[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:26:03 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0

On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote:
2) "A Gentlemen's Agreement: Assessing the GNU General Public License
and its Adaptation to Linux". Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual
Property, Vol. 6, p. 213, 2007.

    Existing case law surrounding shrinkwrap and browsewrap
    licenses that use a notice-plus-conduct model suggests
    that courts would find that the GPL creates an enforceable
    contract, if a party challenged this point directly.
    However, as long as the requirement of the GPL is clear to
    both licensor and licensee before contract formation, then
    the notice-plus-conduct model contemplated by the GPL
    operates successfully despite the lack of formal notice in
    practice. Courts will likely hold Linux developers to the
    same standard as parties who receive printed forms and
    choose not to read them.
    Regardless of the interpretation of the GPL as a license or
    as a contract, the text of the GPL helps to determine its

Thanks for the reference. The paper has a lot of analysis of
GPL-related stuff, such as license vs. contract and the status
of Linux kernel modules, but doesn't say anything terribly
profound. As in the other paper, the author states his wish for
the FSF and Linux to embrace non-free software, to which I'm
sure the response will be "no, thanks". Otherwise, it's actually
quite supportive of the GPL.

reply via email to

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