Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 2/22/2010 12:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright 
> > infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as 
> > violation of a renting license constitutes a trespass, you retard 
> > Hyman.
>
> <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> Copyright holders
>  who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the 
> modification and distribution of copyrighted material. ... Copyright 
> licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages 
> alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact 
> consideration in the form of compliance with the open source 
> requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as
>  a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition.
>
> Court vs. crank. Court wins.

Nope courts (plural) vs. moron. Courts (plural) win.

"Not only did the court not state that “uses” that fall outside the
scope of the license would necessarily constitute a copyright violation,
but the allegedly unlawful “use” in that case was the copying of
architectural plans. Id. at 32; see Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys.
Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1167 (1st Cir. 1994). In light of their
facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely unremarkable principle
that “uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright
infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any
license agreement at all." -- {CAFC)

"The scope of the nonexclusive license is, therefore, intentionally
broad. 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.
Therefore, based on the current record before the Court, the Court finds
that Plaintiff’s claim properly sounds in contract and therefore
Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating likelihood of success
on the merit of his copyright claim and is therefore not entitled to a
presumption of irreparable harm" -- (ND CA)

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

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)