David Kastrup wrote: [...] > There is nothing in a carrot that says that a person is not the "owner > of the carrot". Establishing ownership is a separate process.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf What it says is that even under contractual restrictions of statutory rights, 17 USC 117 bars cause of action for copyright infringement when "the party exercises sufficient incidents of ownership over a copy of the program to be sensibly considered the owner of the copy for purposes of ยง 117(a)." Same as with 17 USC 109. Now, that, of course, doesn't preclude cause of action for breach of contract (provided that the contract formalities like assent were fulfilled, and that agreement contains clear wording regarding contractual forbearance from rights under 17 USC 109 and/or 17 USC 117 -- blatant misstatements of statutes like the GPL does it (apparently trying to envision unwritten Copyleft Act of the GNU Republic) regarding the Copyright Act don't count)... and here comes totally idiotic GNUtian's claim that the "GPL is not a contract"... heck, feel free to plead yourself out of court: ----- Citing Bennett the court noted that "in some cases, it is possible for a plaintiff to plead himself out of court by alleging facts that render success on the merits impossible. ----- Guess why the FSF's "enforcement" motto is "Don't go to court" http://novalis.org/talks/lsm-talk-2004/slide-31.html no-brainer. > The > license defines the rights granted to somebody who has established > himself as the owner of a copy. In the GNU Republic, may be. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
