Re: JMRI case -- Implementation of the Federal Circuit's Opinion

[Rjack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote: [...]
> > The terms of distribution are under the control of the copyright
> > holder, as when he separately authorizes the creation of
> > hardcover and paperback copies of a book.
>
> Why do you keeping confusing scope-of-use limitations of the grant
> with conditions to the grant, Hyman?

You have touched on 99% of GNUtians problems concerning copyright
licensing. They inevitably fail to understand the distinction between
a condition precedent that determines the contractual *existence* of
copyright permissions and the *scope of use* of copyright permissions
that restricts the use of the rights enumerated in 17 USC sec. 106.

A requirement for a "scope of use" restriction is the the alleged use
*must* violate sec. 106 rights in the absence of any license at all.
District Judge White clearly stated this:

"The condition that the user insert a prominent notice of attribution
does not limit the scope of the license. Rather, Defendants’ alleged
violation of the conditions of the license may have constituted a
breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create liability for
copyright infringement where it would not otherwise exist."

Obviously there is no "right of attribution" mentioned in 17 USC 106.

Neither GNUtians nor the CAFC in Jacobsen understand this critical
distinction concerning "conditions".

Sincerely,
Rjack