[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:47:02 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)

Rjack <> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> Rjack wrote:
>>> Huh? What the hell does your cited case have to 17 USC 301(a)?
>> Nothing at all, since federal preemption of copyright has absolutely
>> nothing to do with the GPL. The cited case demonstrates that even
>> though there was a contract between the rights holder and the user,
>> when the user violated the contract, the court allowed a claim for
>> copyright violation, not just breach of contract. This is contrary
>> to the claims made by GPL doubters, who often incorrectly state that
>> when the GPL is not honored it is not copyright violation but just a
>> breach of contract. (And then go off into further error.)
> They are correct Hymen. Section 2(b) is an *illegal* contractual term.

Just for the sake of playing with you: if that were a case, the legal
document would be invalid.  Now if it were a restriction as compared to
normal copyright, the restriction could not be enforced.  However, the
GPL is a _permission_ as compared to normal copyright, and the
consequence would be that the permission could not be used.  Not that
the permission could be used, but you could ignore the conditions and
treat the licensed software as public domain.

Why do all those defendants choose to come into compliance given the

> Neither you nor the SFLC understand the difference

You don't understand anything.  Not even when it gets explained to you.
The main thing is that it is not in the interest of violators to have
the license voided.  It is all they have.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]