gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: More FSF hypocrisy


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:45:51 +0100

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
> In gnu.misc.discuss Rahul Dhesi <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes, following up to Rjack:
> >
> >>How can there be a contract when there's been no agreement between the
> >>parties involved?....
> >
> > Rjack already lost this argument under a different subject heading.
> > Each time he loses an argument he reposts it under a new subject
> > heading. See the previous subject heading "Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux
> > patent lock-down ..".
> >
> > Rjack found cases where the court used contract law to determine a
> > remedy for a license violation. Seeing the word "contract", he came to
> > the erroneous conclusion that, just because you can base a remedy on
> > contract law, therefore there is no difference between a license and a
> > contract. And therefore, you no longer need an offer an an acceptance to
> > form a contract.
> 
> He seems to be suffering a deal of epistemological confusion.  Whilst
> some unfortunate people can't distinguish reality from fantasy, RJack
> can't distinguish reality from words.
> 
> > So now, let me predict: We will soon see Rjack repost the same flawed
> > argument under yet another subject heading.
> 
> That's a bit like predicting the sun will come up tomorrow morning.

LMAO! Below is the quote from your beloved CAFC's ruling, GNUtian
idiots.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf

"Generally, a "copyright owner who grants a nonexclusive license to use
his copyrighted material waives his right to sue the licensee for
copyright infringement" and can sue only for breach of contract. Sun
Microsystems, Inc., v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir.
1999); Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229, 236 (2d Cir. 1998). If, however, a
license is limited in scope and the licensee acts outside the scope, the
licensor can bring an action for copyright infringement. See S.O.S.,
Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir.1989); Nimmer on
Copyright, ' 1015[A] (1999)."

FOSS licenses have neither scope-of-use limitations nor any conditions
precedent to the grant of rights. Hence FOSS licensors "can sue only for
breach of contract".

regards, 
alexander. 

-- 
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]