peterwn wrote:
On Apr 16, 2:36 am, 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: <> 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.

One need only offer it on the open market at auction. Verifiable legal
appraisals of property occur thousands of time each day. The value of a
nonexclusive copyright license like the GPL is called its "contractual
interest".  What US law does not recognize is the value of "moral rights".

In any case the GPL would apparently be less open to this form of attack than the licence at issue in the case.

RJack :)
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to