gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple


From: RJack
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:09 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1

On 8/7/2010 4:08 PM, ZnU wrote:
In article<address@hidden>, Alexander
Terekhov<address@hidden>  wrote:

ZnU wrote: [...]
nothing particularly strong to favor the opposite position.
You've demonstrated that it's possible to fail to create a
condition, but have advanced no compelling argument that the GPL,
specifically, fails to do so.

Q) I want to create a full blown derivative work (a copy of which I
may want to distribute later) or a copy verbatim (which I may want
to distribute later) of the GPL'd work... what are the conditions
in order to gain the rights to do that?

A) None. The GPL has no conditions precedent.

Please prove me wrong.

I'm not interested in whatever games you want to play with shifting
the burden of proof. In Jacobsen v. Katzer, the Artistic License was
found to establish valid conditions, such that ignoring them while
engaging in actions otherwise not permitted by copyright law was
found to be copyright violation. You either need to explain a)
specifically why the Artistic License created valid conditions but
the GPL did not or b) why I should believe your opinion over that of
a federal court.

Posting a bunch of general information about conditions vs.
covenants, which is what you keep doing, is not especially
interesting when there is a ruling that appears to have addressed the
issue at hand far more directly.


The Artistic License is not the GPL License. Since you wish to eschew
researching and reasoning with "general information" perhaps you should
explain how you justify generalizing about the Artistic License in
relation to the GPL.

You are indeed correct that "you are not interested in carrying any
burden of proof". You claim the Artistic License generalizes to the GPL
but you can't prove it. It is you who are playing games by hypothesizing
and then refusing to carry your burden of proof.

Sincerely,
RJack :)




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]