Rjack wrote:
Activist federal judges who ignore Congress's clear statutory language
in favor of common sense have a habit of being quickly overturned on
appeal.
Before the Betamax case, one would have thought that making
videotape copies of TV shows was prima facie copyright violation.
Don't
Rjack wrote:
You're missing the point. The GPL's goal is to purportedly replicate
licenses downstream to all third parties. It is not possible for the
holder of a non-exclusive license (a non-owner) to grant a *new*
license downstream.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html
Each
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
You're missing the point. The GPL's goal is to purportedly
replicate licenses downstream to all third parties. It is not
possible for the holder of a non-exclusive license (a non-owner)
to grant a *new* license downstream.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Activist federal judges who ignore Congress's clear statutory
language in favor of common sense have a habit of being quickly
overturned on appeal.
Before the Betamax case, one would have thought that making
videotape copies of TV shows was prima facie
Rjack wrote:
Just because you write something into a contract's terms doesn't
make it enforceable
It's not a contract, it's a license. If I want to write a license
for my work that says that I give a non-exclusive grant to persons
to whom I distribute, and to persons to whom they further
Hyman Rosen writes:
That's why we're discussing the transfer issue. It's possible that a
transfer of copyright to a GPL-hostile entity could cause downstream
distribution to be disallowed.
Well, there is promissory estoppel, of course. I would also argue that the
downstream licenses are not
In article %be9m.42750$ta5.28...@newsfe15.iad,
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Rjack wrote:
You're missing the point. The GPL's goal is to purportedly replicate
licenses downstream to all third parties. It is not possible for the
holder of a non-exclusive license (a non-owner) to
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Just because you write something into a contract's terms doesn't
make it enforceable
It's not a contract, it's a license. If I want to write a license
for my work that says that I give a non-exclusive grant to persons
to whom I distribute, and to persons to
In article 87prbsafj6@thumper.dhh.gt.org,
John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org wrote:
Hyman Rosen writes:
That's why we're discussing the transfer issue. It's possible that a
transfer of copyright to a GPL-hostile entity could cause downstream
distribution to be disallowed.
Well, there is
Rjack wrote:
17 USC 301(a) frightens you doesn't it?
Huh? Why would it frighten me? Quite the contrary, it makes
it easier to talk about copyright because it usually limits
the laws involved to only 17 USC, instead of having to look
for various separate state laws. It doesn't require
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
17 USC 301(a) frightens you doesn't it?
Huh? Why would it frighten me? Quite the contrary, it makes it
easier to talk about copyright because it usually limits the laws
involved to only 17 USC, instead of having to look for various
separate state laws. It
11 matches
Mail list logo
