Re: GPL v3 Draft
On 1/18/06, Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:
[...]
> http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf, an english translation at
> http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
I know. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00088.html
Pls read that message in its entirety (and also follow the links and
read the linked stuff as well, and do it recursively ;-) ) before starting
writing a reply (if any).
As for US,
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf
The standard for PI under copyright infringement claim includes presumption
of irreparable harm. The judge didn't apply it (and used a contract standard
instead). Note also "portion breach of contract claim" and "didn't cure the
breach" wording (you just can't "cure" a copyright violation). Finally, that
decision is tagged as "Nature of Suit: 190" and that's neither 820/840 nor
190/820/840 (all three).
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/documents/natsuit.pdf
190 is CONTRACT/Other Contract
820 is PROPERTY RIGHTS/Copyrights
840 is PROPERTY RIGHTS/Trademark
regards,
alexander.
P.S. I must say that I disgust Welte's efforts for his legal ignorance and
because his attorneys (the gang from ifross/jbb) try to advance the idiotic
theory under which the GPL'd works are exempted from the doctrine of
exhaustion (equivalent of 17 USC 109 in Europe).
Reply to: