Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 06:12:44 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 10:50:05 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> There appear to be disinformation going about, initiated by Microsoft
>>> shills. But the GPL has won in court, /again/. it's factual.
>>>
>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/23/1655248
>>>
>>> GPL Successfully Defended in German Court
>>
>> Wrong again.
>>
>> Please show me the actual text of the judgement that states the GPL is
>> valid. Don't go quoting anywhere else, the judgement itself is the only
>> source of whether your claim is true or not.
>>
>> What? Can't do it?
>>
>> Sorry, Charlie. You're full of it again.
>
> Before anyone makes a stink, I will stipulate that it's true that
> gpl-violations.org won their court case, however they did not do so
> because of the GPL.
Except that the judge does not say that. He says that the GPL is valid, and
they won because of the GPL violations
You are, as usual, full of it
> They did so because D-Link's anti-trust argument, even if it
> could be proven to be true, would not have forfeited the authors
> copyrights, and as such would not have allowed D-Link to continue
> distributing.
>
> As such, this is not a victory for the GPL, since the GPL's terms were not
> evaluated by the court.
Here is the original text
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
Enjoy
--
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species
|
|
