conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review

Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen at
Fri Aug 3 16:41:26 UTC 2007

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> The term binding all third parties in future works (in particular GPL
> "no charge" restriction) creates a "right against the world" which
> subjects it to preemption. See ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447,
> 1454 (7th Cir. 1996).

Are you trying to imply copyright holders don't have the full right to 
license at no charge?

 > In Goldstein, the Court distinguished three
> types of situations: (1) areas in which federal law mandated protection;
> (2) areas in which federal law mandated no protection; and (3) areas in
> which federal law was silent. See id. Only in the last category of cases
> was state law free to operate: "Where the need for free and unrestricted
> distribution of a writing is thought to be required by the national
> interest, the Copyright Clause and the Commerce Clause would allow
> Congress to eschew all protection. In such cases, a conflict would
> develop if a State attempted to protect that which Congress intended to
> be free from restraint or to free that which Congress had protected."

How does the GPL have anything to do with state law or "federal law 
mandating no protection"?  I can't see how either apply.

Matt Flaschen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list