US District court says that the artistic license is a contract
Posted Aug 24, 2007 20:24 UTC (Fri) by rahvin
In reply to: US District court says that the artistic license is a contract
Parent article: US District court says that the artistic license is a contract
Actually he does explain it, with a case reference. He calls the open source license in question a "non exclusive license", implied in this is that this term is described in California law. He goes on to explain:
However, implicit in a nonexclusive license
is the promise not to sue for copyright infringement. See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673, 677 (9th Cir. 1996), citing De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, 242(1927) (finding that a nonexclusive license is, in essence, a mere waiver of the right to sue the licensee for infringement); see also Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that the granting of a nonexclusive license may be oral or by conduct and a such a license creates a waiver of the right to sue in copyright, but not the right to sue for breach of contract).
He in essence says that the artistic license is a nonexclusive license and as such it's been ruled by precedent that nonexclusive licenses include in them a waiver of the right to sue for copyright infringement and that as the precedent quoted shows that the only claim is breech of license (a contract claim, not a copyright claim).
Not saying I agree, but it's clear to me at least that there is at least some reasoning behind his madness as interpreted by case law in the state of California. I don't see how he reconciles this with his earlier statement that federal copyright law precludes automatically any state statues on the matter but I'm not the Judge, he is.
to post comments)