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

[David Kastrup]

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