one last post about the Busybox/GPL case

Posted on by Luis Villa

Mark Radcliffe, of DLA Piper (I interview there on Monday, by coincidence) has a ‘view from a real lawyer’ on the case.

Mark seems to suggest that the answer to my question of ‘why now’ may be that this is a reaction to the Jacobsen case. While a number of open source lawyers believed that Jacobsen was poorly decided, there seemed to be nearly universal consensus that the facts (and the license) were not ideal, and that instead of appealing, a different case should be found in which to raise the issue. SFLC may well have decided that this is that different case- better facts, better license, and with a party actually interested in the litigation. But we’ll see, of course…

Published by Luis Villa

8 thoughts on “one last post about the Busybox/GPL case”

  1. about its violation of the license. Luis Villa suggests a couple of possible reasons they moved so quickly. One is that Monsoon failed to respond to the SFLC’s letters, leaving them little choice but to go to court. Another factor is the recentJacobsen decision, which called into question the enforceability of open source software licenses. The SFLC may have felt its chances of winning on appeal were not as good with the Jacobsen case, which is more complicated and involves a less popular license. And so

  2. about its violation of the license. Luis Villa suggests a couple of possible reasons they moved so quickly. One is that Monsoon failed to respond to the SFLC’s letters, leaving them little choice but to go to court. Another factor is the recentJacobsen decision, which called into question the enforceability of open source software licenses. The SFLC may have felt its chances of winning on appeal were not as good with the Jacobsen case, which is more complicated and involves a less popular license. And so

  3. about its violation of the license. Luis Villa suggests a couple of possible reasons they moved so quickly. One is that Monsoon failed to respond to the SFLC’s letters, leaving them little choice but to go to court. Another factor is the recentJacobsen decision, which called into question the enforceability of open source software licenses. The SFLC may have felt its chances of winning on appeal were not as good with the Jacobsen case, which is more complicated and involves a less popular license. And so

  4. about its violation of the license. Luis Villa suggests a couple of possible reasons they moved so quickly. One is that Monsoon failed to respond to the SFLC’s letters, leaving them little choice but to go to court. Another factor is the recentJacobsen decision, which called into question the enforceability of open source software licenses. The SFLC may have felt its chances of winning on appeal were not as good with the Jacobsen case, which is more complicated and involves a less popular license. And so

Comments are closed.