[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
From: |
Hyman Rosen |
Subject: |
Re: More FSF hypocrisy |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:08:24 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) |
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude;
Uhmm. Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to share the
copyrights with other parties (licensees). This is completely opposite
to the exclusion. The above just highlights the degree of mental
disorder exhibited by the CAFC in that ruling.
Nonsense, of course. Were the rights holders not interested in the
right to exclude, they would release the work into the public domain.
The purpose of a license is to allow certain parties to do certain
things based on certain conditions, and thus to exclude other parties,
other actions, and those who disobey the conditions.
Silly sophistry. Sad, really.
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, (continued)
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, amicus_curious, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, RonB, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/24
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, chrisv, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy,
Hyman Rosen <=
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/24
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/24
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/24
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/24
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/25