[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:29:05 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)

Rjack <> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> Rjack wrote:
>>> It is a verifiable fact that ever completed suit filed by the SFLC
>>> was terminated by the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal. Just show us
>>> the legal documents.
>> It is a verifiable fact that in each such case the defendants
>> made the GPLed sources available, as asked in the complaint
>> against them, when they were not doing so at some point before
>> the complaint was filed.
>> It remains the case that no one is using your (incorrect) legal
>> theories to openly violate the terms of the GPL. Everyone acts
>> as if the GPL is a valid license which means just what it says,
>> even people who are opposed to its principles.
> They don't use my legal theories because GPL advocates will NEVER,
> NEVER allow the GPL to be reviewed on its merits by a federal judge --
> they know the GPL is voidable.

It most certainly is, and it states so itself:

      9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

      You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
    run a copy of the Program.  Ancillary propagation of a covered work
    occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
    to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance.  However,
    nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate
    or modify any covered work.  These actions infringe copyright if you
    do not accept this License.  Therefore, by modifying or propagating
    a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do

The recipient of GPLed software is free to declare the GPL void and
revert to default copyright rules.

That makes it rather hard to have the GPL reviewed on its merits: it
requires the defendant stating (and persisting on the statement rather
than settling and coming into compliance) that he is in compliance with
the GPL.  Only in that case will the GPL adherence get a judicial review
(otherwise, just plain copyright law is involved).  All cases so far in
U.S. jurisdiction have been cut&dry to a degree where no defendant was
stupid enough to even try that course.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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