[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:08:16 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/10/2010 10:58 AM, RJack wrote:
The truth of the matter is that there is no victory for "open source licenses". "Open source" licenses and "proprietary" are interpreted using the exact same rules. Each license (contract) is individually interpreted according to the state common law of contracts.

This was a victory for open licenses because a court upheld the understanding that if the conditions of the license are not met, then
 copying and distributing is infringement. That this victory may
apply to other forms of licenses does not lessen the victory for open

Sigh... That's nothing new. If conditions precedent are not satisfied in
a proprietary license the same thing results. The Artistic license had
no conditions precedent -- only covenants. One erroneous decision by
a non-precedental court is hardly a victory. The CAFC's clear error can
never harm anyone other than Katzer.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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