Following-up a legal warning notice, D-Link signed a declaration to cease and
desist and agreed to refrain from further distributing the product, but refused
to reimburse gpl-violations.org for expenses incurred in connection with the
test purchase, re-engineering and legal advice and representation. In the court
proceedings, D-Link claimed that the GPL is not legally binding. A quote from
the German letter of the D-Link lawyers to gpl-violations.org, dated Feb 24,
2006 can be tr
判決の内容ってコレだけ？ (スコア:4, 興味深い)
GPLに従って○○をしろとか、製品を回収しろっていう命令は出てないの？
これじゃ、GPLの有効性を確認しただけで、GPL違反を止める効果は無いんじゃないかな？
ディスコン済み (スコア:5, 参考になる)
Re:ディスコン済み (スコア:1, すばらしい洞察)
GPL を否定した途端、著作権の侵害になるのに。
結局「お前が悪い。経費はお前持ち」な気が…