Merijn de Weerd wrote: [...] > Our resident quote-spewing troll does prove useful occasionally: he
Hey only-derivative/not-only-derivative-(the GPL reciprocation scope)- shizophrenik, I appreciate the acknowledgment. > cited GRAHAM v JAMES which is exactly on point under New York law. > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/2nd/969224.html > > The case quotes from Nimmer on Copyright: > "[i]f the [licensee's] improper conduct constitutes a breach of a > covenant undertaken by the [licensee] . . . and if such covenant > constitutes an enforcible contractual obligation, then the [licensor] > will have a cause of action for breach of contract," not copyright > infringement. > > The payment is a *covenant*, a promise made by the licensee. In the > GPL's case, the requirement to provide source is the covenant. True. The only question is GPL enforceability (lack thereof) given its below cost price-fixing restriction in a covenant for BOTH source and object code forms of IP (both copyright AND patent) in derivative works. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
