[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: More FSF hypocrisy

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:55:58 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Given, in the context of the GPL: (a) permissions (b) requirements Question: How can one possibly fulfill (b) without
 first taking   advantage of (a)? Your answer:

One of the GPL's requirements for copying and distributing a covered work is that it must be accompanied by a copy of the GPL.

The GPL is not embedded in the copyrighted source code file
therefore that requirement is a contractual covenant and not a
scope-of-use restriction or a condition precedent.

I know that you don't understand the difference between covenants,
scope-of-use and conditions precedent. That doesn't change the fact
that all three mechanisms are used in copyright contracts and that
not only contract language but also context many times determine
which mechanism is at play.

It is childish to read a single, isolated decision which fails to
differentiate between the language of the three mechanisms and call
everything you see in any copyright license a "condition".

"The enforcement of a copyright license raises issues that lie at
the intersection of copyright and contract law, an area of law that
is not yet well developed. We must decide an issue of first
impression: whether, where two sophisticated parties have negotiated
a copyright license and dispute its scope, the copyright holder who
has demonstrated likely success on the merits is entitled to a
presumption of irreparable harm. We hold that it is, but only after
the copyright holder has established that the disputed terms are
limitations on the scope of the license rather than independent
contractual covenants. In other words, before Sun can gain the
benefits of copyright enforcement, it must definitively establish
that the rights it claims were violated are copyright, not
contractual, rights."; Sun Microsystems, Inc., v. Microsoft Corp.,
188 F.3d 1115 (1999).

Hyman you are like a child who is first shown a picture of a dog
and then calls anything with four legs (i.e. a cat or a deer) a "dog".

Thus, when you distribute the work which you have created properly, the receiver can compel you to honor the GPL. If you make and distribute copies without including the GPL, you are violating copyright and the rights holder can compel you to stop
 infringing and pay penalties. (a) and (b) are simultaneous.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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