rjack wrote:
You're confusing *contract terms* with "scope of use" restrictions on a copyright *grant of permissions* in a copyright contract.
Nope.
All copyright license are contracts. Within the contract are limitations on the actual "uses" of the work (called the scope of the license).
Nope.
"In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a license agreement
> constitute copyright infringement only when those uses would infringe > in the absence of any license
agreement at all."; Storage Technology Corporation v.Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (CAFC) (2005)
Yep. Here's the entire decision, <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/04-1462.pdf>, so that everyone can see what you are so conveniently leaving out. "To succeed in a copyright action, “the copying must be beyond the scope of a license possessed by the defendant,” Stenograph, 144 F.3d at 99, and the source of the copyright owner’s complaint must be grounded in a right protected by the Copyright Act, such as unlawful reproduction or distribution. See 17 U.S.C. § 106. In contrast, the rights granted by contract can be much broader." So you see that there is a difference between license and contract, and furthermore, the GPL acts just as the court says a license should act, prohibiting unlawful reproduction or distribution as restricted by copyright law. And by the way, for anyone who doesn't feel like reading the case, it was about a company bypassing restrictions on a device and its software in order to perform maintenance and repair. The chance that any court would apply this to the plain language of the GPL when someone is distributing programs in obvious violation is nil. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
