Qui, 2006-06-22 às 17:59 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > > Qui, 2006-06-22 Ã s 15:29 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > To quote Hollaar > > > > > (http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html) > > > > > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal.computing/msg/3cf3e9ee08d2837b > > > > > > > > A quote which does nothing to establish the difference between license > > > > and contract. > > > > > > Intelectual property licenses are contracts. There's no "difference", > > > stupid. > > > > > > Hollaar wrote: > > > > Whatever. Where's the law saying that: > > a) copyright licenses are contracts? > > b) patent licenses are contracts? > > c) trademark licenses are contracts? > > d) ... > > In re: Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th Cir. 2003) > (“If a breach of contract (and a copyright license is just a type of > contract) . . . ”); see also McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d > 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“Whether express or implied, a license is a > contract ‘governed by ordinary principles of state contract law’ ”.) > "This implied license does not offend the protection afforded patent > and trademark rights by federal law. Instead, licenses, like other > federal property and contract rights, conform to the applicable state > laws. See Power Lift, 871 F.2d at 1085; see also Mallinckrodt, 976 > F.2d at 703. As this court observed in Power Lift, the Supreme Court > has held that federal patent law does not preempt enforcement of > contracts under state law. Id. (discussing Aronson v. Quick Point > Pencil Co., 440 U.S. 257, 261-64, 201 USPQ 1, 4-6 (1979)). By the > same reasoning, federal trademark law does not preempt contract > enforcement either. Intellectual property owners "may contract as > they choose," Mallinckrodt, 976 F.2d at 703, but their intellectual > property rights do not entitle them to escape the consequences of > dishonoring state contractual obligations" > > That's the law. Go read the cases.
Not only that's not "the law" but also what it says is that all those items do not *preempt* enforcement of contracts. That is to say that when you distribute a GNU GPL derivative, even if the license requires you to release it under the GNU GPL you can't do that if a contract specifically doens't allow you to do that. As a result you will not be able to respect the GNU GPL, and as such you will not be able to publish that derivative work. I guess a chicken understands law better...
signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente
_______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
