Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 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.

"Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License are
enforceable copyright conditions, ..."

So the CAFC found the Artistic License contains enforceable
conditions. So what.

1) The CAFC case is meaningless to *any* other copyright
infringement case *anywhere*:


"Technically, the Federal Circuit's ruling will have no
precedential, effect. Because of an unusual quirk in US law, the
court had to apply the legal standards of a sister appellate court,
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; and the Federal Circuit's
interpretation of 9th Circuit law has no precedential value. "Even a
future Federal Circuit case on this area of the law must look again
to the regional [9th] circuit and not the Federal Circuit
interpretation," according to Harold Wegner, a partner in the
Washington, DC office of Foley & Lardner."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2008/08/26/us-court-finds-open-source-licences-enforceable-big-impact-seen-on-us-copyright-law/

All the blather you can muster will *never* make the CAFC decision
applicable to another copyright case. *Forget* the CAFC decision. It
doesn't set any precedent concerning "open source" licenses. The
CAFC decision is toothless and meaningless to open source license law.

2) How do you generalize applying the toothless CAFC decision to
"So "open source" licenses. . ."?

Are all open source licenses written like the Artistic License?

Is the license:

******************** Open Source License ***************************

You may copy, make derivative works, and distribute those works that
are based on the covered source code provided that you first murder
your mother.

********************************************************************

enforceable? Of course not. It contains an illegal condition. Just
like the GPL contains an illegal condition.