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 gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
