(Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit Overturns Jacobsen v. Katzer -
Ruling as text)
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=displaysid=2008081313212422title=I%27m%20confused...type=articleorder=DESChideanonymous=0pid=718795#c718819
I'm confused...
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, August
Rjack wrote:
[...]
The patent judges of the Federal Circuit seemingly are not
familiar with the provisions of 17 USC 301 copyright preemption.
From comments at
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/08/open-source-lic.html
---
Posted by: smashmouth football | Aug 14, 2008 at 07:17 PM
I
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:34:44 -0400, Rjack wrote:
There is a powerful motivation on PJ and Moglen's part. If a license is
not a *contract*, then 17 USC sec. 301's preemption provisions would not
apply.
No doubt Eben Moglen is somewhat of a strange duck, but I'm not sure what
you mean by their
It's not PJ you need to rant at, it's the appeals court.
Of course your ranting isn't going to change anything.
Open source licenses are now facts on the ground, as the
Israelis like to say, and facts are indeed stubborn things.
___
gnu-misc-discuss
The Second Circuit held:
Moreover, Graham's failure to credit James with the copyright on the C
version did not itself amount to copyright infringement. According to
Nimmer, The generally prevailing view in this country under copyright
law has been that an author who sells or licenses her work
Rjack wrote:
So why create a new copyright and then have it immediately preempted?
If the condition that users of the JMRI Standard Version
source code is considered to be a condition subsequent
to the granted permissions in the original source code,
a license has already been created to
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
(Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit Overturns Jacobsen v. Katzer -
Ruling as text)
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=displaysid=2008081313212422title=I%27m%20confused...type=articleorder=DESChideanonymous=0pid=718795#c718819
When the Federal Circuit held:
Let's give PJ and Eben Moglen the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps they are simply making what is known in philosophy as a
category error.
A category mistake, or category error, is a semantic or
ontological error by which a property is ascribed to a thing that
could not possibly have that
Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:34:44 -0400, Rjack wrote:
There is a powerful motivation on PJ and Moglen's part. If a license is
not a *contract*, then 17 USC sec. 301's preemption provisions would not
apply.
No doubt Eben Moglen is somewhat of a strange duck, but I'm not
Hyman Rosen wrote:
It's not PJ you need to rant at, it's the appeals court.
Of course your ranting isn't going to change anything.
Open source licenses are now facts on the ground, as the
Israelis like to say, and facts are indeed stubborn things.
Hyman, Hyman. You would have more success
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:43:48 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
No doubt Eben Moglen is somewhat of a strange duck, but I'm not sure
what you mean by their powerful motivation, ieJ and Moglen
Do either of them have a vested interest in this, financial or otherwise
or is this just a matter of
thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:43:48 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
No doubt Eben Moglen is somewhat of a strange duck, but I'm not sure
what you mean by their powerful motivation, ieJ and Moglen
Do either of them have a vested interest in this, financial or
David Kastrup wrote:
thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:43:48 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
No doubt Eben Moglen is somewhat of a strange duck, but I'm not sure
what you mean by their powerful motivation, ieJ and Moglen
Do either of them have a vested interest in this,
Hi.
I heard someone claiming that Free software (as in Freedom for the
users), or the GNU project, or RMS, is against making money. Is this
so? I think Free software is about Freedom for the users, and not
anything to do with making or not making money.
On Aug 13, 7:34 pm, rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I'm not quite clear as to what this implies. Does it mean that the GPL
won't work any more, or something else?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
mike3 writes:
I heard someone claiming that Free software (as in Freedom for the
users), or the GNU project, or RMS, is against making money.
You heard incorrectly.
Is this so?
I think Free software is about Freedom for the users, and not anything to
do with making or not making money.
John Hasler wrote:
mike3 writes:
I heard someone claiming that Free software (as in Freedom for the
users), or the GNU project, or RMS, is against making money.
You heard incorrectly.
Is this so?
I think Free software is about Freedom for the users, and not anything to
do with making or
mike3 writes:
I'm not quite clear as to what this implies. Does it mean that the GPL
won't work any more, or something else?
It means that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
has ruled that Free Software licenses are fully enforceable and that
violators can be required to
John Hasler wrote:
mike3 writes:
I'm not quite clear as to what this implies. Does it mean that the GPL
won't work any more, or something else?
It means that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
has ruled that Free Software licenses are fully enforceable and that
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:12:52 -0400, Rjack wrote:
Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:34:44 -0400, Rjack wrote:
There is a powerful motivation on PJ and Moglen's part. If a license is
not a *contract*, then 17 USC sec. 301's preemption provisions would not
apply.
No doubt
The decision of the Federal Circuit finally makes sense! The
Court stated:
Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated
are both covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the
scope of the license and are governed by copyright law. If they
are merely covenants, by
21 matches
Mail list logo
