Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman, implicit in a copyright license is the promise not to
sue for copyright infringement.
The CAFC's suggestion that "Copyright licenses are designed to
support the right to exclude" is utter nonsense.
Hyman why don't you listen to Alexander?
Copyright law as written by Congress is designed to establish the
right to exclude. *ONLY* Congress can create those "in rem" rights
to exclude. See 17 USC section 301(a).
Copyright licenses are designed to waive particular rights to
exclude so that licensees may use those personam rights granted by
the copyright owner in contractual privity
Any promise not to sue exists only to those to whom the license
is granted, and only if they honor the terms of the license. You
are incorrect that breach of license cannot lead to suit for
copyright infringement. Here is exactly such a case:
<http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200703/court-upholds-copyright-infringement-and-unauthorized-access-claims-wh>
So what's new?
As it has been stated about one hundred times in this group, if and
only if a scope of use violation results.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
