Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim

[Alexander Terekhov]

Lee Hollaar wrote:
[...]
> The short version can be summed up by this sentence from the opinion:
> "This does not assist Williams, however, because his legal theory is
> faulty substantively."

EASTERBROOK's "quick look" (or rather utterly drunken) interpretation
of Wallace legal theory (note that it's Williams legal theory not
Wallace legal theory he's talking about :-) ) is certainly faulty 
substantively, I agree. To me it appears that EASTERBROOK invented a 
theory (derivative of Wallace legal theory) and ruled himself on its 
validity affirming that it's faulty. 

How fascinating. But that's not what Wallace paid 455 bucks for.

regards,
alexander.