Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

[RJack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>
> > Hyman Rosen wrote: [...]
> > > According to this paper, <http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf> 
> > > the GPL is not a contract.
> > "Part IV proposes that the GPL is a failed contract, which lacks
> > only consideration. It advocates enforcing the license through
> > state promissory estoppel law and the Copyright Act."
> >
> > LOL. I propose Sapna Kumar is just crazy. The GPL is full of 
> > consideration on both sides.
> >
> > Licensor's consideration is a promise not to sue for copyright 
> > infringment.
> >
> > Licensee's consideration is all the enforcable obligations imposed
> > by the license.
>
> You are confusing "consideration" with "contribution".  Look up the 
> "consideration" in a law dictionary, it is legalese.
>
> And there is no "promise not to sue" in the GPL.  You can always sue,
>  with different chances of winning depending on circumstances.  The
> GPL spells out the circumstances quite clearly, so that there is not
> much of an ambiguity (which is the main reason most cases are settled
> without judicial ruling).  But suing is always an option, and I
> consider it likely that a "promise not to sue" would be considered
> invalid by courts:

Yeah...

"Implicit in that permission was a promise not to sue for copyright
infringement--a promise that at least one court has found to be the
essence of a nonexclusive license. See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673,
677 (9th Cir.1996) ("[A] nonexclusive patent license is, in essence, 'a
mere waiver of the right to sue' the licensee for infringement.")
(quoting De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United States, 273
U.S. 236, 242, 47 S.Ct. 366, 368, 71 L.Ed. 625 (1927))."

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/110/110.F3d.749.96-2636.html

> the whole point of a contractual relation is putting something on a
> legal footing, and letting a court check whether the conditions for a
> "promise not to sue" are met would be paradoxical, and not being able
>  to let it be checked would render the whole construct legally
> absurd.
Sincerely,
RJack :)