The SFLC is testing the GPL in a federal district court.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007092015322
7686
If the suit goes forward (which I seriously doubt) the
District Court
will dismiss due to failure to state a claim.
Failing to provide source code is a contract breach and not
a violation
of scope of use under copyright law.
1.) There is no “automatic” contract rescission under New
York law.
“. . . recession of the contract only occurs upon
affirmative acts by
the licensor, and a breach by one party does not
automatically result in
recession of a contract. Id. at 238 (“New York law does not
presume the
rescission or abandonment of a contract and the party
asserting
rescission or abandonment has the burden of proving it”).”;
Atlantis
Information Technology, Gmbh v, CA Inc.,, 2007 WL 1238716
(E.D.N.Y.
April 30, 2007)
2.) Federal Courts will not hear copyright license
rescission claims.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a contract
rescission in
federal court concerning copyright infringement is preempted
by 17 USC
sec. 301.
“Because Santa Rosa seeks rescission of his contract, if we
were to
grant him the relief that he sought, we would be required to
determine
his ownership rights by reference to the Copyright Act. In
such a case,
there is little question that we would be merely determining
whether
Santa Rosa was entitled to compensation because of
"mere copying" or
"performance, distribution or display" of his
recordings. Data Gen.
Corp., 36 F.3d at 1164. As such, 17 U.S.C. § 301(a) preempts
Santa
Rosa's rescission claim.”; /Santa-Rosa v. Combo Records,
/05–2237 (1st
Cir. Dec. 15, 2006).
|
ccil.org
--"Jeopardy" for generative semanticists