Open source Free software 2620
Arnoud Engelfriet
Sure it has. Even the gang at ifross went on record with rather nice explanation why the GPL sections 11 and 12 are illegal under the
Dream on.
Yeah. How nice. But see
and to quote Prof. Dr. Hoeren (OLG court level, Appellate Judge) once again,
------- Finally, there is the important question of the consequences of the buttumed invalidity of the GPL. The Munich court argued that the question of the enforceability of the GPL was in no way relevant. According to the Bavarian judges, if the GPL is legally ineffective, the user does not have a license and is thus violating copyright law. On the face of it, that sounds plausible, but it is not. If somebody offers software on the Internet for downloading and links the download with invalid general terms, he can hardly sue for copyright infringement. Instead, the validity of the standard terms is a matter for the software distributor: if he wants to use invalid contractual terms, he bears the risk of their use. It would violate equity and good faith if he were allowed to sue others merely on the grounds that his license terms were invalid. -------
It does not get better by repeating it. That what is commonly (and incorrectly) referred to as a copyright license, namely something that further restricts the default user's right...
regards, alexander.