Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/10/2010 2:35 PM, RJack wrote:
> "Not necessary" is a dodge -- not an answer.

No dodge. Simply find a court that agrees with you on one
of the many open licenses.

> If you can't legally define an "open" license, then don't refer to an
> "open" license in a legal context. You're not allowed to make up your
> own law or facts.

Any one of them, from the list.

> Again, why is an "open" license different from any other copyright
> license?

Open licenses give have pass-through permissions, so that
recipients of covered works are able to further copy and
distribute them, provided that such action complies with the
condition of the license. Other copyright permission tends to
be in the form of a contract between the rights holder and a
second party to whom permission is granted, but does not grant
further permission to anyone else.

> You can make up great sounding pseudo legal terms

No making up. The Artistic License is an open license,
in the sense above of having pass-through provisions,
and CAFC found that copying and distributing work covered
by it is infringement if its conditions are not honored.
Simply find another case where a court has not upheld such
provisions.