter
Geza Giedke wrote:
The case of GPL-violation by Monsoon Multimedia that was discussed
here recently has been settled out of court.
So what's new? On 21 Sept I stated:
"The SFLC is using threats of copyright infringement prosecution under
the GPL as a tactical matter to force Monsoon Multimed
The case of GPL-violation by Monsoon Multimedia that was discussed
here recently has been settled out of court.
>From the press release: "As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to
dismiss the lawsuit and reinstate Monsoon Multimedia's rights to
distribute BusyBox under the GPL, Monsoon Multimedia
20 matches
Mail list logo
