Subject: Re: (OT) - Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:08:12 -0400

Alexander Terekhov scripsit:

> "Whether this constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
> reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the
> circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in
> respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not an
> unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner."; DE FOREST RADIO TEL. &
> TEL. CO. v. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 236 (1927).

Of course that (a) was a patent rather than a copyright action (b)
involved the U.S. as defendant at a time when tort claims against the
U.S. were unenforceable (sovereign immunity) (c) addressed an implicit,
not an explicit license (d) had no notion of conditions on the license
at all.

But why go on?  Clearly I am fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed
man.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org   http://ccil.org/~cowan
It's the old, old story.  Droid meets droid.  Droid becomes chameleon.
Droid loses chameleon, chameleon becomes blob, droid gets blob back
again.  It's a classic tale.  --Kryten, Red Dwarf