Rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > >> The GPL is not a contract but a license. It spells the conditions you >> have to meet. > > "Whether this [act] 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. & > Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, United > States Supreme Court (1927. > > "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract governed > by ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. > Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of > Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995). > > "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 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). > > Methinks someone should start a write-in campaign to inform the > federal judiciary the error of their ways.
License conditions are usually interpreted according to contract law (little point in doing them separately). There are differences, however: licenses can't state contractual penalties since those depend on an explicit agreement. There are also differences with regard to the treatment and interpretation of possibly invalid terms. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
