Re: softwarefreedom.org and busybox fellows 'win' DEFAULT JUDGMENT

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=645119&cid=24595571
> I can't make a license that says, "you can copy this software provided
> you don't pick your nose" and then sue you for copyright infringement
> for picking your nose.

Why not? If you want to pick your nose, don't copy the
work. If you want to copy the work, don't pick your nose.
Or try to make a different arrangement with the copyright
holder.

> Because lawsuits for copyright infringement have special powers (like
> statutory damages and a presumption of irreparable harm), we can't let
> people decide what's copyright infringement just by writing it in a
> license. Congress has to do that.

Congress has already decided what constitutes copyright
infringement - it's the various disallowed acts of copying,
performing, etc. The holder of copyright gets to decide that
someone may do those acts anyway, and under what conditions.

The fastidious copyright holder in the example isn't deciding
that nose picking is a violation of copyright. He is just not
granting nose pickers the privilege of copying his work, which
as the copyright holder is his right. If the nose picker decides
to copy the work anyway, he is infringing on the exclusive rights
of the copyright holder.

> This ruling is very wrong and very troubling.

This ruling is very right and couldn't have come soon enough.
It makes me feel relaxed and happy.