Re: GPLed Software Expiration Date

[rjack]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 12:01:39PM -0500, rjack wrote:
> > Assuming the GPL is an enforceable contract -- it isn't -- the permissions 
> > would last for thirty five years, which is the maximum duration of an 
> > "irrevocable" copyright license. See 17 USC § 203(a)(3)).
>
> For those who might be curious as to why such statement is a lie, the
> keyword here is "irrevocable".
>
> 17 USC § 203(a)(3) does indeed talk about termination of a grant after
> yers when there's the right of publication (like in the GPL) BUT in this
> case it is an *irrevocable* grant.
>
> Being irrevocable, means it doesn't have an expiry period.
>
> Please also notice that there's nothing related to irrevocable being
> actually not irrevocable at said reference, which reinforces rjack's
> lie:
>
> http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/203.html
>
> Best,
> Rui
>
> ps: I predict insults will be what I get in reply, at least from
> Therekov and rjack (who I seriously believe are one and the same
> person).


> ps: I predict insults will be what I get in reply, at least from
> Therekov and rjack (who I seriously believe are one and the same
> person).

Ah. . . but Terekhov and rjack are two real, distinct individuals.
Rjack is the good-looking guy and Terekhov is the smart guy.

Actually, I admire those who endevour to support their legal arguments 
by referring to statute or case law. Correct or otherwise, those 
citations demonstrate an actual effort to support a conclusion with 
legal authority.

Except for those nine Supremes in the black robes, no one is always 
right. Being "right" in legal matters ultimately depends on whether the 
judiciary says you are right. That's why case law precedent is so 
important -- it is the best authority we have for drawing conclusions in 
future legal matters.

Individuals such as Eben Moglen and Richard Stallman consistently assert 
specious claims, i.e. "the GPL is not a contract" (remember WMD in 
Iraq?). Those specious claims are *never* supported by any reference to 
legal authority and often they are in direct contradiction to precedent. 
Just like WMD claims in Iraq, those crackpot legal assertions will 
sooner or later be exposed as false and deceitful.

Regards,
rjack  :)

--- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by 
ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi 
Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit 1995) ---

--- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 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 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit 2006) ---