Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/17/05, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
> > Further, you're claiming that violations of that license must
> > be treated by the court as conduct within the scope of that
> > contract.
> >
> > Further, you're claiming that people (such as myself) who
> > claim otherwise are ignorant of the law.
> >
> > I think you're being rather presumptuous.
>
> The first threshold issue for treating the GPL as some sort of pure
> copyright license is finding a basis in law for such treatment. The
> US Copyright Act does not mention such a thing. Even in common law
> countries, agreements to exchange things of value (such as rights
> reserved under law) are customarily treated as contracts.
I don't really know what a "pure copyright license" means,
and I'm not arguing that that is the case. [I am arguing,
elsewhere, that there are some reasonable moral standards
associated with legal conduct in these areas, and that a
person could be sued for neglecting those issues. But
that's tangential in this context.[
I am arguing, here, that the scope of that license does not
include making unlicensed collective works.
> Claiming he is being presumptuous without supporting that claim does
> not help; it makes it seem like you have no better argument than a
> belief that you and the FSF share.
My claim that he's being presumption is based on this
concept of his claims:
< < Further, you're claiming that violations of that license must
< < be treated by the court as conduct within the scope of that
< < contract.
This claim of his is too broad to be valid in all cases.
--
Raul
Reply to: