Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

[Rjack]

David Kastrup wrote:

> The GPL is not a contract but a license.  It spells the conditions you
> have to meet.

"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.

"Whether express or implied, a license is a contract governed
by ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v.
Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995).

"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.  101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006).

Methinks someone should start a write-in campaign to inform the
federal judiciary the error of their ways.

Sincerely,
Rjack