30 Jan
2008
30 Jan
'08
12:41 p.m.
On Jan 28, 2008 11:12 PM, Dennis Schulmeister
<linux-audio-dev(a)windows3.de> wrote:
Let me explain
this a bit further Christian. In law there's a term
called willenserklaerung or declaration of will.
This means, if you make sure that the above "exception" is your
intepretation of the GPLv2
and it is the intent with which you attached the GPL to your own work,
then your explanation counts, not the one from FSF.
Since you're using the term "Willenserklärung" I deduct that you're a
Germany based lawyer. Especially since you're clearly referring to §133
BGB of German law. From what you have written, i can already judge that
you're not a lawyer.
Pretty much any civil code in Europe defines declaration of
will. And
you wouldn't even be saying that since every lawyer does understand
the term and know where to look for its definition.
In 2004 German judiciary was one of the first to confirm the terms of
the GPL 2. Many of your misunderstandings are covered in the opinion of
the court.
You have chosen a very bad example of how to demonstrate your claim
that i have "misunderstood".
http://www.jbb.de/html/?page=news&id=32 (There's an English translation,
too).
Note how a fine distinction is drawn between distributing the software
I will draw you a fine distinction between the interpretation i have
given and the examples you're giving me:
1. first of all, a court judgement in continental law system is an
unbinding source of law.
Which means, to keep it short, another court judgement might be
enterily different, since the court is not bound by former judgement.
2. the court examined the petition to the extent of its content,
meaning, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant offered binary only
code based on his computer program or parts thereof licensed under the
terms of GPL on his *website*. And this was indeed a very intelligent
move in order to defend the GPL in court, as the firmware offered on
their website for download is in fact the same firmware as the one
that is inside the hardware, so claming a breach of GPL by offering a
binary only download from the website of the hw manufacturer, you are
basically:
i) forcing the hw manufacturer to open up their firmware used in their
hardware
ii) you are directly enforcing section 3a of the GPLv2 and the fact
that the third party is a hw manufacturer is completely IRRELEVANT,
because he is obliged to release the corresponding sourcecode on his
*website*.
And hence we're again talking about distribution (this time it's
distribution from website, i.e. offering for download without offering
corresponding source code).
So what happens if the router is smart enough to pull firmware updates
from the net and thus there is nothing available on their site?
First of all it would be an entirely different case
Second of all, you tell me :)
Marek