Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 10:05 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
dteme...@nvalaw.com is a real "attorney spending a great deal of
time on software related IP licensing and litigation matters".
Real attorneys who spend a great deal of time on IP licensing and
litigation are unlikely to have spent any of that time actually
dealing with violations of open licenses, and are probably no more
expert at it than the academeic writers. Possibly less so, since the
typical software license is a simple two-party contract.
Hyman you bandy about the term "open license" as if it is a special,
exceptional category of copyright license -- it isn't.
ALL copyright licenses WITHOUT exception are simply contracts to be
interpreted under the States' common law of contracts:
"Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in
construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under
Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written. Amcast
Indus. Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 584 N.W.2d 218, 226 (Wis. App.
1998)." 187 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 1999)
"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006).
There is no *legal* definition of "open license" versus "proprietary
license" those are simply terms made up by the software community.
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list