Strong Court Ruling Upholds the Artistic License (fwd)
cowan at ccil.org
Fri Aug 15 19:27:10 UTC 2008
dtemeles at nvalaw.com scripsit:
> First, the CAFC's decision is a clear repudiation of the "bare
> license" theory long espoused by Mr. Moglen and his followers. The
> CAFC's decision reflects the fact that open source licenses, like any
> other form of software licenses, are contracts.
Distinguo. Moglen et al. have never claimed, as far as I know,
that *all* open-source licenses are not contracts, merely that
*some* of them are not.
> The necessary implication of this finding by the court is that open
> source licenses must be interpreted in the context of applicable state
> law, and to an extent, the common law of the Federal Circuit in which
> the open source agreement is interpreted.
Insofar as they are contracts, and insofar as contract terms are
relevant to the dispute, yes.
> (This is directly in conflict with the CAFC's willful
> failure to follow state law and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the
> interpretation of restrictions as conditions precedent).
That would be true only on an over-hasty assumption that the term
"condition" in copyright law, or the law of licenses generally, can be
identified with the term "condition precedent", which belongs to
Here's a hypo that may serve as an intuition pump: Suppose I issue you
a license to enter and use my land solely for the purpose of hunting.
(I often issue these licenses myself during deer season.) This is a
bare license with a condition. If I find you on my land not hunting,
does my action sound in trespass, or merely in contract?
> Thus, even if the licensee unintentionally violated the terms of the
> GPLv3 because the meaning of the terms are not clear, the licensee
> would be liabile for infringement.
Doubtless. But copyright has always been a matter of strict
liability, with very few safe harbors, mostly statutory.
> Why does this matter? State courts, the federal circuit courts of
> appeal and the US Supreme Court have all uniformly and routinely
> interpreted license restrictions as covenants rather than conditions
I assume you refer (inter alia?) to licenses for proprietary software.
However, such licenses are *not* copyright licenses: they generally
grant no right to copy, distribute, modify &c whatsoever. There are
various relevant safe harbors, such as the first-sale doctrine
(although Microsoft has tried to claim that it does not apply to
copies of Windows on computers being resold by the consumer)
> Most licenses, open source or proprietary, contain provisions whose
> meanings are open to viable debate.
Their drift is clear enough, and 99.99999...% of the time the
minutiae did not matter. There are two kinds of people who violate
open-source licenses: those who do not understand them (and are generally
eager to cure any breach), and open and notorious evil livers who don't
care what they do. Such are Katzer/Kamind.
> The CAFC's Jacobsen decision unwittingly attempts to radically change
> the risks of licensing software.
> If the CAFC's position is indeed the law of the land, then any cause
> of action relating to a breach of a provision in a license agreement
> that merely mentions the word "condition" (or some synonym thereof),
> or that could conceivably be interpreted as a condition precedent,
> will need to be decided by a federal court.
These claims are the merest FUD.
I could dance with you till the cows John Cowan
come home. On second thought, I'd http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
rather dance with the cows when you cowan at ccil.org
come home. --Rufus T. Firefly
More information about the License-discuss