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

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

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Eben was absent that day in law school
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:42:19 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:

> Isaac wrote:
> [...]
>> Nonsense.  
>
> Breaking new. 
>
> Barnes & Thornburg LLP on the GPL (Wallace v IBM et al):
>
> ---------
> Although it is not clear how it is relevant to whether the per se or 
> rule of reason analysis would apply, Plaintiff also argues that the 
> GPL "purports to defeat the requirements of contractual privity and 
> thus evade the prohibition under 17 U.S.C. 301 concerning the 
> contractual regulation of copyrights". (Response at 4.) Section 301 
> of 17 U.S.C., however, concerns the preemptive effect of the Copyright 
> Act with respect to other laws and does not prohibit "contractual 
> regulation of copyrights". To the contrary, as is evident from the 
> ProCD case Plaintiff cites, copyrights may be licensed by a uniform 
> contract effective against all who choose to use it. (Response at 6) 
> (citing ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1454 (7th Cir. 1996).) 
> The court in ProCD held that a "shrinkwrap" software license, that 
> is, a license that accompanies software limiting its use, is an 
> effective contract under the UCC against anyone who receives the 
> terms of the license and uses the software. Id. at 1452. The court 
> also held that state enforcement of such contracts under the UCC 
> would not be preempted by the Copyright Act or 17 U.S.C. ยง 301. Id. 
> The GPL, like the shrinkwrap license in ProCD, is a license
> applicable to anyone who receives its terms and chooses to use it, 
> and by using it, accepts the terms under which the software was 
> offered. Id.
> ---------
>
> My, this is such a fun. Kudos to Wallace.

For making a royal fool of himself?  Have you ever seen a contract
stating:

  5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
     signed it. 

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum


reply via email to

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