[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SFLC chooses wrong court
From: |
Tim Smith |
Subject: |
Re: SFLC chooses wrong court |
Date: |
Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:56:46 -0700 |
User-agent: |
MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.1 (Intel Mac OS X) |
In article <46FCCB53.E3520D6B@web.de>,
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
> > Irrelevant, since plaintiff's claim is that Monsoon is not a party who
> > has permission to copy and make derivative works.
>
> 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.
>
> The complaint refers to attached "GNU General Public License, Version
> 2" ("the License") [it refers to it more than a dozen of times!!!]
> seeking rescission of this contract (note that in the mean time
> Monsoon already cured alleged breach***) to begin with. Let's suppose
> that rescission will fly... is there anything in the GPL precluding
> Monsoon to become a party to GPL contract once again after rescission?
>
> So how can you claim that Monsoon is not a party who has permission
> to copy and make derivative works?
>
> Care to elaborate?
has != had.
--
--Tim Smith
- Re: SFLC chooses wrong court, (continued)
Re: SFLC chooses wrong court, Tim Smith, 2007/09/27