[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: IBM doesn't like the GPL

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: IBM doesn't like the GPL
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:11:28 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
17 USC sec. 103(b)

Of what relevance is this? The GPL requires that a combined work containing GPLed code must be licensed as a whole under the GPL. This does not mean that the distributor of the work claims copyright over the pieces he does not own. It just means that the copyright holders of those pieces must give permission for them to be distributed this way. If they have given such permission, the combined work may be distributed under the GPL If they have not, the combined work may not be distributed at all.

Your mistake is to assume that a copyrighted work may be made part of a combined work and distributed that way without permission of the copyright holder if that holder has given permission to distribute standalone copies of the work.

My God you are dense Hymen. 17 USC 103(b) means that a derivative
work may be distributed as a "whole" only by contractual agreement
of both copyright holders in "privity". That means that the right to
distribute the derivative work is a personal "in personam" right
created by contract. Try to understand the following:

"A right in personam means a right available against
a determinate individual or determinate individuals. All
contractual rights, as well as some others, fall thereunder. A
right in rem means a right available against persons generally,
or, as frequently expressed, against the world at large. All the
rights that come within the branch of law designated Torts fall
within this category."; Modern American Law (Law of Torts)

This means that *only* the two parties in privity have permission to
distribute the derivative work. For the life of me I'll never
understand why *you* can't accept this fact. That's why you are
accused of being in denial. When you are confronted with a bedrock
legal principle of U.S. law you simply change (moooooove) it to
something that fits your own beliefs.

The United States Supreme Court recently affirmed that, "It goes
without saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty."; EEOC V.
WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. 534 U.S. 279 (2002).

Why do you claim that "all third parties" who receive the
distributed code are bound by the terms of the GPL? In order for
"all third parties" to be bound by the GPL (which is a contract)
the GPL would have to create an "in rem" right and CONTRACTS CAN'T
DO THAT HYMEN (and 17 USC sec 301(a) also forbids it). The GPL is
*not* legally enforceable.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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