Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:
> Nothing to do with copyright licenses eh?
> You've gone off the deep end in denial Hyman. Try googling
> ["copyright license" "court of appeals" "preempted" decided]
> and read a few of the 1170 hits.

OK, let's do that....

For people who don't want to slog through to the end,
my conclusion is that it is more obvious than ever that
preemption has nothing to do with the GPL, and that your
fixation on it is irrational.

The first return is the Butthole Surfers case,
<http://ngro_obsrvr.tripod.com/articles/decision.html>,
which has already come up in this discussion. The issue
was whether a non-exclusive license that had no term
specified must remain in effect for 35 years, as per
17 USC 203. The appeals court said that it did not, that
preemption did not mean that state law on termination
of contracts of unspecified duration would not be followed.
This has nothing to do with the GPL in the normal course of
events - it could affect GPLv2-licensed code if the copyright
were transferred to a GPL-hostile party.

The second return is about Jacobson v. Katzer, the model
railroad case. The only mention of preemption is that the
court decided that federal copyright law preempts claims
for breach of contract. This has nothing to do with the GPL,
since the GPL is a copyright license and claims are made for
copyright violation, not breach of contract.

The third return is
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cohenmusiclaw.com%2FValente-Kritzer%2520Video%2520v%2520Pinckney.pdf&ei=Y3BoStenIN_ktgeS9uXECw&usg=AFQjCNEIWKSJOfRydSLUpTY9wPBErouY4w&sig2=If4PC0-GOIr0EuMPKJe0ag>,
a case where the court decided that claims of fraud are not
preempted by the federal statute.

The fourth and fifth are duplicates.

The sixth is
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=6&url=http%3A%2F%2Fentertainmentlawreporter.carolon.net%2FArchive%2Fv28n01%2FLaws.htm&ei=Y3BoStenIN_ktgeS9uXECw&usg=AFQjCNGW47P_44qPcPw-D_iYiMt1ImrQMw&sig2=thulUU2g2HWaWmOnr3VXgw>,
where a court decides that California's "right of publicity"
law is preempted by copyright when it involves using music
samples. This has no application to the GPL.

The seventh is a duplicate.

The eighth, 
<http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2006/06/right-of-indemnification-for_15.html>
is a discussion of whether indemnification should be preempted
or not. This has nothing to do with the GPL.

I decided to stop here, since it is more obvious than
ever that preemption has nothing to do with the GPL,
and that your fixation on it is irrational.