|Subject:||Re: SFLC chooses wrong court|
|Date:||Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:17:51 -0500|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)|
Tim Smith wrote:
Sure it's relevant Monsoon has an existing copy of the GPL license.In article Lf6dnaLBcseCvmnbnZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@insightbb.com"><Lf6dnaLBcseCvmnbnZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@insightbb.com>, rjack <rjack@com> wrote:Failing to distribute source code is a contract breach and not a violation of a work's permitted use under copyright law. There is obviously no provision under U.S. copyright law to *force* a party who has permission to copy and make derivative works to distribute those copyrighted works. Those actions are solely a contractual matter.Irrelevant, since plaintiff's claim is that Monsoon is not a party who has permission to copy and make derivative works.
"As we said in Bourne , when the contested issue is the scope of a license, rather than the existence of one, the copyright owner bears the burden of proving that the defendant's copying was unauthorized under the license and the license need not be pleaded as an affirmative defense." Graham v. James, 144 F.3d at 236.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|