Larry McVoy writes:
>On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 10:02:08AM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote:
>> If you want to argue that a court will use a different definition
>> of aggregation, then please explain why and quote that definition. Also,
>> it's important not to forget the word "mere." If the combination is anything
>> *more* than aggregration, then it's not _merely_ aggregation. So,
>> if you wanted to argue from the definition on webster.com:
>Adam, the point is not what the GPL says or what the definition is.
>The point is "what is legal". You can, for example, write a license
>which says
> By running the software covered by this license, you agree to
> become my personal slave and you will be obligated to bring
> me coffee each morning for the rest of my life, greating
> me with a "Good morning, master, here is your coffee oh
> most magnificent one".
>If anyone is stupid enough to obey such a license, they need help.
>The problem is that licenses can write whatever they want, but what they
>say only has meaning if it is enforceable. The "license" above would
>be found to be unenforceable by the courts in about 30 seconds or so.
Contracts for slavery are specifically not enforceable due to
the 13th Amendment, and there is also a stronger question of formation
of a binding contract in your example, because the proposed mode of
acceptance (related to the pointers I provided before) is doing
something that you might have the right to do regardless of copyright
(running the program as opposed to distributing copies). I believe
that people write contracts all the time that prohibit distribution of
certain works with others, for marketing reasons.
>OK, so what does this have to do with aggregration? The prevailing
>legal opinions seem to be that viral licenses cannot extend their
>terms across boundaries.
We're not talking about mythically changing the copyright
status of another work. If your opinion is "prevailing" please
include a reference to a section of the US code, a court decision
or some reference that one could actually track down.
By the way, I have asked a lawyer at an IP litigation firm
that we use about this and he indicated the copyright infringement case
was quite strong.
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 4880 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 104
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / San Jose, California 95129-1034
+1 408 261-6630 | g g d r a s i l United States of America
fax +1 408 261-6631 "Free Software For The Rest Of Us."
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
