Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
Hey plonked Miller, breaking news...
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/06, Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <email@example.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
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."