Rjack <[email protected]> writes: >Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a >reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the >circumstances; .... 273 U.S. 236, United States Supreme Court (1927).
Neither the Artistic License nor the GPL cleanly fit these models (gratuituous license, or license for compensation). Remember, there was no free software in 1927. The CAFC ignored its own precedent because stare decisis does not apply to new types of facts. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
