(OT) - Major Blow to Copyleft Theory

[Chris Travers]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Since the decision by the Supreme Court in De Forest Radio Telephone Co.
> v. United States, 273 U.S. 236 (1927), intellectual property licenses
> have been defined legally as contracts. So what's so amazing about
> a Federal District Court following eighty years of uncontradicted
> Supreme Court precedent?
>   
THis doesn't mean that the facts in this case may not be so different as 
to render the previous precedent non-applicable.
> Eben Moglen and Groklaw's spewing legal nonsense about the GPL not being
> a contract are just that -- legal nonsense.
>   
I would argue that there is consideration in the GPL, so even if this is 
reversed (which I think it should be in order to protect more permissive 
licenses), it still renders it as a contract, just as "you can reproduce 
this if you send me $0.10 for every copy you make."

Or, following the home contract questions:
"You can enter my house if I may enter the garage you build based on my 
tour."

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chris.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 171 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070827/311bf2b2/attachment.vcf>