Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
Hey plonked Miller, breaking news...
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/06, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What argument?
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00475.html
>
> Edwards has already explained it to you. A "question of law" is
> addressed by "likelihood of success on that portion breach of contract
> claim that concerns its trademark" (with another portion being breach
> of the GPL), by "cure the breach" (one just can't "cure" a copyright
> violation), by not applying ("In any event, even if MySQL has shown a
> likelihood of success on these points...") the copyright standard with
> presumption of irreparable harm (and using contract standard instead),
> and etc.
Wallace v FSF. REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF REASSERTED MOTION
TO DISMISS:
<quote>
Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no
bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the
Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of
an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint,
the contract controls."
</quote>
regards,
alexander.
Reply to: