On 2/19/2010 5:02 PM, RJack wrote:
No, no Hyman, it's Judge vs. Judge:
"The condition that the user insert a promin,ent notice of
attr noibution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather,
Defendants’ alleged violation of the conditions of the license
may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license,
but does not create liability for copyright infringement
where it would not otherwise exist." Judge White in
Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 (N.D. CA 2007)
This was the decision overturned by the appeals court,
so your judge loses.
and Appeals Panel vs. Appeals Panel:
"In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
unremarkable principle that "uses" that violate a license
agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those
uses would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all."
Storage Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering
& Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
There is no "vs." here, since the entirely unremarkable principle
is intact. The infringing use is the copying and distribution of a
work without adhering to its license, violating the exclusive rights
of the author under 17 USC 106.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
