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

Re: legal residence for corporations

On 2/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <paivakil@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe that the position is similar in `Civil law' systems,
> (France, Germany and similar jurisprudential systems).

Strange things happen in the civil law district of Munich I.


The defendant argued: The temporary injunction should be lifted
because the defendant is not liable to be sued. The plaintiff has
no right to sue him.. The defendant is not concerned with the
distribution and/or duplication and/or making public the software
!netfilter/iptables. He, the defendant, is a pure support company,
and is not concerned with selling, reproducing, or making available
the software. He has never undertaken these activities and will
not do so. It has previously been pointed out to the plaintiff that
selling, reproducing and making available software are not
undertaken by the defendant but by the company S[itecom] Europe BV.
Furthermore, there was a notification that the web site had already
been amended. It is obvious that the company [Sitecom] Europe BV
was to clarify the matter and the matter would be clarified by it.
There is therefore no reason to grant preliminary remedies.

Now, one can become a "contributory infringer" in Munich I on the
grounds that another legal person lists your address on its web
site... OK. But what the heck was the point of granting the
preliminary injunction

1. The defendant is under penalty […]


from distributing and/or copying and/or making available to the public
the software
"netfilter/iptables" without at the same time – in accordance with the license
conditions of the GNU General Public License, Version 2 (GPL) – making
reference to the licensing under the GPL and attaching the license text of
the GPL as well as making available the source code of the software "netfilter/
iptables free of any license fee.

given that the defendant has explained that "he has never undertaken
these activities and will not do so." Go figure.


Reply to: