Open source lawyer Lawrence Rosen announced his paper interpreting the impact of the CAFC's Artistic license decision in Jacobsen v. Katzer.
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:16069:200810:bhcocekdjcbikmbfcpmp "The CAFC decision also requires district courts to enforce open source license restrictions (another term like "condition" that has ambiguous meaning here)through the remedy of injunctive relief. Otherwise, "those types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless." [Pg. 1382]" http://www.rosenlaw.com/BadFactsMakeGoodLaw.pdf Rosen concluded that the CAFC "requires" district courts to enforce open source license under its appellate decision. He reached this conclusion despite the fact the CAFC while setting enbanc ruled: "Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters in the light of the problems faced by the district court from which each count originated, including the law there applicable. . . The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions and in this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(en banc). There is a about a 0.0001 percent chance that the district court in Jacobsen v. Katzer, upon remand, will follow the decision of the CAFC instead of the controlling law of the Ninth Circuit. Sincerely, Rjack :) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
