Rjack wrote:
Just because you write something into a contract's terms doesn't make it enforceable
It's not a contract, it's a license. If I want to write a license for my work that says that I give a non-exclusive grant to persons to whom I distribute, and to persons to whom they further distribute, provided they meet my conditions, the exclusive rights to authorize given to me by 17 USC 106 allow me to do this.
17 USC 301(a)
As usual, your irrational fixation on federal preemption of state copyright laws makes no sense.
17 USC 205 concerns *existing* non-exclusive licenses and not purported future *new* licenses "downstream". Only the owner of copyright can grant a new license -- it's an *exclusive* right.
Yes. That's why we're discussing the transfer issue. It's possible that a transfer of copyright to a GPL-hostile entity could cause downstream distribution to be disallowed. That's a good argument for assigning copyrights to an organization like the FSF.
The GPL is harmless (other than SFLC harassment) because it's legally unenforceable.
Once this is said by a court rather than by a fool on Usenet, I'll get back to you. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
