Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/14/2010 10:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Compliance with (enforceable) obligations stated in the GPL
requires copyright permission (i.e. the copyright holder's promise
not to sue under copyright) as a *precondition* to
No, that is false. The conditions of the GPL do not require the
precondition on unrestricted copy permission. They are conditions
which are applied as the copy is made and distributed.
No Hyman, that is *true* in the Second Circuit:
"Further, it is important that James turned over the C version for use
before any royalties were paid, and that the first version of PDSI-004-1
was published with the proper notice of authorship, because contract
obligations that are to be performed after partial performance by the
other party are not treated as conditions. 22 N.Y. Jur. 2d Contracts §
265 (1996); see also Jacob Maxwell, Inc. , 110 F.3d at 754 (holding that
payment of royalties and crediting of author were covenants because
"[the composer] expressly granted [the licensee] permission to play the
song before payment was tendered or recognition received"); I.A.E., Inc.
, 74 F.3d at 778 (holding that full payment was not a condition
precedent when the licensee received the copyrighted drawings after
tendering only half the required payment)."; Graham v. James, 144 F.3d
229 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 1998).
Hyman, the obession with your non-precedental CAFC ruling is going
to cause you no end of grief in the Second Circuit.
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list