Re: Settlements

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 2/26/2010 12:05 PM, RJack wrote:
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > > The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of
> > >  granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work.
> >
> > Back to denial already Hyman? Please identify the section of 17 USC
> > 106 where "causing" someone "to license" a work conflicts with a
> > specific exclusive right of an owner of copyrights.
>
> The GPL requires that as a condition to copy and distribute a covered
> work, you must license the whole work at no charge to all others. I
> have no idea what your question above even means; the English seems
> not quite right.

It seems that everyone in the World except a few GNUtians understand
that "licensing" (the act of contract formation) doesn't require the
copying and distribution of source code.

> It is the copying and distribution which is the exclusive right of
> the copyright holders; granting the license is a condition of
> receiving permission from the rights holders to copy and distribute.

The act of "granting the license" does *not* involve copying and
distribution of source code Hymen. It is an act that consists of forming
a legal relationship -- an exchange of legally binding promises.

> > "An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless
> > it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by
> > the copyright statute.
>
> The unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution, 
> exactly as specified in 17 USC 106.

Bull. The unlicensed use you claim is failure to license (form a contract).

> The use is unlicensed when the copier fails to meet the conditions
> required by the GPL in order for permission to copy and distribute to
> be granted.

It's not a "condition" unless it involves the copying and distribution
of the source code. Contract formation (licensing) is a legal operation
and does not utilize source code exclusive rights.

Ever see a copyright license written in computer source code? If you
have please show me said claimed license.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

"An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at
154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S.
417 (1984).