[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:05:17 -0400

"Rahul Dhesi" <> wrote in message news:grli7b$f2s$
"amicus_curious" <> writes:

Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace?
A very major difference is that judges were ruling against Wallace and that
has not yet happened to Rjack.

Ah yes! I had forgotten that Rjack has overruled the CAFC (repeatedly).
I appreciate the correction.

The CAFC decision was not so clear regarding the "is a license a contract" discussion. Rather it turned on whether there were opportunities for irreparable harm arising from the conditions in the Artistic license and the motion was remanded to the district to litigate that issue. I think that would be the case whether or not the license was considered a contract or whatever else it could be. The only importance to this is whether or not there should be a presumption of harm and so an injunction awarded regardless of the financial damage caused by the violation. Contracts have a balance of harms and many other issues. The copyright, though, is coming under the same sort of consideration, i.e. the presumption of irreparable harm is no longer the case.

Interestingly enough, the district decided that there wasn't anything that rose to that level that had been submitted by the plaintiff.

Somehow or another, the jursisdiction of the CAFC is now under dispute since it arises somehow out of there having to be a patent issue in the case and that has apparently, according to the defendant, been removed from the case. So now the case may go to another appeals court that is more focused on the copyright issue.

reply via email to

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