From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932605AbXBSUUY (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:20:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932607AbXBSUUY (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:20:24 -0500 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.250]:45247 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932605AbXBSUUX (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:20:23 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=X0iY7snHnhiNkBCoOuaN0X9Y0Ka2CPaCZdQelFzh91SAnkBH4JMZ6xJL6zdvJ9ijYHm19NiGAsESuaGLpKo5NLMsm2tBxbhJX2m8PicQ6JT0e6KKOpjQenigHohDxrOwMvMEv/AfS3dFGVBIaTucpG7UdLIqIs7QpFWRFOdP7L0= Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:20:21 -0800 From: "Michael K. Edwards" To: Alan Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers Cc: "Scott Preece" , "Alexandre Oliva" , davids@webmaster.com, "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" In-Reply-To: <20070219203149.27c3b696@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <7b69d1470702171129x36c4352cyc5b3a4b217729bf5@mail.gmail.com> <20070219203149.27c3b696@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/19/07, Alan wrote: > > jurisdiction. Copyright infringement is a statutory tort, and the > > only limits to contracting away the right to sue for this tort are > > those provided in the copyright statute itself. A contract not to sue > > for tort is called a "license".) > > I'd insert large quantities of "In the USA" in the above and probably > some "not what I've heard from a lawyer" cases. Name ANY counterexample in the entire history of copyright, anywhere in the world. I've sifted through the past couple of decades of US appellate history until I'm blue in the face, and reviewed Canadian and British and German and French and EU statutes and decisions, and read Nimmer on Copyright and Corbin on Contracts and historical analyses of copyright law going back to the Statute of Anne. And yes, I too have conversed with attorneys and other individuals with legal educations, in the US and Belgium and Brazil. You have been lied to. You have been hoodwinked. You have neglected to inform yourself about the simplest truths. The GPL is not a "copyright-based license", anywhere in the developed world. There. Is. No. Such. Thing.