On 3/16/2010 12:27 PM, RJack wrote:
"A plaintiff must point to some type of cognizable harm, whether such
harm is physical, economic, reputational, contractual, or even
aesthetic. . . But the injury in fact test requires more than an injury
to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be
himself among the injured.”

    Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right
    to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material.
    As the Second Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21
    (2d Cir. 1976), the "unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if
    proven, would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work
    similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted
    by the proprietor of the copyright." Copyright licenses are designed
    to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or
    enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of
    compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and
    explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is
    entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation
    of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license
    restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to
    enforce through injunctive relief.
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to