[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: CAFC took JMRI case under advisement

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: CAFC took JMRI case under advisement
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 00:08:45 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080421)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Consider also the following:

I just did. Did you? Everything about that case acts in support
of the provisions of the GPL, not against it.

    "Albion's approving conduct--his granting of permission to
     the Miracle on July 2, 1993 to play his song at the next
     day's game even though he had not yet been paid, his
     attendance without demur at subsequent games at which the
     song was played, his letter to Kuhn urging the Miracle to
     continue to play the song at games, and his failure to
     withdraw permission until October--clearly expressed
     Albion's permission for the Miracle to play the song when
     it did.

In other words, if you notice problems and take no action, and
even encourage further use, the court isn't going to believe that
the use was without permission. That's why the GPL clearly states
what you are permitted to do, what you are not permitted to do,
and that you immediately lose distribution rights if you do not
conform to the conditions of the license.

"Conditions precedent are disfavored and will not be read into a
contract unless required by plain, unambiguous language." Effects
Associates, 908 F.2d at 559 n. 7. On July 2, 1993

Yes, exactly what the GPL contains. And that's why the GPL contains
its clear preamble explaining its intent. That's so that when someone
tries to weasel out of its plain requirements, the court will know
exactly what the intent of the license is.

reply via email to

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