Tim Smith wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Failing to distribute source code is a contract breach and not a
violation of a work's permitted use under copyright law. There is
obviously no provision under U.S. copyright law to *force* a party who
has permission to copy and make derivative works to distribute those
copyrighted works. Those actions are solely a contractual matter.
Irrelevant, since plaintiff's claim is that Monsoon is not a party who
has permission to copy and make derivative works.
Sure it's relevant Monsoon has an existing copy of the GPL license.
"As we said in Bourne , when the contested issue is the scope of a
license, rather than the existence of one, the copyright owner bears the
burden of proving that the defendant's copying was unauthorized under
the license and the license need not be pleaded as an affirmative
defense." Graham v. James, 144 F.3d at 236.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
