[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SFLC is SOL
From: |
Hyman Rosen |
Subject: |
Re: SFLC is SOL |
Date: |
Tue, 04 May 2010 16:09:00 -0000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0 |
On 3/16/2010 12:46 PM, RJack wrote:
Plaintiffs Humax, Western Digital, JVC, Versa and Best BUy correctly
asserted that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the GPL claims.
No, they are incorrect in their claim.
The GPL attempts to grant benefits to all "third parties"
(hence the name "Public License"). Nowhere in the GPL is either actual
party (i.e. non-third party) to the contract named as a benificiary.
Thus the plaintiffs have no Article III standing since they are not
conract beneficiaries.
This argument is backwards. The plaintiffs are not beneficiaries
of the GPL, they are copyright holders of the covered work.
"A plaintiff must point to some type of cognizable harm, whether such
harm is physical, economic, reputational, contractual, or even
aesthetic. . . But the injury in fact test requires more than an injury
to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be
himself among the injured.”
<http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf>
Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right
to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material.
As the Second Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21
(2d Cir. 1976), the "unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if
proven, would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work
similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted
by the proprietor of the copyright." Copyright licenses are designed
to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or
enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of
compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and
explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is
entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation
of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license
restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to
enforce through injunctive relief.
- Re: Mining the Blogosphere, (continued)
- Re: Mining the Blogosphere, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: Mining the Blogosphere, Alan Mackenzie, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL,
Hyman Rosen <=
- Re: SFLC is SOL, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Rex Ballard, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Hadron, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, amicus_curious, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Rex Ballard, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04