On 2/15/06, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >> On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> [...] > >> > >>>First off, hello. > >> Hello Yorick. > >> What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re > >> http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html? > > > > Germany (which part of the EU) has declared the GPL legal. See > > http://lwn.net/Articles/73848/ > > Germany hasn't done anything, at least nothing is described in this > article. A particular german court has spoken.
A particular German district court in Munich (the home of ifross' lead attorney who is representing Welte and who's full of wild fantasies*** regarding the GPL being a special contract coupled with "AGB" based on German concept of conditions subsequent) has just reiterated what Welte's attorneys have thrown on poor court in the context of ex parte action (not Hauptverfahren) to obtain a totally pointless preliminary injunction against German "call center" of alleged violator from Netherlands. With the defendant just saying that it doesn't make any sense to sue us. More serious and higher ranked folks have also spoken. Like Appellate Judge (and etc.) Hoeren. http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf regards, alexander. ***) The gang at ifross is not happy with the GPLv3. The change in termination provision totally breaks their silly legal construction. http://www.heise.de/ct/06/04/046/
