From: Kern S. <ke...@si...> - 2014-05-23 16:25:47
|
I cannot ague with the very last point you make, and I am not allowed to say that :-) There are actually three points: 1. Do you have legal standing to claim something (like copyright violation)? 2. Is what you are requesting the court to do something that is permitted by the license? 3. They don't seem to understand that multiple people can hold copyrights to the totality of the code. I am not sure Bareos is trying to invalidate the AGPL (sorry if I implied it), but it seems clear to me from what they write that they are trying to destroy Bacula Systems rights to develop a open core version of the code. If they succeed (unlikely in my opinion), it could well be the end of the Bacula community version as well. Yes, having thought about this a lot, I realize that there are some very interesting points with the scenarios :-) Kern On 05/23/2014 05:43 PM, Alan Brown wrote: > > There was an earlier decision in Munich courts too > > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Deutsches-Gericht-bestaetigt-Wirksamkeit-der-GPL-101616.html > > > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2004072315554313 > > The link to the judgement is dead but in addition to the other > arguements, attempts were made to claim GPL is invalid in germany > because it's written in english - the court threw that one out too. > > It's not in the defendants' interest to try and invalidate the GPL, > because it's the only thing granting them a re-distribution license. > > There are 3 scenarios: > > 1: Don't accept the GPL - no right to redistribute > 2: Claim GPL is invalid - no right to redistribute > 3: Claim work is public domain - all it takes is one of the authors to > object and ... no right to redistribute > > etc etc > > IMHO Bareos posses a large amount of chunztpah > > |