[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:11:17 -0000

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 3/25/2010 3:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >
> The author of this seems not to realize that there is no
> right to copy and distribute works as part of a collective
> work without the authorization of the rights holders of
> the components. Given that incorrect starting assumption,
> it is no wonder that error piles upon error.

Let the author

know about his "error piles upon error". 


> There is no difficulty within copyright law for a rights
> holder to say that "you may make and distribute standalone

Only in your copyright misused delusional mind. Just because some moron
who believes a copyright license is not a contract says so doesn't make
it so. RMS's GNUtian acolytes may believe this tripe about collective
works but that doesn't make it true in the world of real people.

> copies provided you meet condition one, and you may make
> and distribute copies of a collective work incorporating
> the covered work provided you meet condition two".

"Courts that have embraced the doctrine of copyright misuse192 initially
adopted a rationale developed in the patent context.193 The doctrine of
patent misuse penalizes patent holders who try to expand their limited
legal monopoly over the patented invention beyond the “four corners of
the patent” and thus upset the balance that patent law has struck
between protection and public access.194 In patent cases, courts have
found a number of licensing practices to be abusive, including royalty
requirements for components, territories, or time periods outside the
scope of the patent grant, covenants not to deal in competing products,
and package licensing.195 A licensor who contractually prohibited the
combination of its software with other programs in situations where
adaptation rights are not affected would exceed the scope of its
copyright by seeking to control external activities and subject
matter—namely, the use of independent programs. Depending on the
context, such a clause could, in effect, constitute a prohibition on
using competing products. In any event, such a clause would limit a
licensee’s right to create compilations and non-creative
combinations—rights that the Copyright Act declares to be free, in
contrast to the right to prepare derivative works.196 Thus, such a
copyright owner would seem to run a significant risk that a court would
classify such a clause as copyright misuse with the dramatic result that
the copyright owner would be denied copyright protection even against
outright piracy. A licensor who merely prohibits licensees from creating
derivative works, as the term is defined by statute and through
combinations or otherwise, would generally remain within the scope of
its statutory rights and not risk a finding of copyright misuse.

The need to prevent an abuse of intellectual property law is
internationally recognized.197"


P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

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