[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
From: |
Rjack |
Subject: |
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!" |
Date: |
Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:10:05 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) |
David Kastrup wrote:
The GPL is not a contract but a license. It spells the conditions you
have to meet.
"Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the
circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in
respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not
an unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner."; De Forest Radio
Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, United
States Supreme Court (1927.
"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).
Methinks someone should start a write-in campaign to inform the
federal judiciary the error of their ways.
Sincerely,
Rjack
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", (continued)
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2008/12/09
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Alexander Terekhov, 2008/12/09
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2008/12/09
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Alexander Terekhov, 2008/12/09
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2008/12/10
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", amicus_curious, 2008/12/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2008/12/05
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", David Kastrup, 2008/12/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rahul Dhesi, 2008/12/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", JEDIDIAH, 2008/12/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!",
Rjack <=
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", David Kastrup, 2008/12/04
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rjack, 2008/12/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", David Kastrup, 2008/12/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rjack, 2008/12/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2008/12/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rahul Dhesi, 2008/12/03
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2008/12/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", David Kastrup, 2008/12/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rahul Dhesi, 2008/12/04
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Alexander Terekhov, 2008/12/09