Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

[RJack]

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
>  licenses.

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.

Sincerely,
RJack :)