[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

From: rjack
Subject: Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:10:41 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20071031)

Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 11:03:56PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Not a single mention of the FSF.


You don't need to mention the Free Software Foundation to be a propagandist for them. Simply promoting the GPL and glorifying the crackpot idea of "copyleft" is sufficient.

For instance, since the Supreme Court ruled in De Forest Radio Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236 there there hasn't been a single U.S. Federal Court decision that supports the idea that a copyright license is anything other than a contract -- that's eighty years of uncontradicted case law.


"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. ยงยง 101-1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant state law to interpret them.;"Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F3d 749, (7th Cir. 2006)

Yet the FSF and Groklaw trumpet that "the GPL is a license not a contract".

Claiming that the GPL is a "license" but not a "contract" is pure propaganda folks. Deliberate deception. Spinning the FUD. Groklaw is at the very forefront of this FUD effort.


reply via email to

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