Rjack wrote:
Hmmmm. . . "to the extent possible".
Here's an interesting case: <http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets/200703/court-upholds-copyright-infringement-and-unauthorized-access-claims-wh> Court Upholds Copyright Infringement and Unauthorized Access Claims Where A Single User License Was Shared By Multiple People The incorrect claims made by opponents of the GPL often center around assuming that once license has been granted to make copies, it is somehow not infringement when terms of the license are not honored. We see from this case that the court considers it a violation of copyright when a license meant for one user is shared by many, even though the one user would have the rights granted to him by the license. And this case: <http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets/200703/district-court-finds-plaintiff-satisfies-case-or-controversy-requireme> The Court disagreed, stating that a claim of copyright misuse merely requires “a nexus between the copyright holder’s actions and the public policy embedded in the grant of a copyright.” In applying this standard, the Court found that Plaintiff’s scholarly work embodied the type of creativity that copyright laws exist to facilitate. Courts are quite capable of looking at an overall situation and noticing who is acting properly and who is not. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
