[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:48:29 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)

David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote:
"An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute.
The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in the absence of any license agreement at all.
Providing or not providing attribution is not copying you moron, it's providing or not providing attribution. Take your meds, Hyman.

In this case, permission to copy was given depending on proper attribution. Proper attribution was not made, so no permission to copy was available.

You're trying to force a condition precedent which is a term of contract

What you say *could* be true in a license. The critical word is
"precedent" which means "to precede". Unfortunately for the
Artistic License, you can't attribute a work you haven't yet received
permission to create. The very thing that is supposedly being
conditioned (the copyright permissions) is required to satisfy the
condition (attribution in the created work) -- which is impossible.

The same thing happens with respect to sec. 2 of the GPL.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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