Hyman Rosen wrote:
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.
You truncated my response Hyman.
Are you seriously suggesting that the "clear language" of the Artistic
License represents *all* open source licenses?
Sincerely,
Rjack
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
