Rjack wrote:
So the CAFC found the Artistic License contains enforceable conditions. So what. 1) The CAFC case is meaningless to *any* other copyright infringement case *anywhere*:
It is meaningful because it shows a straightforward line of thinking and approach to licenses of this sort that will be adopted elsewhere. Where the specific decision is binding elsewhere doesn't matter. It's the reasoning that counts.
2) How do you generalize applying the toothless CAFC decision to "So "open source" licenses. . ."? Are all open source licenses written like the Artistic License?
Sure. Most of them have specific, enforceable conditions. The GPL certainly does.
Just like the GPL contains an illegal condition.
The conditions of the GPL are completely legal. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
