Re: Circumventing the GPL

[rjack]

Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> Rjack <nospam@here.com> writes:
> > What is "controversial" or unproven about 17 USC sec. 301 of the Copyright
> > Act?
>
> Exactly.  It exists, and no one in a position to act is claiming that it 
> makes the GPL invalid or not work like FSF claims it works.

The SFLC is in a position to act -- all they have to to do is refrain from
voluntarily dismissing one of their silly lawsuits and let a judge review their
claims on the merits.

> If that law impacted the GPL, there would be controversy.  There's none, so 
> it doesn't.

No controversy eh?
Googling { GPL preempted }, I get 10,100 hits.
Free Softies certainly wear efficient blinders.

Sincerely,
Rjack

"In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely unremarkable
principle that 'uses' that violate a license agreement constitute copyright
infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any license
agreement at all."; Storage Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering &
Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit 2005).