(OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
rick at linuxmafia.com
Fri Feb 8 22:08:39 UTC 2008
Quoting Chuck Swiger (chuck at codefab.com):
[much quoted-and-refuted Terekhov ankle-biting snipped]
> >As for Eben Moglen's assertion that "Licenses are not contracts" in
> >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html (previously cited),
> >he offers little justification for the statement:
> > the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the
> > license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she
> > doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits.
> >In light of Sections 109 and 117 (and possibly other exceptions),
> >that statement is wrong with respect to United States copyright law.
> >Just look at the wording of Section 109 -- "is entitled, WITHOUT THE
> >AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER".
> Yes, fine-- the GNU project sometimes leaves out important details in
> the positions mentioned on their website or mailing lists...so take
> this discussion up with them, if you want to see a change there. It
> doesn't seem to be particularly useful to keep bringing up these
> threads on the OSI license-discuss list.
All Prof. Moglen seems to have "left out" in this particular is the
phrase "...except of course for rights granted by statute and thus
not needing a licensor's permission in the first place". Which is
really bleedin' obvious, and not actually worth spending time on.
Cheers, "I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate
Rick Moen those who do. And, for the people who like country music,
rick at linuxmafia.com denigrate means 'put down'." -- Bob Newhart
More information about the License-discuss