[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPLed Software Expiration Date
From: |
rjack |
Subject: |
Re: GPLed Software Expiration Date |
Date: |
Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:47:53 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) |
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 12:01:39PM -0500, rjack wrote:
Assuming the GPL is an enforceable contract -- it isn't -- the permissions
would last for thirty five years, which is the maximum duration of an
"irrevocable" copyright license. See 17 USC § 203(a)(3)).
For those who might be curious as to why such statement is a lie, the
keyword here is "irrevocable".
17 USC § 203(a)(3) does indeed talk about termination of a grant after
yers when there's the right of publication (like in the GPL) BUT in this
case it is an *irrevocable* grant.
Being irrevocable, means it doesn't have an expiry period.
Please also notice that there's nothing related to irrevocable being
actually not irrevocable at said reference, which reinforces rjack's
lie:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/203.html
Best,
Rui
ps: I predict insults will be what I get in reply, at least from
Therekov and rjack (who I seriously believe are one and the same
person).
ps: I predict insults will be what I get in reply, at least from
Therekov and rjack (who I seriously believe are one and the same
person).
Ah. . . but Terekhov and rjack are two real, distinct individuals.
Rjack is the good-looking guy and Terekhov is the smart guy.
Actually, I admire those who endevour to support their legal arguments
by referring to statute or case law. Correct or otherwise, those
citations demonstrate an actual effort to support a conclusion with
legal authority.
Except for those nine Supremes in the black robes, no one is always
right. Being "right" in legal matters ultimately depends on whether the
judiciary says you are right. That's why case law precedent is so
important -- it is the best authority we have for drawing conclusions in
future legal matters.
Individuals such as Eben Moglen and Richard Stallman consistently assert
specious claims, i.e. "the GPL is not a contract" (remember WMD in
Iraq?). Those specious claims are *never* supported by any reference to
legal authority and often they are in direct contradiction to precedent.
Just like WMD claims in Iraq, those crackpot legal assertions will
sooner or later be exposed as false and deceitful.
Regards,
rjack :)
--- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by
ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi
Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit 1995) ---
--- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101- 1332,
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the
relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v.
Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit 2006) ---
Re: GPLed Software Expiration Date, John Hasler, 2007/12/20