Tim Smith wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
"amicus_curious" <[email protected]> wrote:
What is at issue today, though, is the nature of such "default copyright
rules". If there is no fee charged to use the work or to redistribute the
work, the copyright can be ignored unless the author can show some degree of
harm to himself.
Where did you get that idea? Not from the copyright statute, nor from
the case law.
Actually the GPL requires licensing and distribution of the source
code to "all third parties" and no benefit (consideration) is
intended for either contracting party (parties in privity) to the
GPL agreement (try reading the GPL sometime).
Under US law only a member of the class "all third parties" have a
right to claim a benefit from the GPL. The owners (parties in
privity) of the copyrighted code which the GPL covers have no
standing to file suit because some member of the class "all third
parties" doesn't receive his promised source code.
As the US Supreme Court clearly stated:
"Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits
on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general
prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights, .
. ."; ALLEN v. WRIGHT 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
