Rjack wrote:
So the CAFC found the Artistic License contains enforceable
conditions. So what. 1) The CAFC case is meaningless to *any*
other copyright infringement case *anywhere*:
It is meaningful because it shows a straightforward line of
thinking and approach to licenses of this sort that will be
adopted elsewhere Where the specific decision is binding
elsewhere doesn't matter. It's the reasoning that counts.
2) How do you generalize applying the toothless CAFC decision
to "So "open source" licenses. . ."? Are all open source
licenses written like the Artistic License?
Sure. Most of them have specific, enforceable conditions. The GPL
certainly does.
Just like the GPL contains an illegal condition.
The conditions of the GPL are completely legal.