Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[rjack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Courtesy of Groklaw...
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > > On 2007-12-08, Bruce Lewis <brlspam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > The GPL's track record has been and continues to be 100% enforceable.
> > > I've never seen a US case involving the GPL come to a verdict.


> > There was a verdict (court order) regarding attempt to impose
> > injunction on the basis of GPL "automatic termination".

The SFLC's claim of "automatic termination" has a hollow ring to it
under U.S. Second Federal Circuit precedent (includes New York State).
I know the SFLC thinks it can ignore the Court of Appeals but. . .


"New York law does not presume the rescission or abandonment of a 
contract and the party asserting rescission or abandonment has the 
burden of proving it". Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1998)

affirmed 2007 by the Eastern District:

“. . . rescission of the contract only occurs upon affirmative acts by
the licensor, and a breach by one party does not automatically result in
rescission of a contract. Id. at 238 (”New York law does not presume the
rescission or abandonment of a contract and the party asserting 
rescission or abandonment has the burden of proving it”).”; Atlantis 
Information Technology, Gmbh v, CA Inc.,, 2007 WL 1238716 (E.D.N.Y. 
April 30, 2007).

The SFLC claims that these rulings are inapplicable because the GPL is a 
"license" not a "contract". Federal authority affirming this 
"non-contract" claim is as scare as evidence of WMD in Irag. Do you 
suppose Eben Moglen is related to George Bush?

regards,
rjack

--- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332, 
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal 
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the 
relevant state law to interpret them." Automation by Design, Inc. v. 
Raybestos Products Co., 463 F3d 749, (7th Cir. 2006)---