Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[David Kastrup]

Rjack <user@example.net> writes:

> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> "The doctrine “forbids the use of the [copyright] to secure an
> exclusive right or limited monopoly not granted by the [Copyright]
> Office and which is contrary to public policy to grant.” Altera
> Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079, 1090 (9th Cir.
> 2005)(citation omitted)."
>
> http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03251/204881/52/0.pdf
>
>
> This is the central flaw of the GPL license.

Since it does not secure an exclusive right, this is just not relevant.

> It attempts to secure the exclusive rights of a modifying author who
> accepts GPL code by attempting to force them to license their
> modifications "to all third parties" under terms of the GPL.

They need to license their modifications to nobody if they want to.  If
they _want_ to sublicense, there is a license which they may choose
without further negotiation.  They may at their choice make use of that
offer or not.  In no case does that restrict the rights that copyright
law gives the purchaser of an authorized copy.

> A "viral" public copyright license is the very definition of copyright
> misuse.

Namecalling is not a definition.

-- 
David Kastrup