Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What is "controversial" or unproven about 17 USC sec. 301 of the Copyright
Act?
Exactly. It exists, and no one in a position to act is claiming that it
makes the GPL invalid or not work like FSF claims it works.
The SFLC is in a position to act -- all they have to to do is refrain from
voluntarily dismissing one of their silly lawsuits and let a judge review their
claims on the merits.
If that law impacted the GPL, there would be controversy. There's none, so
it doesn't.
No controversy eh?
Googling { GPL preempted }, I get 10,100 hits.
Free Softies certainly wear efficient blinders.
Sincerely,
Rjack
"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 Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering &
Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit 2005).
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
