|
From: | Rjack |
Subject: | Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar |
Date: | Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:17:31 -0500 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:Interpretation of a copyright license as a contract makes all the difference in the world concerning enforcement.This is false. See, for example, <http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200703/court-upholds-copyright-infringement-and-unauthorized-access-claims-wh>where a court refused to dismiss a claim of copyright infringement when a purchaser of a single-user license to access online reading material allowed many people to access the material.
Huh? What the hell does your cited case have to 17 USC 301(a)? 17 USC sec. 301(a) *sometimes* preempts terms of copyright contracts. The GPL happens to be one of them. That's the point Hymen. Your Straw Man argument won't work Hymen. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
falsely claim "victories" by the SFLCIn each case the SFLC has brought, the GPLed sources were made available by the defendants or their agents. This makes for true,not false, claims of victory.This also justifies the SFLC lawyers sucking up big salaries from publicly contributed funds for claiming legal nonsense asfact.Much like programmers who distribute under the GPL, people choose to support organizations they like, and you have no claim to their cash or time. The "public" who contributes to the SFLC are people who believe that users should have the freedom to run, read, modify, and share software.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |