Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy

[Rjack]

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <4980a453$0$21838$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
>  "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:
> > What is at issue today, though, is the nature of such "default copyright 
> > rules".  If there is no fee charged to use the work or to redistribute the 
> > work, the copyright can be ignored unless the author can show some degree of 
> > harm to himself.
>
> Where did you get that idea?  Not from the copyright statute, nor from 
> the case law.

Actually the GPL requires licensing and distribution of the source 
code to "all third parties" and no benefit (consideration) is 
intended for either contracting party (parties in privity) to the 
GPL agreement (try reading the GPL sometime).

Under US law only a member of the class "all third parties" have a 
right to claim a benefit from the GPL. The owners (parties in 
privity) of the copyrighted code which the GPL covers have no 
standing to file suit because some member of the class "all third 
parties" doesn't receive his promised source code.

As the US Supreme Court clearly stated:

"Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits 
on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general 
prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights, . 
. ."; ALLEN v. WRIGHT 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)