Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:
> I agree that typically "provided that" may denote a contractual
> condition. So what?

    <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf>
    We consider here the ability of a copyright holder to dedicate
    certain work to free public use and yet enforce an "open source"
    copyright license to control the future distribution and
    modification of that work.
    ...
    The District Court held that the open source Artistic License
    created an "intentionally broad" nonexclusive license which was
    unlimited in scope and thus did not create liability for copyright
    infringement.
    ...
    It is outside the scope of the Artistic License to modify and
    distribute the copyrighted materials without copyright notices and
    a tracking of modifications from the original computer files.
    ...
    The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to
    protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public
    license.
    ...
    For the aforementioned reasons, we vacate and remand.
    ...
    Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License are
    enforceable copyright conditions, ...

So "open source" licenses work exactly the way they say they do,
and not all of your spinning and twisting will change that.