[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 16:09:01 -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 11:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
To quote IBM:
"The ownership interests contributors to software licensed under the
GPL might have in their modifications are seriously limited, given
that any distribution of those modifications must be done under the
terms of the GPL."
<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.
"92. It can be argued that this might change if, in effect, no third
party can avoid being bound by the contract terms in order to use the
information.
Yes. Preemption would apply when state law attempted to restrict
what is otherwise permitted in terms similar to copyright. But the
GPL does not restrict any behavior permitted by unadorned copyright
law, and therefore preemption is irrelevant to the GPL.
- Re: SFLC is SOL, (continued)
- 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, Hyman Rosen, 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, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL,
Hyman Rosen <=
- Re: SFLC is SOL, RJack, 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
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Alexander Terekhov, 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, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04