Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Notice the words, "before performance under a contract becomes due"? Section 5 of the GPL is legal nonsense.
The GPL is a license, not a contract.
"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). Two of the highest level federal courts of appeal unequivocally disagree with you. The Supreme Court of the United States also disagrees with you: "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). How are you going to get a US federal court to enforce your copyright license "that's not a contract"? Do you suppose they'll overrule themselves on the strength of your belief alone? Sincerely, Rjack :) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
