On 1/23/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/23/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel > > > like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret > > > the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breach of contractual > > > covenant to forbear from the exercise of the statutory right under > > > 17 USC 109 and instead provide access to source code as the > > > copyright owner decrees). My argument is that it's quite easy to > > > "escape" it by NOT entering into agreement. > > > > In the case Saris ruled on, there was a signed contract. > > Regarding what?
To set the record straight... http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_75.html "We filed a claim on 11 July 2001 for trademark infringement, breach of the interim agreement, breach of the GPL license, and unfair and deceptive trade practices." Breach of the GPL license claim had really nothing to do with interim agreement. Judge Saris' reliance on interim agreement was limited to the claim of trademark infringement, not breach of the GPL. http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf "Specifically, MySQL has demonstrated (1) that the agreement between the parties was an interim agreement that terminated after August 2000; and (2) that Progress violated Paragraph 6 of that agreement by using the MySQL trademark after the termination and by using an unauthorized combination trademark. Continued use of the trademark will cause MySQL irreparable harm as a matter of law." That's it regarding interim agreement. "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." regards, alexander.
