Re: JMRI case -- Implementation of the Federal Circuit's Opinion

[Alexander Terekhov]

> http://jmri.net/k/docket/231.pdf
> 
> Jacobsen says:
> 
> -----
> TAKE NOTICE that, on Friday, December 19, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. in
> Courtroom 2, 17th floor of the San Francisco Division of the United
> States District Court for the Northern District of California, located
> at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Plaintiff Robert
> Jacobsen will move to enjoin Defendants’ copyright infringement and DMCA
> violations. This Motion is based on the Memorandum of Points and
> Authorities, and declarations, to be filed Friday, October 3, 2008.

Just in:

http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/236.pdf

LOL.

------ 
The Artistic License permits reproduction, modification, and
distribution provided that the user meet the terms of the license. Id.
Ex H. GPL has similar requirements, but also requires that software
which incorporates GPL-licensed code to be free and distributed under
GPL. Id. Ex I. Both licenses use the phrase “provided that”. The Federal
Circuit held this language indicates a condition restricting the scope
of the license. Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
2008). The Court implicitly held that these licenses bind a user through
a bilateral implied-in-fact contract. See id. 
------ 

I just wonder how soon will PJ of Groklaw publish the breaking news
story that the GPL and Artistic licenses "bind a user through a
bilateral implied-in-fact contract"... 

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 
"The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't
Falling" 

ROFL.

regards, 
alexander. 

-- 
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)