Re: Circumventing the GPL

[rjack]

Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> rjack <robjack@insightbb.com> writes:
> > [...]the license is preempted by 17 USC sec 301.[...]
>
> And since invalidating the GPL would be worth billions to some companies, how
>  do you explain that your discovery (and that of Alexander Terekhov) are 
> ignored by everyone in a position to act?

I see you have shifted the topic from the specific legal enforceability question
under U.S. law to that of a speculative question of motivations based upon
dubious assumptions.

Who, pray tell, are these mysterious billion dollar companies and what would
their business model resemble?

Sincerely,
Rjack

-- "[I]f an extra element is required instead of or in addition to the acts of
reproduction, performance, distribution or display in order to constitute a
state-created cause of action, there is no preemption, provided that the extra
element changes the nature of the action so that it is qualitatively different
from a copyright infringement claim." Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283
(United States Court Of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2004) --