It's been suggested that existing case law with respect to copyrights
always is based on contract law, and that the GPL can only be
understood in terms of contract law.
As near as I can tell, this is mistaking correlation with causation.
Standard industry practice involves the use of contract law
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's been suggested that existing case law with respect to copyrights
> always is based on contract law, and that the GPL can only be
> understood in terms of contract law.
Oferchrissake. Existing case law with respect to copyright _licenses_
i
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oferchrissake. ...
> ... This is such complete crap I am almost speechless.
> This is arrant nonsense. ...
It appears that I have lost patience with this particular line of
argument. My apologies for polluting people's in-boxes. You
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] My apologies for polluting people's in-boxes. You will
> perhaps understand if I refrain from rebutting certain lines of
> argument henceforth, and not mistake it for an inability to do so.=20
Thanks for the apology. Would you consider post
On 12/05/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, there is the other option: Tort Law.
Not in some jurisdiction (such as the French and Belgian one). The GPL
is a valid contract, and to sue under tort law is very difficult when
there is some contract between the parties. It has to be
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oferchrissake. Existing case law with respect to copyright _licenses_
> is always, always, always based on contract law (in the US, anyway).
> Would you do me the courtesy of at least correctly stating the
> argument that you are attempti
Raul Miller wrote:
It's been suggested that existing case law with respect to copyrights
always is based on contract law, and that the GPL can only be
understood in terms of contract law.
(...)
However, there is the other option: Tort Law.
I don't know and I won't try to figure out if your a
Just in case anyone was worried about this issue:
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So it should be possible to treat the GPL as if an implicit contract
> > had been signed, and proceed from there, and the damages inf
On 5/12/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just in case anyone was worried about this issue:
>
> On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So it should be possible to treat the GPL as if an implicit contract
> >
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Federal copyright law presumes irreparable harm from the
> infringement of a copyright. See Cadence Design Systems,
> 125 F.3d at 826-27.
Exactly.
--
Raul
On 12 May 2005 09:46:28 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the apology. Would you consider posting a short outline
> of how you would rebut the argument in general, rather than getting
> annoyed writing a point-by-point demolition? I'd ignore any "you
> can't answer everything you
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All copyright _licenses_ (in the US, anyway) are terms in contracts.
This does seem to be your main thesis.
You have not provided any reason to believe that this generalization
must hold in all cases.
Instead, you've been using the fu
On 5/12/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > All copyright _licenses_ (in the US, anyway) are terms in contracts.
>
> This does seem to be your main thesis.
>
> You have not provided any reason to believe that this generalizati
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or he could consult a law book, of course. I don't bother with
> citations to Nimmer on Copyright or Corbin on Contracts or whatever
> except when I find them quoted in a court opinion, because I can't
> just hand you a URL. But if you c
On 5/12/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Or he could consult a law book, of course. I don't bother with
> > citations to Nimmer on Copyright or Corbin on Contracts or whatever
> > except when I find them quoted in a court op
15 matches
Mail list logo
