Re: JMRI case -- Implementation of the Federal Circuit's Opinion

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:
> A requirement for a "scope of use" restriction is the the alleged use
> *must* violate sec. 106 rights in the absence of any license at all.

The violating use is distributing a copy of the copyrighted work,
prohibited by 17 USC 106(3). The GPL (and other open licenses)
describes the manner in which copies may be made and distributed.
Making and distributing copies in any other way is outside the
scope of use. The Artistic License may have written its permissions
too broadly, but the GPL does not have that problem.

> Neither GNUtians nor the CAFC in Jacobsen understand this critical
> distinction concerning "conditions".

Oh, look, it's crank vs. court again!

Here's another court, in Blizzard v. Donnelly:
<http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2006cv02555/322017/82/0.pdf>
    If A grants a software license to B on the express
    condition that the license will remain in effect
    only so long as B makes monthly payments to A, and
    B then stops making payments to A, any subsequent
    copying of the software to RAM by B would constitute
    copyright infringement

So much for all your blather about "conditions precedent",
or that automatic termination of the license for non-compliance
is ineffective.