|
From: | RJack |
Subject: | Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL |
Date: | Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:00:15 -0000 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 |
On 8/20/2010 7:55 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
RJack<user@example.net> writes:On 8/20/2010 2:22 AM, David Kastrup wrote:RJack<user@example.net> writes:On 8/19/2010 5:18 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:The GPL is a copyright license, granting additional rightsAre those additional rights that the GPL grants "In Personam" (contract rights) or "In Rem" (property rights)? I thought Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution gave Congress the power to grant new copyrights.What use would a right be if you could not use it as leverage? You can't do that if you have nothing to offer.How is your assertion relevant to my question?If only congress is allowed to grant any right, there is no such thing as a license (which is a grant of rights from someone who has them).
So... Is that right "In Personam" or "In Rem"? What good is a right if you don't know what kind of right it is? Sincerely, RJack :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |