(OT) - Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
alexander.terekhov at gmail.com
Tue Aug 28 07:57:00 UTC 2007
On 8/28/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > This is from the Supreme Court of the United States:
> > "Whether this constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
> > reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the
> > circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in
> > respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not an
> > unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner."; DE FOREST RADIO TEL. &
> > TEL. CO. v. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 236 (1927).
> Somehow, I don't think that quote was about the GPL. Precedent is only
> absolutely binding for the same set of relevant facts.
The only releveant fact here is that the defendant was a party
(licensee) to intelectual property license. An intellectual property
license is a contract. In re: Aimster
Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th Cir. 2003) ("If a breach
of contract (and a copyright license is just a type of contract) . . .
"); see also McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d 917, 920
(Fed. Cir. 1995) ("Whether express or implied, a license is a contract
'governed by ordinary principles of state contract law' ".)
"A license is governed by the laws of contract."
But feel free to believe that the entire US federal judiciary is just
a bunch of narrow-minded fools in denial of Moglen's genius and that
they all should go and keep taking SFLC's seminars until they finally
get his "not a contract" theory.
More information about the License-discuss