[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
From: |
Hyman Rosen |
Subject: |
Re: More FSF hypocrisy |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:37:17 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) |
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman, implicit in a copyright license is the promise not to sue for
copyright infringement.
>
The CAFC's suggestion that
"Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude"
is utter nonsense.
Any promise not to sue exists only to those to whom the license
is granted, and only if they honor the terms of the license. You
are incorrect that breach of license cannot lead to suit for
copyright infringement. Here is exactly such a case:
<http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200703/court-upholds-copyright-infringement-and-unauthorized-access-claims-wh>
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, (continued)
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, chrisv, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy,
Hyman Rosen <=
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/24
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/24
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/24
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/24
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rahul Dhesi, 2009/03/25