Forwarding for those interested in intellectual property law. I'm nowhere near being
an expert on this subject, but this case seems interesting for those of us who work with
materials which are licensed under the GPL.
Pine
-------- Original message --------From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)"
<nemowiki(a)gmail.com> Date: 8/1/17 6:54 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia developers
<wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: US court declares GPL is
a contract
http://www.technollama.co.uk/us-court-declares-gpl-is-a-contract :
[...]
In a strong declaration that online open source licences are contracts,
the court declares:
“Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s reliance on the unsigned GNU
GPL fails to plausibly demonstrate mutual assent, that is, the
existence of a contract. Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to
the complaint, provides that the Ghostscript user agrees to its
terms if the user does not obtain a commercial license. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant used Ghostscript, did not obtain a commercial
license, and represented publicly that its use of Ghostscript was
licensed under the GNL GPU. These allegations sufficiently plead the
existence of a contract.”
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l