Hyman Rosen wrote:
If this is victory for the little guy, I'd really hate to see what defeat is like.
Yeaaaaaah... A "victory" perhaps in the district courts of Zimbabwe. "Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters in the light of the problems faced by the district court from which each count originated, including the law there applicable. In this manner, we desire to avoid exacerbating the problem of intercircuit conflicts in non-patent areas. A district court judge should not be expected to look over his shoulder to the law in this circuit, save as to those claims over which our subject matter jurisdiction is exclusive. [Footnote omitted.] ... The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions and in this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc). The truth of the matter is that there is no victory for "open source licenses". "Open source" licenses and "proprietary" are interpreted using the exact same rules. Each license (contract) is individually interpreted according to the state common law of contracts. "Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08." Edwin Kennedy v.National Juvenile Detention Association and Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission, 187 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 1999). The current SFLC case resides in New York state and the GPL adhesion contract will be construed according to the common law of the State of New York consistent with Second Circuit federal precedent. All this blather about the Jacobsen "victory" precedent is just that -- senseless blather. Sincerely, RJack :) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss