On 3/29/2010 11:04 AM, RJack wrote: > The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301
The GPL is a copyright license which authorizes certain actions based on the exclusive rights given to copyright holders by federal copyright law. The federal preemption of state copyright equivalence provisions is completely irrelevant to the GPL. > it is unenforceable under contract law The GPL is a copyright license which authorizes certain actions based on the exclusive rights given to copyright holders by federal copyright law. No one has permission to otherwise copy and distribute GPL-covered works, so anyone who does so without obeying the requirements of the GPL is infringing copyright. > and is a misuse of copyright Misuse of copyright, when applied at all (its appearance is rare as hen's teeth), is found in anti-competitive and anti-trust contexts. As Daniel Wallace found, courts do not find that the GPL creates such a context, because competition laws exist to benefit the public, not to benefit competitors. > All this discussion of the legal consequences of the GPL is > delusional tilting at Windmills. Rather, all of this anti-GPL crankery consists of deliberately distorting copyright law and case law to reach false conclusions. None of these false conclusions have been upheld by courts, nor are they likely to be, leaving anti-GPL cranks no outlet but to rail on the internet. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
