[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!" |
Date: |
Fri, 05 Dec 2008 01:42:34 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
> 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.
License conditions are usually interpreted according to contract law
(little point in doing them separately). There are differences,
however: licenses can't state contractual penalties since those depend
on an explicit agreement. There are also differences with regard to the
treatment and interpretation of possibly invalid terms.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", (continued)
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", amicus_curious, 2008/12/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2008/12/05
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", David Kastrup, 2008/12/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rahul Dhesi, 2008/12/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", JEDIDIAH, 2008/12/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rjack, 2008/12/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!",
David Kastrup <=
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rjack, 2008/12/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", David Kastrup, 2008/12/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rjack, 2008/12/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2008/12/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rahul Dhesi, 2008/12/03
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2008/12/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", David Kastrup, 2008/12/02
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rahul Dhesi, 2008/12/04
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Alexander Terekhov, 2008/12/09