Re: GNU licenses

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Not at all.  He can still _fully_ assert his copyright on those parts.
> >> That means he can demand that recipients _obey_ his license terms
> >
> > Hey stupid dak, "_obey_ his license terms" is a contract claim, not
> > copyright infringement.  And "assert his copyright" means suing
> > strangers/non-licensees for copyright infringement.  The lisensor's
> > covenant/obligation in any copyright license is: not to sue for
> > copyright infringement. Is it really so hard to grasp?
> 
> Uh, Alexander?  Reality check.  It is his copyright which lets him sue
> for compliance of the license terms.  If he had no copyright, no

Bullshit. You're being misinformed.


> license or contract or whatever else could be asserted without a
> written and undersigned statement of the recipient.

Idiot. Go read ProCD v. Zeidenberg case (see IBM's filings in Wallace 
case).

There was no "undersigned statement" (there was a click-through 
contract that made the buyer agree not to resell the information, and 
the court held that Zeidenberg accepted the contract by clicking 
through), and the subject matter of that contract was unprotectable 
under copyright law. Go read BREAKING BARRIERS: THE RELATION BETWEEN 
CONTRACT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW By Raymond T. Nimmer.

-----
Among other issues, that case involved the claim that a contractual 
restriction on the use of an uncopyrighted database was preempted 
because the subject matter of the transaction was unprotectable under 
copyright law.90 The court correctly rejected this argument. It drew 
an explicit distinction between a property right (potentially 
preempted) and a contract right. "A copyright is a right against the 
world. Contracts, by contrast, generally affect only their parties; 
strangers may do as they please, so contracts do not create 'exclusive 
rights.'"
-----

regards,
alexander.