Re: Settlements

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/26/2010 4:28 PM, RJack wrote:
> It seems that everyone in the World except a few GNUtians understand
> that "licensing" (the act of contract formation) doesn't require the
> copying and distribution of source code.

Everyone understands that granting a license doesn't
require anything except stating the terms of it.

> The act of "granting the license" does *not* involve copying and
> distribution of source code

Correct.

> > The unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution, exactly
> > as specified in 17 USC 106.
>
> Bull. The unlicensed use you claim is failure to license (form a contract).

In all of these cases, companies copied and distributed GPL-
covered code without adhering to the conditions of the GPL.
This made such copying and distribution an infringing use.

> It's not a "condition" unless it involves the copying and distribution
> of the source code. Contract formation (licensing) is a legal operation
> and does not utilize source code exclusive rights.

The infringing use was copying and distribution.
You appear seriously confused.

> Ever see a copyright license written in computer source code?
> If you have please show me said claimed license.

All GPL-covered code includes the GPL by reference to a file
which accompanies the source code, for brevity.