Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> 
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
> 
> >Since the license is strictly construed against the drafter the
> >license, because of promissory estoppel, would provide a defense to
> >copyright infringement.
> 
> As I recall, when I asked you for what was promised, I got no answer.

Rahul, implicit in a copyright license is the promise not to sue for 
copyright infringement. See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673, 677 (9th Cir. 
1996), citing De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 
236, 242(1927) (finding that a nonexclusive license is, in essence, a 
mere waiver of the right to sue the licensee for infringement); see also 
Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1990) 
(holding that the granting of a nonexclusive license may be oral or by 
conduct and a such a license creates a waiver of the right to sue in 
copyright, but not the right to sue 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.)