[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:07:51 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0

On 3/9/2010 11:48 AM, RJack wrote:
"Copyleft" style licenses are unenforceable under U.S. law.

No, that's not correct. A court has enforced an open license:
    Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have
    the right to control the modification and distribution of
    copyrighted material. As the Second Circuit explained in
    Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976), the
    "unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven,
    would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that
    work similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the
    license granted by the proprietor of the copyright."
    Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to
    exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that
    right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of
    compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure
    and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-
    denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition.
    Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently
    speculative, these types of license restrictions might well
    be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through
    injunctive relief.

reply via email to

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