Subject: Re: (OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 14:08:39 -0800

Quoting Chuck Swiger (chuck@codefab.com):

[much quoted-and-refuted Terekhov ankle-biting snipped]

> >As for Eben Moglen's assertion that "Licenses are not contracts" in
> >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html (previously cited),
> >he offers little justification for the statement:
> >
> >  the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the
> >  license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she
> >  doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits.
> >
> >In light of Sections 109 and 117 (and possibly other exceptions),
> >that statement is wrong with respect to United States copyright law.
> >Just look at the wording of Section 109 -- "is entitled, WITHOUT THE
> >AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER".
> 
> Yes, fine-- the GNU project sometimes leaves out important details in  
> the positions mentioned on their website or mailing lists...so take  
> this discussion up with them, if you want to see a change there.  It  
> doesn't seem to be particularly useful to keep bringing up these  
> threads on the OSI license-discuss list.

All Prof. Moglen seems to have "left out" in this particular is the
phrase "...except of course for rights granted by statute and thus 
not needing a licensor's permission in the first place".  Which is 
really bleedin' obvious, and not actually worth spending time on.

-- 
Cheers,           "I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate
Rick Moen         those who do.  And, for the people who like country music,
rick@linuxmafia.com         denigrate means 'put down'."      -- Bob Newhart