Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Interpretation of a copyright license as a contract makes all
the difference in the world concerning enforcement.
This is false. See, for example,
<http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200703/court-upholds-copyright-infringement-and-unauthorized-access-claims-wh>
where a court refused to dismiss a claim of copyright
infringement when a purchaser of a single-user license to access
online reading material allowed many people to access the
material.
Huh? What the hell does your cited case have to 17 USC 301(a)?
17 USC sec. 301(a) *sometimes* preempts terms of copyright
contracts. The GPL happens to be one of them. That's the point
Hymen. Your Straw Man argument won't work Hymen.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
falsely claim "victories" by the SFLC
In each case the SFLC has brought, the GPLed sources were made
available by the defendants or their agents. This makes for true,
not false, claims of victory.
This also justifies the SFLC lawyers sucking up big salaries
from publicly contributed funds for claiming legal nonsense as
fact.
Much like programmers who distribute under the GPL, people choose
to support organizations they like, and you have no claim to
their cash or time. The "public" who contributes to the SFLC are
people who believe that users should have the freedom to run,
read, modify, and share software.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
