Rjack wrote:
So why do folks *start off* with the assumption that legal gibberish like the GPL is enforceable?
Because the U.S. constitution grants authors exclusive rights to their work. As the JMRI appeals court agreed, it's reasonable for that to include limiting the right to copy in ways other than requiring payment. It's so simple that it's amazing you don't get it. By default, the public has no right to copy a copyrighted work. The rights holder may grant copying rights to others under any terms he chooses. The copier may choose to accept those terms or not. If the copier insists on copying in violation of the terms, then he is infringing on copyright. I grant that you can run around quoting from old cases where it seems like this is not true, because the concept of an open source license where permission is granted for sharing rather than money is new enough that it had not been addressed. But the JMRI appeal settled that, addressing exactly the issue in question. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
