Date: 03 Dec 2002 09:55:01 -0800 From: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is a port skeleton considered a derivative work under the GPL? Message-ID: <z78yz73s3u.yz7@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <3DEBDA15.6EE31FB4@mindspring.com> References: <3DE9A680.4000702@pantherdragon.org> <3DE9B0CC.8A368E61@mindspring.com> <joadjo5j7q.djo@localhost.localdomain> <3DEBDA15.6EE31FB4@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > [...] Case law is only binding on lower courts in the > jurisdiction in which it was ajudicated (i.e. the 3rd Circuit Court > of Appeals is not bound by the decisions of the 5th Circuit Court of > Appeals). Only if a decision is made by the U.S. Supreme Court, is > the case law binding on all U.S. courts. OK, but where could it be adjudicated? The jurisdiction of US federal circuit courts apparently extend to Panama and overlap jurisdictions of other circuit courts which also extend to Panama and overlap jurisdictions of Panamanian courts. Even in the case of US state courts where contracts are first adjudicated, which state will handle an infringement case? Where the infringer did his nasty deed, or from where the licensor published the material infringed, or either? It gets worse when one considers GPL licensors from other countries than the infringer's. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?z78yz73s3u.yz7>