conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review

[Lawrence Rosen]

> But even if the FSF is relying on state contract law, I don't see how
> they're using it to preempt federal copyright law.  They're simply
> forming contracts that take advantage of their existing rights under
> copyright law, not giving themselves new rights.

This is a side-show on this list. I agree with those who are trying to stop
it.

The issue of federal preemption under U.S. copyright law is far too complex
to be discussed with any understanding in this forum. I suggest you leave it
and similar topics to other lists. 

At the very least, if you're seriously interested in such topics, please do
a thorough Google or Yahoo! search first to find out what the law really
says before you make statements like that.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen
Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and 
                Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Flaschen [mailto:matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu]
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 10:59 AM
> To: License Discuss
> Subject: Re: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
> 
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > 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."
> 
> But even if the FSF is relying on state contract law, I don't see how
> they're using it to preempt federal copyright law.  They're simply
> forming contracts that take advantage of their existing rights under
> copyright law, not giving themselves new rights.
> 
> Matt Flaschen