Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 04:27:42PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> We have an "owner" who authored the software and holds the copypright
> for something distributed under GPL, and a "copier" who has made a
> copy of it.
Usually, what you're calling the owner is called the "author". Why
choose different terminology, here?
> If the copy is in violation of the GPL, then the owner can sue the
> copier. He sues for violation of copyright--for making an illegal
> copy--not for "violation of the GPL". The copier can defend himself by
> proving that the GPL gave him permission to copy, and then the issue
> will be about whether the copier complied with the GPL. But the actual
> tort is copyright violation, not breach of contract.
>
> The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't
> bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so
> what? What would he sue FOR?
That's an interesting claim.
While you might be right about there being no contract, it would have to
be for some other reason: being granted copyright permission is something
of value.
--
Raul
Reply to: