On 2/10/2010 4:08 PM, RJack wrote:
WTF does that have to do with the Supreme Court and NEW YORK TIMES CO.
V. TASINI. TASANI didn't address blanket injunctions concerning
copyright registration in derivative works.
You would have to ask the author of the citation. It sounds to me
that she believes that Tasini will be overturned and this will then
cause the Second Circuit to allow the same prophylactic injunctions
that other circuits do. I simply quoted an entire paragraph, and the
Tasini reference was part of it.
This applies tp GPLed programs in the same way.
Says who? POTUS or Moglen?
I do, reasoning by analogy since the cases seem obviously the same.
The court said that if you want an injunction against infringement,
go register the work, then come and ask for the injunction.
A court will NEVER, NEVER choose to enjoin a GPL program. A federal
judge will NEVER, NEVER get a chance to read the GPL if the SFLC has
anything to do with it. Automatic voluntary dismissals are neat aren't
they Hyman?
The dismissals are not "automatic", they are a result of the
parties settling and the defendants agreeing to comply with
the GPL. The "neat" part is gaining compliance with the GPL,
which every single defendant has agreed to.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
