In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. That's a very strange statement. The GPL is not so designed; it is designed to "waive particular rights" over any who conform to its requirements, regardless of the contractual privy. It is thus not a contractual license, since there are no contractual negotiations or handshakes involved. By your statement, are you trying to show that the GPL isn't really a copyright license, or are you making a historical assertion, that this was the motivation of the original license designers? -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
