Rjack <[email protected]> writes: >Neither you nor the SFLC understand the difference between a "scope >of permitted use" restriction and a "condition precedent" to a grant >of rights...
But the defendants' legal counsel do, and have apparently decided that your argument doesn't apply. And the CAFC, in the JMI case (Artistic license), ruled that it was "outside the scope of the Artistic License to modify and distribute the copyrighted materials without copyright notices and a tracking of modifications from the original computer files." So the CAFC understands scope of use. And I'm sure the defendants' legal counsel do. Problem solved. You also missed the simple fact that copyright law gives a copyright owner several different rights, and different types of conditions can apply to each of these rights as permitted by the copyright owner to a licensee. You would have to consider each right granted to a licensee and analyze it separately. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
