On 4/15/2010 12:00 PM, RJack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
<http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf> "The GPL is Not a Contract"
-- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed
by ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v.
Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) --
-- "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) --
<http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf>
The author is a Faculty Fellow at Duke University School of Law
and a 2003 graduate of the University of Chicago Law School.
Perhaps you should contact him and explain to him why he's wrong.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
