On Apr 16, 2:36 am, Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> 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.

This is also in line with the fundamental philosophy of copyright.

A purely monetarist attitude would cause great difficulty in the case
of something like the Mona Lisa where assessing a monetary value would
be elusive.

In any case the GPL would apparently be less open to this form of
attack than the licence at issue in the case.
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to