Rjack wrote:
Interpretation of a copyright license as a contract makes all
> the difference in the world concerning enforcement.
This is false. See, for example, <http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200703/court-upholds-copyright-infringement-and-unauthorized-access-claims-wh> where a court refused to dismiss a claim of copyright infringement when a purchaser of a single-user license to access online reading material allowed many people to access the material.
falsely claim "victories" by the SFLC
In each case the SFLC has brought, the GPLed sources were made available by the defendants or their agents. This makes for true, not false, claims of victory. > This also justifies the SFLC lawyers sucking up big salaries > from publicly contributed funds for claiming legal nonsense as fact. Much like programmers who distribute under the GPL, people choose to support organizations they like, and you have no claim to their cash or time. The "public" who contributes to the SFLC are people who believe that users should have the freedom to run, read, modify, and share software. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
