Re: EU antitrust is also cool
On 2/15/06, Frank Küster <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> olive <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >> On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>First off, hello.
> >> Hello Yorick.
> >> What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
> >> http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html?
> > Germany (which part of the EU) has declared the GPL legal. See
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/73848/
> Germany hasn't done anything, at least nothing is described in this
> article. A particular german court has spoken.
A particular German district court in Munich (the home of ifross' lead
attorney who is representing Welte and who's full of wild fantasies***
regarding the GPL being a special contract coupled with "AGB" based on
German concept of conditions subsequent) has just reiterated what
Welte's attorneys have thrown on poor court in the context of ex parte
action (not Hauptverfahren) to obtain a totally pointless preliminary
injunction against German "call center" of alleged violator from
Netherlands. With the defendant just saying that it doesn't make any
sense to sue us.
More serious and higher ranked folks have also spoken. Like Appellate
Judge (and etc.) Hoeren.
***) The gang at ifross is not happy with the GPLv3. The change in
termination provision totally breaks their silly legal construction.