encforceability of Open Source Licences (Re: (OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory)

[Donovan Hawkins]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> The question under 17 USC
109 is simply whether
> the copy was "lawfully made,"
not who made it or 
> what made it lawful. 

A copy
made in violation of the license terms has 
not been "lawfully
made".

Which brings us back to the license scope issue and

whether lack of attribution violates copyright law, but 
the
amicus brief by Creative Commons et al. states 
that case better than
I could.

Donovan Hawkins
hawkins at cephira.com