Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
"In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a license
agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those uses
would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all."
Fortunately, since copying and distributing computer programs
infringes upon the author's copyrights in the absence of any
license agreement at all, the JMRI decision continues to be
perfectly sound.
Nobody said copying and distributing without permission (which the
Artistic License *does* freely permit) wasn't infringement.
The attribution requirement wasn't a "condition" to the license -- it
was a contractual covenant. There is no right of attribution listed in
17 USC 106.
Sincerely,
Rjack
-- "In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a license agreement
constitute copyright infringement only when those uses would infringe
in the absence of any license agreement at all."; Storage Technology
Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (CAFC) --
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
