(OT) - Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
chris at metatrontech.com
Mon Aug 27 20:03:31 UTC 2007
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 171 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss