Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote:
The statement ". . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and
valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . .
." automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is
"conjectural and hypothetical". The SFLC lawyers have pleaded their
clients right out of Court.
Unfortunately for you, the court does not agree with you:
<http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> 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.
"[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial
system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower
federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts
may think it to be."; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982).
Tell it to the United States Supreme Court and Justice Scalia.
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list