Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > The terms of the MIT license are a
> > subset of the terms of the GPL so by complying with the latter
> > you are complying with the former.
>
> Okay, once again for mentally challenged: Complying with the
> latter under GNUtian viral "work based on" theory requires
> "relicensing"
> (seehttp://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-rms-transcript.en.html)
Forget what Stallman might _say_ - he is no a lawyer.
He does get his info directly from lawyers; and this cannot be said
for Terekhov. So it is foolish to forget what RMS says just because he
doesn't have a degree in law.
Terekhov accurately cites to appropriate Federal statutory and case law
as interpreted by federal judges who have the final word on what the law
means and how it is applied.
Here's RMS's lawyer (Eben Moglen):
"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within
the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but
because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license
permits." Eben Moglen founder of the SFLC
Here's Terekhov's lawyers (three Federal Appellate Court judges):
"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. ยงยง 101- 1332,
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the
relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v.
Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit 2006)
Now, who's your daddy?
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
--- "Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits
on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition
on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights,..."; ALLEN v.
WRIGHT 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) ---
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
