Re: GNU licenses

[Alexander Terekhov]

Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
> Our resident quote-spewing troll does prove useful occasionally: he

Hey only-derivative/not-only-derivative-(the GPL reciprocation scope)-
shizophrenik, I appreciate the acknowledgment.

> cited GRAHAM v JAMES which is exactly on point under New York law.
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/2nd/969224.html
> 
> The case quotes from Nimmer on Copyright:
> "[i]f the [licensee's] improper conduct constitutes a breach of a
> covenant undertaken by the [licensee] . . . and if such covenant
> constitutes an enforcible contractual obligation, then the [licensor]
> will have a cause of action for breach of contract," not copyright
> infringement.
> 
> The payment is a *covenant*, a promise made by the licensee. In the
> GPL's case, the requirement to provide source is the covenant.

True. The only question is GPL enforceability (lack thereof) given its
below cost price-fixing restriction in a covenant for BOTH source 
and object code forms of IP (both copyright AND patent) in derivative 
works.

regards,
alexander.