Re: Settlements

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Well since the unlicensed use conflicts with the exclusive rights to
>> copy and modification without a license, there we are.
>>
>
> You can deem terms in a license whatever you want -- the pen is in your
> hand. You can call a contractual covenant a "condition" until you turn
> blue in the face but it won't magically make it a "condition" or scope
> of use restriction.

Its not a "scope of use restriction" because the scope of use is not
restricted but extended.  The conditions for the extension are spelled
out.  If you don't meet them, you are back to the normal usage rights
under copyright law.

> "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).

Copying and modification without license conflicts with the specific
exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute.

> The only two legal mechanisms in a copyright license that can cause a
> "use" to conflict with an exclusive right are a "scope of use"
> restriction or an unsatisfied condition precedent.

The GPL and related free software licenses don't introduce any conflicts
with exclusive rights.  They _lift_ some usage constraints that would,
without a license, constitute a conflict with exclusive rights.  There
are conditions under which these additional permissions otherwise
prohibited by the exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute
are given.

All your silly word games don't change that.

-- 
David Kastrup