Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

[amicus_curious]

"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXTheXG.usenet.us.com> wrote in message 
news:grli7b$f2s$1@blue.rahul.net...
> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> 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.