[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivative distros"

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: "GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivative distros"
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:11:44 +0200

David Kastrup wrote:
> There is nothing in a carrot that says that a person is not the "owner
> of the carrot".  Establishing ownership is a separate process.

What it says is that even under contractual restrictions of statutory 
rights, 17 USC 117 bars cause of action for copyright infringement when 
"the party exercises sufficient incidents of ownership over a copy of 
the program to be sensibly considered the owner of the copy for 
purposes of ยง 117(a)." Same as with 17 USC 109. Now, that, of course, 
doesn't preclude cause of action for breach of contract (provided that 
the contract formalities like assent were fulfilled, and that 
agreement contains clear wording regarding contractual forbearance from 
rights under 17 USC 109 and/or 17 USC 117 -- blatant misstatements 
of statutes like the GPL does it (apparently trying to envision 
unwritten Copyleft Act of the GNU Republic) regarding the Copyright Act 
don't count)... and here comes totally idiotic GNUtian's claim that the 
"GPL is not a contract"... heck, feel free to plead yourself out of 

Citing Bennett the court noted that "in some cases, it is possible
for a plaintiff to plead himself out of court by alleging facts
that render success on the merits impossible.

Guess why the FSF's "enforcement" motto is "Don't go to court"


>                                                                The
> license defines the rights granted to somebody who has established
> himself as the owner of a copy.

In the GNU Republic, may be. 


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]