| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The GPL Is a License, not a ContractThe GPL Is a License, not a ContractPosted Nov 1, 2005 20:14 UTC (Tue) by pjgust (guest, #33537)In reply to: The GPL Is a License, not a Contract by brouhaha Parent article: The GPL Is a License, not a Contract
A couple of related question about copyright and GPL. Both are related to whether the ability for an author to offer software under GPL depends on having a valid/active copyright. Question 1: What happens to the ability of the owner to continue licensing code under GPL once the copyright for the software expires? Can the author continue to require new licensees to adhere to the terms of the GPL anyway? What about existing licensees; are they now free of its provisions or must they continue to operate under the license? Question 2: 17 USC 411 says that, "no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title". 17 USC 412 goes on to say that, "no award of statutory damages or of attorney's fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for ... any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work." I'm willing to bet that most if not all source code licensed inder GPL has not been registered and no fees have been paid. How does this impact the validity and/or enforcability of the GPL for such code? Does the GPL depend on its enforcibility under copyright law? Or is it the case that the licensor can still seek injunctive relief for a violation of the license, independent of the enforcibility of the underlying copyright. If not, it's bad news for most if not all GPL licensors. If so it seems that GPL must be based on something beyond copyright law.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||