(OT) - Major Blow to Copyleft Theory

[Alexander Terekhov]

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' ".)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=fed&%20navby=case&no=991431

"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.

regards,
alexander.