On 2008-08-16, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936
Subject: Re: Strong Court Ruling Upholds the Artistic License (fwd)
From: dtemeles@nvalaw.com
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:48:12 -0400
[deletia]
Second, the CAFC's opinion creates a great deal of uncertainty for
software licensing (whether proprietary or open source). Let's take the
GPLv3 as an example. As most peoople are aware, there are a variety of
disagreements over exactly what is required of a licensee to comply with
various provisions of the GPL. Section 2 of the GPL appears to
"condition" the rights granted under the license on the licensee's
compliance with the "conditions" stated in the license. Under the
CAFC's decision in Jacobsen, it stands to reason that a licensee that
fails to fully satisfy the "conditions" stated in the GPLv3 would
infringe the licensor's copyrights rather than merely breaching the
What "uncertainty"?
This is the stated design goal of the license.
license. Thus, even if the licensee unintentionally violated the terms
of the GPLv3 because the meaning of the terms are not clear, the
licensee would be liabile for infringement.
[deletia]