[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit
From: |
Tim Smith |
Subject: |
Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:03:22 -0000 |
User-agent: |
slrn/0.9.8.1pl1 (Debian) |
On 2007-11-24, rjack <danw6144@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> On 2007-11-21, rjack <danw6144@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>> The designated donee beneficiaries of the GPL are obviously "all third
>>> parties". Clearly the plaintiffs are "parties" to the GPL contract and
>>> cannot be a member of the class "all third parties." Therefore the
>>> plaintiffs can suffer no injury by the source code not being made
>>> available to "all third parties".
>
>
>> Their injury is the use of the copyrighted work in a manner that they
>> have not agreed to.
>
>
> To constitute copyright infringement an action must be capable of
> violating an author's 17 USC sec. 106 exclusive rights in the absence of
> any license at all.
>
> Requiring distribution of another author's modifications in a derivative
> work is not one of the exclusive rights enumerated under 17 USC sec. 106
> and cannot lead to a charge of "copyright infringement".
The preparation of that derivative work in the first place is one of the
exclusive rights under 17 USC 106.
Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit, Tim Smith, 2007/11/24
Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit, David Kastrup, 2007/11/24
- Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit, Arnoud Engelfriet, 2007/11/24
- Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit, David Kastrup, 2007/11/24
- Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/11/24
- Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit, Arnoud Engelfriet, 2007/11/24
- Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit, David Kastrup, 2007/11/24
Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit, John Hasler, 2007/11/24