Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> writes: > On 3/16/2010 10:05 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> Read a bit more than a couple of introductory paragraphs > > Nothing else you quote at all supports the notion that > preemption has anything to do with the GPL. That's not > surprising, since preemption has nothing to do with the > GPL. > >> That is a dangerous position! > > <http://www.technollama.co.uk/a-licence-or-a-contract> > this argument would seem to suggest that any user of copyright > works can be taken to court, and only then they can prove that > they actually had a licence to use the work. Imagine the same > paragraph above being said by Bill Gates and not by Eben Moglen, > and you will get why this is such a dangerous position! > > This makes no sense. Assuming that "user of works" means > someone who is copying and distributing them, then he is > subject to infringement claims, to which he can use a > license as a defense. This is equally true for rights held > by Bill Gates or Eben Moglen and is entirely unsurprising. > Why would this be considered dangerous?
In particular since anybody can be taken to court by anybody over whatever claim regardless how silly. What the court decides to do in consequence is a different matter. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
