On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 09:53:35 +0100, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2004-09-06 02:24:58 +0100 Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > There are definitely implicit copyright licenses in (US) copyright > > case law. > > In general, that only concerns us if US law is the one being applied. > I don't think either GPL (for libcurl) or OpenSSL specify US law. If > it's not US law, do we still have the idea of implicit copyright > licences?
That's really the beauty of the GPL... it works in over 70 different copyright regimes around the world. You'd have to ask a legal scholar in each regime about any caselaw involving implicit copyright licenses. In the US, there have been rulings like Effects Associates, Inc. v. Larry Cohen, 908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990)[1] that have established implicit nonexclusive licensing. [1] This is an especially interesting read... it starts off with, "What we have here is a failure to compensate." and concerns a dispute between a B-movie director and a special effects crew. http://www.kentlaw.edu/e-Ukraine/copyright/cases/effects_v_cohen.html Joe -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student http://pobox.com/~joehall/