Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
However, implicit in a nonexclusive license
Yawn. Go ahead and bang that drum as loudly as you want.
So far the only time a court tried to use that to prevent
enforcement of an open source license, it got overturned.
"Whether this constitutes a gratuitous license or one for a
reasonable compensation must, of course, depend upon the
circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in
respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not
an unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner"; De Forest Radio
Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236 (1927)
"[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial
system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower
federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts
may think it to be."; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982)
He. He.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
