Re: CAFC 2008-1001 -- "license to the world must be a bare license" case

[rjack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

> OSI's General Counsel contemplates upcoming "disaster for open source
> licensors" and brings attention to another recent case
> (3:06-cv-07391-MJJ). 

Is reality finally setting in?

Observe the enormous amount of “spin” applied to the current 
presidential candidates and then fire up Google and look for “open 
source” blogs that are actively discussing the Netbula, LLC v. Storage 
Technology decision. Any parallels?

The so-called open source “community” has expended an enormous effort 
during past years spouting crass propaganda concerning the “power” of 
open source licensing. The biggest lie of all was the chanting of the 
mantra “a license is not a contract”.

By evading this fundamental legal principle – that all license are 
contracts – any cogent discussion of open source licensing principles 
and possible benefits has been subverted by anti-capitalist political 
ideology.

Any open source "disaster" has been openly engineered by the propaganda 
folks at OSI and the FSF.

Regards,
Rjack :)

 --- Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the circumstances; 
but the relation between the parties thereafter in respect of any suit 
brought must be held to be contractual, and not an unlawful invasion of 
the rights of the owner."; De Forest Radio Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United 
States, 273 U.S. 236, United States Supreme Court (1927) ---