Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

[Linonut]

* rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:

> How could anyone be contemptuous of anything posted at the exquisitely
> researched Groklaw blog? Well... just maybe:
>
> "The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why
> the Sky Isn't Falling
> http://gl.scofacts.org/gl-20031214210634851.html
>
> Hmmm... Perhaps a little fact checking is in order when reading
> Free Software propaganda. From the United States Court of Appeals for 
> the Seventh Circuit:
>
> "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332, grants 
> exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts, 
> those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant 
> state law to interpret them. Kennedy v. Nat'l Juvenile Det. Ass'n, 187 
> F.3d 690, 694 (7th Cir.1999)."
> http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/463/463.F3d.749.05-1172.html

Construe.

Sounds to me like there's no contradiction between Groklaw and the
Federal court, until somebody becomes bad.

In any case, that document also says this:

   The rights comprised in a copyright may be subdivided and
   transferred. 17 U.S.C. 201(d)(2) ("Any of the exclusive rights
   comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of
   the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as
   provided by clause (1) and owned separately."). In other words,
   a copyright holder may transfer the right to duplicate to one
   person, the right to distribute to another, and the right to
   produce derivative works to yet another. See ITOFCA Inc. v.
   MegaTrans Logistics, Inc., 322 F.3d 928, 929-30 (7th Cir.2003)
   ("Making and selling are distinct rights and you can assign one
   without the other."). 

Thanks for pointing me to that succinct validation of the methodology of
the GPL.

-- 
If I'd had some set idea of a finish line, don't you think I would have
crossed it years ago?
   -- Bill Gates