(OT) - Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
alexander.terekhov at gmail.com
Tue Aug 28 09:38:08 UTC 2007
On 8/28/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >> I disagree. Every FOSS license provides an exchange of promises
> > Exactly.
> The point *you're missing* is that an exchange of promises, where one
> side is conditionally promising not to enforce existing copyright
> rights, can be seen as a unilateral license, and that there is no need
> to invoke contract law.
Let Judge Saris know about that. She must have been deeply mistaken,
just like Judge White.
("With respect to the General Public License...")
The standard for PI under copyright infringement claim includes
presumption of irreparable harm. The judge didn't apply it (and used a
contract standard instead). Note also "portion breach of contract
claim" and "didn't cure the breach" wording (one just can't "cure" a
copyright violation). Finally, that decision is tagged as "Nature of
Suit: 190" and that's neither 820/840 nor 190/820/840 (all three).
190 is CONTRACT/Other Contract
820 is PROPERTY RIGHTS/Copyrights
840 is PROPERTY RIGHTS/Trademark
More information about the License-discuss