(OT) - Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
Mahesh T. Pai
paivakil at yahoo.co.in
Mon Aug 27 11:45:55 UTC 2007
Alexander Terekhov said on Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 03:36:09PM +0200,:
> The first point is important because the Free Software Foundation
> and some lawyers have taken the position that open source licenses
> are not contracts. They have good reasons for wishing to avoid some
> contract formalities, but this position has complicated discussions
> about the enforceability and remedies for open source licenses.
As I understand the FSF, they are clear in saying that the GPL is not
a contract. I am not sure what I am missing, but where does FSF say
that ``all open source licenses are not contracts''?
> This decision does not settle the issue for the GPL because it does
> not apply to the GPL and it is only a District Court decision,
> (lawyers really prefer to have an appellate decision, such as from
> the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court) but it does suggest how
> courts would approach the issue.
I am afraid the quote contains a subtle spin.
The decision does not settle the issue for the GPL because it is not
concerned with the GPL.
One gets the impression that the decision does not ``settle the
issue'' for GPL because it is a District Court decision.
> The second point is very important because it deals with remedies.
> Generally, the remedy for contract violations under US law is
> damages, not "injunctive relief" (which means that the court order
> a party to cease their violation). On the other hand, copyright
I am not knowledgeable about US law, but generally, in common law
countries, there are plenty of exceptions to this rule that
distinguishing between the rule and exception has become difficult.
A license is a unilateral grant of permissions; a contract is
bilateral acceptance and imposition of obligations.
Mahesh T. Pai <<>> http://paivakil.blogspot.com/
Encryption: A powerful algorithmic encoding
technique employed in the creation of
More information about the License-discuss