Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:
> 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*:

It is meaningful because it shows a straightforward line of thinking
and approach to licenses of this sort that will be adopted elsewhere.
Where the specific decision is binding elsewhere doesn't matter. It's
the reasoning that counts.

> 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?

Sure. Most of them have specific, enforceable conditions.
The GPL certainly does.

> Just like the GPL contains an illegal condition.

The conditions of the GPL are completely legal.