http://www.barrysookman.com/2010/12/20/teachings-from-the-blizzard-wow-case/
"The second ruling provides guidance on when a restriction in a software license is a condition, the breach of which constitutes copyright infringement, and when a restriction is a covenant, the breach of which is actionable only under contract law. The Court concluded that WoWs prohibitions against bots and use of unauthorized third-party software were covenants rather than copyright enforceable conditions. Central to the Courts ruling was the holding that for a licensees violation of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the condition and the licensors exclusive rights of copyright. Here, WoW players did not commit copyright infringement by using Glider in violation of the WoWs Terms of Use. This Courts holding seems to require that for a term to be a condition, its violation must be an infringement of copyright. If this is truly the holding, it is significant as other cases focuse on whether a term was drafted to be a condition rather than a mere promise by analyzing the license language. See, Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) summarized here. [http://www.barrysookman.com/2009/12/17/open-source-movement-gets-big-boost-from-copyright-laws-and-dmca-in-jacobsen-v-katzer/]"; Why overruled? The Federal Circuits jurisdiction over an intellectual property case depends upon whether the case includes a patent claim. Because its jurisdiction relates to patent claims, the Federal Circuit has acknowledged that it must apply the copyright standards of the regional circuit that would otherwise have had jurisdiction over the case had it not contained a patent claim. Thus, ironically, in patent/copyright cases appealed to the Federal Circuit from courts within the Ninth Circuit, the Federal Circuit would be required to follow the Ninth Circuits MDY Industries ruling and reject its own previous Jacobsen ruling. Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 12/21/2010 8:29 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > What impact could that reasoning have on the copyleft-like licenses? > > Nothing, because in the case of copylefts, the "disfavored Like the requirement to provide attribution as in Jacobsen case? > conduct" involves copying, which is covered by copyright law. To understand your stupidity suppose I simply provide a written offer regarding source code. You come to me for the source code with that offer. I tell: piss off silly Hyman. How does that would violate the copyright act, you idiot? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
