[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:07:52 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
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.

Take your citation to the courts in Zimbabwe Hyman. The federal courts
of the United States ignore CAFC authority in areas outside their unique
patent appeals areas.

CAFC copyright decisions are valuable only as toilet paper in federal
courthouse restrooms. I hope and pray the SFLC cites to your CAFC
decision. ROFL.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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