--- daniel wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Author A and Author B are in contractual "privity". Author A approached Author B with a GPL license and Author B said to Author A, "I accept the GPL and agree to its terms." There was a "meeting of the minds" so Author A and Author B are in "privity"... they are not strangers to each other (in the legal sense).
This is the origin of the fallacy of the whole thing. Meeting of the minds, agreement or anything like that is absolutely NOT REQUIRED. All that is required is that ALL PERMISSIONS EXIST AND ALL CONDITIONS ARE MET. Example: AIX. It contains derivative code of System V (owner SCO, nah Novell, plus IBM of the modifications) and heaps of other stuff, all from third party vendors. Do all those people need to form a contract for AIX to be distributed? Absolutely not - IBM needs to have permission from all of them, that is all. Now think about section 301 clearly. It says that copyrighted works and the exclusive rights "are governed exclusively by this title". If the Act required other legislation, especially state level, to be enforced for what it exclusively governs, it would effectively preempt itself. The Act either gives powers to license or it doesn't. It's that simple. The wording of section 106 is clear - it does. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
