[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit

From: mike3
Subject: Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:39:54 -0800 (PST)
User-agent: G2/1.0

On Nov 24, 9:19 am, rjack <> wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
> > On 2007-11-21, rjack <> wrote:
> >> The designated donee beneficiaries of the GPL are obviously "all third
> >> parties". Clearly the plaintiffs are "parties" to the GPL contract and
> >> cannot be a member of the class "all third parties." Therefore the
> >> plaintiffs can suffer no injury by the source code not being made
> >> available to "all third parties".
> > Their injury is the use of the copyrighted work in a manner that they
> > have not agreed to.
> To constitute copyright infringement an action must be capable of
> violating an author's 17 USC sec. 106 exclusive rights in the absence of
> any license at all.
> Requiring distribution of another author's modifications in a derivative
> work is not one of the exclusive rights enumerated under 17 USC sec. 106
> and cannot lead to a charge of "copyright infringement".
> The alleged violation of the GPL (failure to distribute another author's
> modifications) is a contractual requirement that names it's designated
> donee beneficiaries as "all third parties".
> :)

The creation and release of derivative works is an exclusive
right of the copyright owner (barring various "fair use"

The GPL is a grant of permission to do it provided certain
requirements are met, namely that all derivative works must
are licensed under the GPL. Failure to meet that requirement
renders the permission null and void, as the use is now outside
it's scope and hence restricted by default by the copyright law.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]