On 3/16/2010 11:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
To quote IBM: "The ownership interests contributors to software licensed under the GPL might have in their modifications are seriously limited, given that any distribution of those modifications must be done under the terms of the GPL."
<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. As the Second Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976), the "unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the proprietor of the copyright." 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. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief.
"92. It can be argued that this might change if, in effect, no third party can avoid being bound by the contract terms in order to use the information.
Yes. Preemption would apply when state law attempted to restrict what is otherwise permitted in terms similar to copyright. But the GPL does not restrict any behavior permitted by unadorned copyright law, and therefore preemption is irrelevant to the GPL. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss