Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> 
> Qui, 2006-06-22 Ã s 15:29 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > To quote Hollaar (http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html)
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal.computing/msg/3cf3e9ee08d2837b
> > >
> > > A quote which does nothing to establish the difference between license
> > > and contract.
> >
> > Intelectual property licenses are contracts. There's no "difference",
> > stupid.
> >
> > Hollaar wrote:
> 
> Whatever. Where's the law saying that:
> a) copyright licenses are contracts?
> b) patent licenses are contracts?
> c) trademark licenses are contracts?
> d) ...

In re: Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th Cir. 2003) 
(“If a breach of contract (and a copyright license is just a type of 
contract) . . . ”); see also McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d 
917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“Whether express or implied, a license is a 
contract ‘governed by ordinary principles of state contract law’ ”.)
"This implied license does not offend the protection afforded patent 
and trademark rights by federal law. Instead, licenses, like other 
federal property and contract rights, conform to the applicable state 
laws. See Power Lift, 871 F.2d at 1085; see also Mallinckrodt, 976 
F.2d at 703. As this court observed in Power Lift, the Supreme Court 
has held that federal patent law does not preempt enforcement of 
contracts under state law. Id. (discussing Aronson v. Quick Point 
Pencil Co., 440 U.S. 257, 261-64, 201 USPQ 1, 4-6 (1979)). By the 
same reasoning, federal trademark law does not preempt contract 
enforcement either. Intellectual property owners "may contract as 
they choose," Mallinckrodt, 976 F.2d at 703, but their intellectual 
property rights do not entitle them to escape the consequences of 
dishonoring state contractual obligations"

That's the law. Go read the cases.

regards,
alexander.