conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review

Alexander Terekhov alexander.terekhov at
Fri Aug 3 17:25:24 UTC 2007

On 8/3/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at> wrote:
> 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?

I'm not trying to imply that.

> How does the GPL have anything to do with state law

In re: Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th Cir. 2003)
 ("If a breach of contract (and a copyright license is just a type of
contract) . . . "); see also McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67
F.3d 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("Whether express or implied, a license
is a  contract 'governed by ordinary principles of state contract law'

IBM: "the Court need not reach the choice of law issue because Utah
law and New York law are in accord on the issues that must be reached
to address SCO's sole argument on this motion, namely, that SCO did
not breach the GPL. Throughout this brief, IBM cites to both Utah law
and New York law."


More information about the License-discuss mailing list