Rjack wrote:
Where in it's utterly *non-precendental* and erroneous decision did
Oops, it's court vs. crank again!
the CAFC state that *all* open license requirements are enforceable copyright conditions?
<http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. ... Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. ... The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and distribute the computer programs and files included in the downloadable software package. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
