(OT) - Major Blow to Copyleft Theory

[Matthew Flaschen]

Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> I note that other licenses handle the
> matter of damages more precisely. For example, OSL 3.0 provides that "Any
> use of the Original Work outside the scope of this License or after its
> termination shall be subject to the requirements and penalties of copyright
> or patent law in the appropriate jurisdiction."

And GPLv2 says:

"You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed
it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law
if you do not accept this License.".

It is clear that violations of the License are not intended to treated
as breach of contract, but as copyright infringement.

GPLv3 is even more clear (possibly directly addressing this issue):

"However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to
propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright
if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or
propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License
to do so."

And both licenses speak in terms of license termination and restoration,
not breaches of contract.

Matt Flaschen