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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

On 1/23/06, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/23/06, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com> 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...


"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.


"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 ¶ 2."


Reply to: