Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman, implicit in a copyright license is the promise not to sue for
copyright infringement. See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673, 677 (9th Cir.
1996), citing De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United States, 273 U.S.
236, 242(1927) (finding that a nonexclusive license is, in essence, a
mere waiver of the right to sue the licensee for infringement); see also
Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1990)
(holding that the granting of a nonexclusive license may be oral or by
conduct and a such a license creates a waiver of the right to sue in
copyright, but not the right to sue for breach of contract).

The CAFC's suggestion that

  "Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude"

is utter nonsense.

http://brendanscott.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/jacobsen-v-katzer-a-view-of-the-antipodes/

"makes the (somewhat schizophrenic, given that the purpose of the
licence is to in-, not ex-, clude) observation (at 12) that “Copyright
licenses are designed to support the right to exclude..."

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)