Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/05/msg00462.html
>
> What about it? Bushnell discusses Jacob Maxwell v. Veeck, where a 
> court found that an implied nonexclusive license had been granted 
> by the rights holder due to his various failures to object to 
> infringing behavior. That's another case where there were direct 
> negotiations and unclear oral agreements between the parties. It 
> has nothing to do with the GPL, which spells out requirements for 
> the non-exclusive license in great detail, including termination of
>  all rights if copying and distribution is done in violation of 
> those requirements.
>
> He also says "Acceptance through conduct has been integral to 
> contract law in common-law countries since the days of writs in 
> Chancery" which is exactly what the GPL says - you demonstrate that
>  you accept it by your conduct in copying and distributing works in
>  accordance with its conditions.
>
> None of this counters the appeals court finding open license

Where in it's utterly *non-precendental* and erroneous decision did
the CAFC state that *all* open license requirements are enforceable
copyright conditions? The CAFC ruled on the terms of the *Artistic
License* as to whether certain terms were conditions limiting the
scope of the grant or "conditions precendent". The CAFC contradicted
itself when it cited Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911).

I am beginning to suspect that Free Softare advocates are
intellectually incapable of grasping the difference between
a permitted scope of use condition and a condition precedent in
a copyright license. One restricts the *scope* of the rights grant,
the other establishes the *existence* of the rights grant. The
distinction seems to exceed the GNUtians cognitive abilities.

Sincerely,
Rjack