On 4/12/2010 1:10 PM, RJack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Regardless of what the case is about, it is nevertheless a fact that
the court stated <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane>
McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim
copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s own
contributions as compiler and illustrator, than the copyright notices
did. The significance of registration is that it is a prerequisite to
a suit to enforce a copyright.

Whose copyrights? McFarlane’s or Gaiman’s?

McFarlane's copyright notices, not that it matters, since it's
registration that is (really not) at issue in the SFLC case.

> You are wasting time trying to twist dicta in the Seventh Circuit
> into prevailing law of the Second Circuit.

Pounding the table some more?

The whole point of this discussion is the fact that the GPL license is

That is the point of view of anti-GPL cranks, but no court has yet
found this to be so. And it is copyright law which is enforceable.
Copyright law prohibits GPL-covered code from being copied and
distributed without complying with the conditions of the GPL.
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to