Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 2/10/2010 5:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Heck, are you seriously suggesting that the GPL doesn't intend to 
> > "protect" user's rights indended to be equal to the developers 
> > rights and that co-author's developer rights under the GPL are not 
> > equal rights to the other co-author(s)
>
> People who release code under the GPL grant others the right to 
> create derivative works and copy and distribute those works provided 
> that they are distributed under the GPL. There is no basis for 
> claiming that a person releasing code under the GPL is volunteering 
> to give downstream authors joint copyright in the original work. 
> Indeed, the GPL, as a copyright license, enumerates the only ways 
> that another author may prepare and copy and distribute derivative 
> works outside of what copyright law alone would permit,

?????????????????  OUTSIDE OF COPYRIGHT LAW? ??????????????????????????
That's pure contract law for those GPL users! Oh dear Hyman, just show
me the downstream contractual "privity" required to make this crackpot
scheme enforcable.

> and since the GPL does not grant such other authors joint copyright, 
> they do not have it.

You GPL thumpers are just like Bible thumpers when relying on the
literal languge of the GPL. You confuse contract *construction" with the
"interpretation" of contract language intent:


"In Ram Construction, we defined "construction" of a contract as the
process of determining its legal effect. Id. at 1053 (citing 3 Corbin on
Contracts Sec. 534). Interpretation, in contrast, is a narrower process
of ascertaining the meaning of the particular words used and their
applicability to a specific factual situation. The distinction is
clearly stated by Williston: "The word 'interpretation' is used with
respect to language itself; it is the process of applying the legal
standard to expressions found in the agreement in order to determine
their meaning. 'Construction,' on the other hand, is used to determine,
not the sense of the words or symbols, but the legal meaning of the
entire contract; the word is rightly used wherever the import of the
writing is made to depend upon a special sense imposed by law."
Williston on Contracts Sec. 602, at 320 (3d ed. 1961). See also
Patterson, The Interpretation and Construction of Contracts, 64
Colum.L.Rev. 833, 833-36 (1964)."
JOHN F. HARKINS COMPANY, INC. v. The WALDINGER CORPORATION 796 F.2d 657
(3rd Cir 1986).

Operation of copyright law definition supercedes language intent.


"The Captain's scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)