[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!? |
Date: |
Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:25:25 +0200 |
Tim Tyler wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Tim Tyler wrote:
> > [...]
> >> You have no right to redistribute the software - with
> >> or without the source code - under copyright law, unless
> >> such freedom is granted by a license.
> >
> > Stop being such an idiot, Tyler. From "Understanding Open Source and
> > Free Software Licensing":
> >
> > http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/osfreesoft/book/ch06.pdf
> > (Chapter 6: Legal Impacts of Open Source and Free Software Licensing)
>
> [snip]
>
> It seems to agree that open source licenses - giving the example
> of the MIT license - are unenforcable by contract law:
>
> ``Nonetheless, the absence of affirmative consent (such as
> clicking on a text box as required by the clickwrap license)
> is troubling to courts, and correctly so. It seems unfair to
> enforce terms of a contract to which one of the parties has
> done nothing to positively affirm.
>
> This issue has obvious application to the open source and
> free software licenses already discussed. Staying with the
> MIT License, say, for example, that an ordinary user comes
> across a piece of code that is subject to this license.
> The user takes the code and uses it on his personal computer.
> The user incorporates the code into a program that he is
> writing. The user distributes the program, either for profit
> or not. At no point has the user taken any affirmative,
> symbolic action that would indicate his consent to the terms
> of the license that is comparable to the act of signing a
> contract.''
In the case of open source and free software licenses, the "user" manifests
assent by simply taking action(s) reserved to copyright owners.
>
> That's why the open source licenses do not rely on contract law,
[... more Moglen's and PJ's bullshit ...]
An intellectual property license is a contract. In re: Aimster Copyright
Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th Cir. 2003) ("If a breach of contract (and a
copyright license is just a type of contract) . . . "); see also McCoy v.
Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("Whether express
or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by ordinary principles of state
contract law'").
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=fed&%20navby=case&no=991431
"A license is governed by the laws of contract."
But feel free to believe that the entire US federal judiciary is just a bunch
of narrow-minded fools in denial of Moglen's genius and that they all should go
and keep taking SFLC's seminars until they finally get his "not a contract"
theory.
> Copyright violation: preliminary injunction;
> Contract violation: no preliminary injunction.
Sort of. :-)
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf
("With respect to the General Public License...")
The standard for PI under copyright infringement claim includes presumption of
irreparable harm. The judge didn't apply it (and used a contract standard
instead). Note also "portion breach of contract claim" and "didn't cure the
breach" wording (one just can't "cure" a copyright violation). Finally, that
decision is tagged as "Nature of Suit: 190" and that's neither 820/840 nor
190/820/840 (all three).
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/documents/natsuit.pdf
190 is CONTRACT/Other Contract
820 is PROPERTY RIGHTS/Copyrights
840 is PROPERTY RIGHTS/Trademark
regards,
alexander.
--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."
-- The GNU Monk Harald Welte
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, rjack, 2007/08/26
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/08/27
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, Tim Tyler, 2007/08/27
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/08/27
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, Tim Tyler, 2007/08/27
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/08/27
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, Tim Tyler, 2007/08/27
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/08/28
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, Tim Tyler, 2007/08/28
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, Tim Tyler, 2007/08/28
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/08/28
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, Tim Tyler, 2007/08/28
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/08/29
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, Arnoud Engelfriet, 2007/08/28
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, John Hasler, 2007/08/28
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, Tim Tyler, 2007/08/28
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, John Hasler, 2007/08/28
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, Tim Tyler, 2007/08/28
- Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?, John Hasler, 2007/08/27