In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <[email protected]> wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Doug Mentohl wrote: >>>> Rjack wrote: >>> For the past seventy years no federal court has ever ruled a >>> copyright license to be anything other than a contract. >> Who cares? One's got 7 letters, the other 8. It's the effect it >> has which is important, not the name you give it. > It matters greatly. Since license are contracts, interpretation > under state common law applies as well as federal copyright law. > Things like privity and 17 USC 301(a) apply. Without a choice of law > provision a copyright license may be interpreted fifty different > ways depending on which state jurisdiction is invoked.
All sounds rather parochial to me. There are a great deal more than merely fifty different systems of law under which the GPL operates. > Sincerely, > Rjack :) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
