Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

[Hyman Rosen]

On 4/12/2010 1:10 PM, RJack wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > Regardless of what the case is about, it is nevertheless a fact that
> > the court stated <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane>
> > McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim
> > copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s own
> > contributions as compiler and illustrator, than the copyright notices
> > did. The significance of registration is that it is a prerequisite to
> > a suit to enforce a copyright.
>
> Whose copyrights? McFarlane’s or Gaiman’s?

McFarlane's copyright notices, not that it matters, since it's
registration that is (really not) at issue in the SFLC case.

> You are wasting time trying to twist dicta in the Seventh Circuit
> into prevailing law of the Second Circuit.

Pounding the table some more?

> The whole point of this discussion is the fact that the GPL license is
> unenforceable.

That is the point of view of anti-GPL cranks, but no court has yet
found this to be so. And it is copyright law which is enforceable.
Copyright law prohibits GPL-covered code from being copied and
distributed without complying with the conditions of the GPL.