[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: SFLC chooses wrong court

From: rjack
Subject: Re: SFLC chooses wrong court
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:12:32 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:37:23AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

The complaint argues that Monsoon *lost* the rights to BusyBox code the moment it shipped object code without offering the source code also.

The complaint refers to attached "GNU General Public License, Version 2" ("the License") [it refers to it more than a dozen of times!!!] seeking rescission of this contract (note that in the mean time Monsoon already cured alleged breach***) to begin with. Let's suppose that rescission will fly... is there anything in the GPL precluding Monsoon to become a party to GPL contract once again after rescission?

So how can you claim that Monsoon is not a party who has permission to copy and make derivative works?

Care to elaborate?

Why do you lie? There are 0 instances of the word contract in the
complaint listed at the URL above, so how can they seek rescission
of this "contract"?

Care to elaborate on why you are dishonest?


The link uses the word "license" 58 times. All licenses are contracts therefore the link refernces contract matters 58 times. :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]