Welcome to IWETHEY!
Post #1,137
7/9/01 12:45:00 AM
|
IANAL, but my interpretation is . . .
The GPL License modifies copyright. The Netscape case has nothing to do with copyright but deals with a very specific license. The "License" is a contract specifying specific conditions, points of law and jurisdiction. These points could not be known without reading this particular license.
Copyright can be a default because it is simple, well known, and national / international law. The creator of the work has all distribution rights and everyone else has none unless specifically given by the creator (except within the conditions of "fair use").
The GPL simply loosens copyright restrictions, so if you hven't read it, your presumption would be copyright applied and that would be well within the GPL.
Now if the GPL had a clause that said the jurisdiction for all disputes was the court of Boise, Idaho, then there must be informed consent to that condition, and the ruling in question here would apply to that condition. Distribution of GPL'd source would have to be much more formal.
[link|www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Netscape SmartDownload license deemed non-binding by court
- (
admin)
- (12)
- July 7, 2001, 08:21:27 PM EDT
Hmmm.
- (
imric)
- (11)
- July 8, 2001, 08:08:29 AM EDT
It says nothing about the GPL
- (
ben_tilly)
- (10)
- July 8, 2001, 12:24:59 PM EDT
Additionally...
- (
admin)
- (1)
- July 8, 2001, 12:37:32 PM EDT
Odd.
- (
imric)
- July 8, 2001, 02:36:00 PM EDT
Umm.
- (
imric)
- (7)
- July 8, 2001, 02:33:58 PM EDT
It is the point.
- (
admin)
- (6)
- July 8, 2001, 03:07:57 PM EDT
So. If I publish source
- (
imric)
- (5)
- July 8, 2001, 09:19:41 PM EDT
But with copyright...
- (
admin)
- (3)
- July 8, 2001, 09:21:04 PM EDT
Fair enough -
- (
imric)
- (2)
- July 8, 2001, 09:34:16 PM EDT
No idea
- (
admin)
- July 8, 2001, 10:25:42 PM EDT
IANAL, but my interpretation is . . .
- (
Andrew Grygus)
- July 9, 2001, 12:45:00 AM EDT
Without an explicit statement of rights or license,
- (
mhuber)
- July 11, 2001, 12:40:42 PM EDT
Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure.
They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS... None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.
57 ms