Open source Free software 2623
David Kastrup
And that's why they are nothing but GPL-moronized retards.
(from "German-GPL victorious in Frankfurt district court" thread)
Why Tea Aside from difference on the meaning of "freeware" and "free software" some freeware is open source code and some is not-open source code, therefore it is not the case that...
Anonymous still tries to appeal to intellect...
------ GPL validity isn't a package deal
The parties have already agreed between them that the distributor can distribute the software. The distributor now argues that one of the obligations is unfair, illegal, unenforceable or whatever. That's why they get the judge to decide whether that's true or not.
If the judge holds that one clause is invalid, but the rest is valid, then the license stands - minus that one clause. The licensor can't then just revoke the license. He granted it, the other party relied on it, it would be unfair if the licensor could then suddenly "pull the rug from under him" because of the licensor's mistake.
"Oops, sorry, we put the wrong stamp in your driver's license. Oh and by the way here's ten years worth of tickets for driving without a license." ------
Merijn de Weerd
nothing in the GPL supports the concept of retroactive termination. And the cases do not support IBMâs argument either. The copyright cases expressly discussing the issue have rejected the notion of ãretroactiveä breach, termination and infringement. In MCA Television, Ltd. v. Public Interest Corp., 171 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1999), for example, the court explained:
The notion that MCA had the power retroactively to rescind the contract makes a mockery of that contractual agreement ...
David Kastrup District court judges (like the GPL-moronized ones in Frankfurt, and, previously also in Munich) are "supervised" by appellate judges like Prof. Dr. Hoeren (OLG level, Copyright Senate...
regards, alexander.