Tim Smith wrote:
On 2007-11-21, rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The designated donee beneficiaries of the GPL are obviously "all third
parties". Clearly the plaintiffs are "parties" to the GPL contract and
cannot be a member of the class "all third parties." Therefore the
plaintiffs can suffer no injury by the source code not being made
available to "all third parties".
Their injury is the use of the copyrighted work in a manner that they
have not agreed to.
To constitute copyright infringement an action must be capable of
violating an author's 17 USC sec. 106 exclusive rights in the absence of
any license at all.
Requiring distribution of another author's modifications in a derivative
work is not one of the exclusive rights enumerated under 17 USC sec. 106
and cannot lead to a charge of "copyright infringement".
The alleged violation of the GPL (failure to distribute another author's
modifications) is a contractual requirement that names it's designated
donee beneficiaries as "all third parties".
:)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
