Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:
> Read your beloved Jacobsen v. Katzer outcome to see what happens to
> those kinds of requests for injunctive relief.

The only thing that's happened so far is that the district court
has refused to grant a preliminary injunction. (In my opinion,
misreading, perhaps deliberately, the decision of the appeals
court, but that's just my point of view.)

Meanwhile, the CAFC said:
    <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf>
    Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material
    in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open
    source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no
    economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits,
    including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of
    copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond
    traditional license royalties.
    ...
    Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the
    right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted
    material.
    ...
    Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude;
    money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. The
    choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the
    open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes,
    rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less
    legal recognition.

It is no help to cavil about where this decision may or may not be
binding, because it's the reasoning behind the decision as much as
the decision itself which matters.