On 12/21/2010 9:04 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[http://www.barrysookman.com/2009/12/17/open-source-movement-gets-big-boost-from-copyright-laws-and-dmca-in-jacobsen-v-katzer/]";
Why overruled?
Not overruled at all, not even theoretically. As usual, your
citation contradicts your thesis:
Central to the Court’s ruling was the holding that “for a
licensee’s violation of a contract to constitute copyright
infringement, there must be a nexus between the condition
and the licensor’s exclusive rights of copyright.” Here,
WoW players did not commit copyright infringement by using
Glider in violation of the WoW’s Terms of Use.
In the case of copyleft licenses, copiers who do not obey the
terms of the license are still copying and distributing, so the
nexus exists.
Like the requirement to provide attribution as in Jacobsen case?
When copying and distributing. That nexus again.
suppose I simply provide a written offer regarding source code.
You come to me for the source code with that offer.
I [refuse].
How does that would violate the copyright act?
It wouldn't. You would have correctly complied with the conditions
for copying, and therefore there is no copyright violation. But I
now possess a written promise from you which you are not honoring,
so my course of action would be to sue for breach of contract, not
of the GPL but of your written offer.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
