|
From: | amicus_curious |
Subject: | Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy |
Date: | Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:56:30 -0500 |
"David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message 85bptrnsam.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:85bptrnsam.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
What is at issue today, though, is the nature of such "default copyright rules". If there is no fee charged to use the work or to redistribute the work, the copyright can be ignored unless the author can show some degree of harm to himself.The recipient of GPLed software is free to declare the GPL void and revert to default copyright rules.
Verizon said bushwah to the GPL and got the plaintiff to agree.That makes it rather hard to have the GPL reviewed on its merits: it requires the defendant stating (and persisting on the statement rather than settling and coming into compliance) that he is in compliance with the GPL. Only in that case will the GPL adherence get a judicial review (otherwise, just plain copyright law is involved). All cases so far in U.S. jurisdiction have been cut&dry to a degree where no defendant was stupid enough to even try that course.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |