|
From: | Rjack |
Subject: | Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses? |
Date: | Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:18:13 -0400 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/05/msg00462.htmlWhat about it? Bushnell discusses Jacob Maxwell v. Veeck, where a court found that an implied nonexclusive license had been granted by the rights holder due to his various failures to object to infringing behavior. That's another case where there were direct negotiations and unclear oral agreements between the parties. It has nothing to do with the GPL, which spells out requirements for the non-exclusive license in great detail, including termination of all rights if copying and distribution is done in violation of those requirements.He also says "Acceptance through conduct has been integral to contract law in common-law countries since the days of writs in Chancery" which is exactly what the GPL says - you demonstrate thatyou accept it by your conduct in copying and distributing works in accordance with its conditions. None of this counters the appeals court finding open license
Where in it's utterly *non-precendental* and erroneous decision did the CAFC state that *all* open license requirements are enforceable copyright conditions? The CAFC ruled on the terms of the *Artistic License* as to whether certain terms were conditions limiting the scope of the grant or "conditions precendent". The CAFC contradicted itself when it cited Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911). I am beginning to suspect that Free Softare advocates are intellectually incapable of grasping the difference between a permitted scope of use condition and a condition precedent in a copyright license. One restricts the *scope* of the rights grant, the other establishes the *existence* of the rights grant. The distinction seems to exceed the GNUtians cognitive abilities. Sincerely, Rjack
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |