Hyman Rosen wrote:
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.

The authors of the decisions I cited are comprised of six Federal
Circuit Appellate Court judges and a sitting Federal District Court
judge. All have had their qualifications vetted and approved by the full
body of the United States Senate.

Perhaps you should contact your non-tenured junior research assistant
(three years out of law school) and explain to him the legal authority
hierarchy of the United States Judicial Branch of government. No federal
court in the last 83 years has ruled a copyright license to be anything
other than a contract interpreted under state law. For your Faculty
Fellow to publish his ludicrous claims without even acknowledging the
precedents of the federal courts set the past 83 years renders him unfit
and unqualified for a research position at *any* U.S. law school.

Pee Jay over at Groklaw can blather some really stupid statements but
today you have outdone Her Highness at all levels.

RJack :)

gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to