Bob Young writes a letter to Darl

Bob Young writes a letter to Darl

Posted Apr 24, 2004 1:44 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
In reply to: Bob Young writes a letter to Darl by danw6144
Parent article: Bob Young writes a letter to Darl

Let's assume for a moment that Doe is in fact correct when he asserts:

Your honor "acceptance of license terms and conditions" is addressed nowhere in copyright law.

This can be for three reasons:

1. there is a problem with "acceptance"
2. there is a problem with "terms and conditions"
3. there is problem with both

Here is a small reminder of the text of the GPL:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

After this, terms and conditions are listed, from section 0 to section 12

Under what theory can Doe "accept" only section 1 of "terms and conditions", as you point out, if "acceptance of license terms and conditions" is completely bogus?

If "acceptance" is the problem, the bogus section 5 about "acceptance" doesn't apply and is wiped out. The rest of the "terms and conditions" stay, including section 1 (from which Doe supposedly gets his permission), 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Quite sufficient for enforcement of copyright.

If "terms and conditions" are the problem, then section 1 is one of those "terms and conditions", so that doesn't apply either, because they were wiped out under the theory that having "terms and conditions" is impossible.

If both, see above. Meaning, sections 0 to 12 get wiped out. Quite clearly, no permission.

It is not possible, according to your own theory, to justify what Doe is doing with that copyrighted work.

---

(Log in to post comments)