|
From: | RJack |
Subject: | Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption |
Date: | Tue, 04 May 2010 16:08:16 -0000 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/10/2010 10:58 AM, RJack wrote:The truth of the matter is that there is no victory for "open source licenses". "Open source" licenses and "proprietary" are interpreted using the exact same rules. Each license (contract) is individually interpreted according to the state common law of contracts.This was a victory for open licenses because a court upheld the understanding that if the conditions of the license are not met, thencopying and distributing is infringement. That this victory may apply to other forms of licenses does not lessen the victory for open licenses.
Sigh... That's nothing new. If conditions precedent are not satisfied in a proprietary license the same thing results. The Artistic license had no conditions precedent -- only covenants. One erroneous decision by a non-precedental court is hardly a victory. The CAFC's clear error can never harm anyone other than Katzer. Sincerely, RJack :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |