Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/05/msg00462.html
What about it? Bushnell discusses Jacob Maxwell v. Veeck, where a
court found that an implied nonexclusive license had been granted
by the rights holder due to his various failures to object to
infringing behavior. That's another case where there were direct
negotiations and unclear oral agreements between the parties. It
has nothing to do with the GPL, which spells out requirements for
the non-exclusive license in great detail, including termination of
all rights if copying and distribution is done in violation of
those requirements.
He also says "Acceptance through conduct has been integral to
contract law in common-law countries since the days of writs in
Chancery" which is exactly what the GPL says - you demonstrate that
you accept it by your conduct in copying and distributing works in
accordance with its conditions.
None of this counters the appeals court finding open license
Where in it's utterly *non-precendental* and erroneous decision did
the CAFC state that *all* open license requirements are enforceable
copyright conditions? The CAFC ruled on the terms of the *Artistic
License* as to whether certain terms were conditions limiting the
scope of the grant or "conditions precendent". The CAFC contradicted
itself when it cited Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911).
I am beginning to suspect that Free Softare advocates are
intellectually incapable of grasping the difference between
a permitted scope of use condition and a condition precedent in
a copyright license. One restricts the *scope* of the rights grant,
the other establishes the *existence* of the rights grant. The
distinction seems to exceed the GNUtians cognitive abilities.
Sincerely,
Rjack
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss