Re: Ruling Is a Victory for Supporters of Free Software

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2008-08-16, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
> http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936
>
> Subject: Re: Strong Court Ruling Upholds the Artistic License (fwd) 
> From: dtemeles@nvalaw.com 
> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:48:12 -0400 

[deletia]

> Second, the CAFC's opinion creates a great deal of uncertainty for
> software licensing (whether proprietary or open source).  Let's take the
> GPLv3 as an example.  As most peoople are aware, there are a variety of
> disagreements over exactly what is required of a licensee to comply with
> various provisions of the GPL. Section 2 of the GPL appears to
> "condition" the rights granted under the license on the licensee's
> compliance with the "conditions" stated in the license.  Under the
> CAFC's decision in Jacobsen, it stands to reason that a licensee that
> fails to fully satisfy the "conditions" stated in the GPLv3 would
> infringe the licensor's copyrights rather than merely breaching the

    What "uncertainty"?

    This is the stated design goal of the license.

> license.  Thus, even if the licensee unintentionally violated the terms
> of the GPLv3 because the meaning of the terms are not clear, the
> licensee would be liabile for infringement.

[deletia]

-- 
        Sophocles wants his cut.                                |||
                                                               / | \

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------       
                http://www.usenet.com