Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Isaac wrote:
> [...]
>> Nonsense.
>
> Breaking new.
>
> Barnes & Thornburg LLP on the GPL (Wallace v IBM et al):
>
> ---------
> Although it is not clear how it is relevant to whether the per se or
> rule of reason analysis would apply, Plaintiff also argues that the
> GPL "purports to defeat the requirements of contractual privity and
> thus evade the prohibition under 17 U.S.C. 301 concerning the
> contractual regulation of copyrights". (Response at 4.) Section 301
> of 17 U.S.C., however, concerns the preemptive effect of the Copyright
> Act with respect to other laws and does not prohibit "contractual
> regulation of copyrights". To the contrary, as is evident from the
> ProCD case Plaintiff cites, copyrights may be licensed by a uniform
> contract effective against all who choose to use it. (Response at 6)
> (citing ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1454 (7th Cir. 1996).)
> The court in ProCD held that a "shrinkwrap" software license, that
> is, a license that accompanies software limiting its use, is an
> effective contract under the UCC against anyone who receives the
> terms of the license and uses the software. Id. at 1452. The court
> also held that state enforcement of such contracts under the UCC
> would not be preempted by the Copyright Act or 17 U.S.C. ยง 301. Id.
> The GPL, like the shrinkwrap license in ProCD, is a license
> applicable to anyone who receives its terms and chooses to use it,
> and by using it, accepts the terms under which the software was
> offered. Id.
> ---------
>
> My, this is such a fun. Kudos to Wallace.
For making a royal fool of himself? Have you ever seen a contract
stating:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
