Re: Settlements

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 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.

Except the claimed "conditions" aren't conditions at all -- they're
contractual covenants. You may claim forever that a contractual covenant
is a condition but it won't change the Supreme Court's holding that
"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. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at
154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S.
417 (1984).

The "use" of "licensing" a work doesn't utilize any copyrighted source
code in the contract formation and just because you say it does doesn't
make it so. *Promising* to license "to all third parties" is a
contractual covenant.

> This made such copying and distribution an infringing use.

No it did not. That's your imagination speaking in a wishful manner.

> > 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.

The claimed condition that was allegedly violated was "licensing".

> You appear seriously confused.

You are obviously having difficulty grasping an abstract concept.

> > 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.

So what? Show me a copyright license written in GPL'd source code. Then
I'll believe copying and distribution of source code was utilized.

Sincerely,
RJack :)